Talk:Marie, Duchess of Auvergne

Sourcing issue

I promised at the Reliable Sources noticeboard to show how I'd indicate the improvements needed to this article, because I think it's been done in an inappropriate way.

Having promised this, I got interested and have found some additional sources, so what I promised to do is not so much needed now: instead I have information and sourcing to add to the article. Onward and upward. However, I'm going to keep my promise. So, just for the record, my first edit to the article, in 15 minutes' time, will show how I would have indicated the improvements needed, and the next section on this page, "Better sources needed" below, will show how I would have explained the sourcing issue here. Andrew Dalby 14:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. I can see we have real problems with our different approaches. Where are the inline citations (WP:CHALLENGE)? Where have the citations to reliable sources gone (WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT}})? -- PBS (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Annotations removed

I've removed all the footnotes. The reason is simple. We have only one source, and it is not accepted as reliable in Wikipedia terms, so other sources must be added. In the meanwhile, it is of no use to the reader or to us to footnote every assertion: it's clear where they all come from, we cite all three relevant sections of Medlands (and they are quite short and internally linked) so any reader can follow our tracks. Sorry, Jeanne and PBS, but footnoting at that point was a waste of time.

Within the footnotes were a few notes on Cawley's sources. These are primary sources (and Cawley cites very few for this person) but I agree it's useful to mention them and I will add (some at least) to the next stage of the article.

• cites: Contract Bourges, Cher 29 March 1386, Bourges Saint-Etienne 1386
• cites: Contract Paris 27 Jan 1393
• cites: Contract Paris 27 May 1400, in person Paris, Palais du Roi 21 June 1401

Hidden after the footnotes were the following notes on Cawley's weak sourcing, which I paste in here for visibility:

• Cawley cites a reliable source for CHARLES de Berry but not for Marie
• Cawley cites three marriage contracts, and infers only 3 marriages but there could have been more and he is not an authority so this needs conformation. [NB: it would be silly to remove the true text "She was married three times" -- a statement that is fully verifiable -- because a Wikipedian speculates without evidence she might have been married more times as well.]
• for the whole paragraph Cawley does not cite his sources for the children
• Cawley does not cite his sources
• Cawley does not cite his sources

I rewrote the references section, not using the template, because

1. if the template has to be used three times the result is boring repetition of source details and superscript notes for a source we would prefer to replace. If the template were redesigned to permit multiple links to a series of relevant people, that would be useful; on the other hand, we may honestly need to give only one link for any one article because Medlands has good internal linking.
2. it is wrong to label a site "unreliable source" without explaining what's unreliable about it, and very foolish of us to do so on a Wikipedia page that is itself so obviously weak and poorly-sourced. Any such note should be more neutrally worded and should link to a place where the problem is discussed. The headnote that I inserts links to this talk page.

Text altered

regent > administrator

Marie's husband didn't reign so his deputy shouldn't be described as regent (I think). Cawley uses "administrator" so it is misrepresenting him to cite him for our "regent" claim.

Bruges > Bourges

Cawley says Bourges and that's where it was. He also says precisely that it was at St Etienne (the cathedral) so I am adding that information (which I will be able to source).

Text added

Familypedia link

I've added to the template a note that it's an open wiki

One-source template

I've added this template at the head, inserting as extra text that the reliability of the one source is questioned (that could be rephrased, of course). Andrew Dalby 17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Better sources needed

The article was originally entirely based on Charles Cawley's Medlands site: right now it still is. The reliability (by Wikipedia's definition) of that site has been fiercely debated on the reliable sources noticeboard -- see here and here. The current consensus is that we don't count it as reliable because it is not discussed or referenced in professional historical work.

In the case of Marie de Berry that site isn't at its best, anyway, because it cites scarcely any primary sources (such citations are often its strong point). So Wikipedia needs better sources for the Marie de Berry article. Any statement in it should be verifiable, and, especially and most urgently, anything that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". "Better sources" is most likely to mean relevant reliable publications by professionals and academics. Please help if you can, and feel free to discuss the issues here. Andrew Dalby 17:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alas, most of these publications by academics are likely to be in French. A good reliable work is that by Douglas Richardson and Kimball Everingham called Plantagenet Ancestry. However, it's only a matter of time before that work is disparaged by someone at Wikipedia, so it's probably a waste of time to track it down.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. But thanks for mentioning it, Jeanne, I didn't know it. Andrew Dalby 16:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Additions 2 September 2012

I'm beginning to make some additions and insert references to better sources. This is work in progress. If while it's going on anyone wants to add more, and indeed to cite better sources wherever at present a footnote cites "Medlands", that would be very welcome. Andrew Dalby 20:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry section

From my talk page:

...I notice that you added the unsourced-section tag at the point where the Ahnentafel appears. I'd like to know your thinking on this. Seems to me, all Ahnentafels are by their nature uncited, and their format hardly allows for citation (because it is the little lines that could be challenged, and you don't put a footnote against a little line). So, is this particular Ahnentafel somehow more uncited than others? Or should they all, equally, have this tag? Andrew Dalby 20:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[1]

--PBS (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with footnoting the entries in the Ancestry section. There is a choice of ways to do it (and often a source will be good for more than one entry). The two ways is either to include the citations in the general footnotes, or to include them in a separate group in the same section (See this example for inclusion in a section).

I think it is highly desirable to footnote them because in may articles that contain heavy weight biographies with full citations, the only uncensored section is the ancestry and I suspect that many of them are built using unreliable sources. In this case this particular article is on its way to being well sourced yet there is not one citation in the Ancestry section. -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I agree it can be done with other formats. The example you link to is a family page and it doesn't use the Ahnentafel templates, which are the focus of my question. I've seen lots of Ahnentafels on Wikipedia but are there any good Ahnentafels, that have adequate citations and don't need an uncited-section tag? I need to see it being done well in practice; then I would know how to do it too and at what stage I could justifiably remove your uncited-section tag. You see, I'm really not sure that Wikipedia biographies should have these ancestry tables at all ... There may well be discussion of this somewhere, but, if so, I don't know how to find the discussion. Andrew Dalby 13:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The ancestry tables are essential for readers who want to know the person's relation to other noble families. In the case of England, there was a relatively small aristocracy which resulted in extensive intermarrying between the same noble families such as the Fitzalans, de Bohuns, Mortimers, de Beauchamp's, etc. It is particularly useful in tracing the titles. The tables also elimate the need to give undo weight to a person's genealogy in the article's main space. A lot of hard work went into these tables and it would be a pity to delete them.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they're useful. I didn't really mean to delete them, sorry if the hint of that worried you, I was just trying to find out a bit more. Another possibility in my mind is that they should be regarded as navigation boxes rather than as part of the text. In a way that's exactly what they are. It may seem just a quibble, but the "facts" in navigation boxes (e.g. whether a country belongs to the EU or not) are footnoted if necessary on the individual pages they lead to, whereas "facts" in the text are supposed to be challenged and justified right there. So, if these tables are navigation boxes and not a section of the text, the "facts" they offer (e.g. that someone is someone else's great-grandfather) can be justified by checking the linked pages and don't have to be footnoted right there. Out goes the uncited-section tag. Everyone happy.

You know, I bet someone has discussed this already. Andrew Dalby 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

They are not navigation boxes they contain information not present in other places and unlike navigation boxes contain within their structure information. Besides most historical navigation boxes include a link to an list article that includes the information contained in the navigation box, so the information can be checked quickly and easily (assuming that the list contains ciations). No such list exists for each of the ancestry sections. -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"No such list exists for each of the ancestry sections." I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence.

It's a funny thing, PBS, but I seem to be trying to screw information out of you and you seem to be trying to screw it back in! I just wanted to know how to bring this table up to your standard so that your uncited-section tag wouldn't be needed. Can you point me to any Ahnentafel on a biography page that meets your standard? Can you point me to any discussion of how Ahnentafels are to be sourced?

You see, the absence of answers makes things look worse than they probably are. It's making me wonder whether you've added lots of uncited-section tags to Ahnentafels, without consensus and without anyone knowing how the improvement is to be effected. But my guess is still that there probably is a discussion or consensus on the subject, and there probably is at least one Ahnentafel that meets the agreed standard, and I just can't find the links! Andrew Dalby 09:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought: if you don't know the answers, my persistent questions are no use -- sorry. So, in that case, I can ask at RSN. Someone there is bound to know :) Andrew Dalby 10:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that PBS is trying to be the head buck cat around here? Wikipedia does work in a collaborative manner and PBS just seems to be taking charge around these historical bios. If I'm wrong, PBS, please accept my apology, but it's the impression I'm getting.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

JB I am not trying to take control of anything. I do think that we have a set of policies about content and that many of these biography articles fall woefully short of the standards those policies put forward. This type of debate of quantity over quality was settled back in 2006 (see for example 100,000 feature-quality articles)

I used this article as an example along with some others at the recent RS/N discussion (because it was one I had recently edited and it was still on the first page of my contributions list), but I am not particularly interested in this type of article, and I only made this second edit (1 September 2012) to the article (1) to improve it further and (2) to help illustrate my comments on the RS/N.

What I do expect though is that articles that use sources such as Crawely are sourced well, and that sources that are not considered reliable are flagged as such (so that editors and readers know that the information extracted from them may not be accurate). There are many thousands of historical biographies that are very poorly sourced and I think that reflects badly on the project. As a self appointed chore, I keep an eye on some of the genocide articles on Wikipedia. Genocide is a very contentious nationalistic issue, and poor sources such as Cawley would not be acceptable in those articles, I do not see why biographies such as this should rely on poor quality sources just because it is not a fashionable POV magnate. I write for pleasure about the wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum, and to a lesser degree some other armed conflicts, and I would not dream of producing biographies (other than stubs of a couple a couple of sentences), without using reliable secondary sources (or reliable tertiary sources such as the O/DNB) -- As an example of a biography I wrote, without copying any PD text into it from a source such as the DNB, see William Govan which on creation contained near a score of inline citations from 10 sources. A few years ago I sometimes cited David Plant's British Civil War website, but I would not do so today unless the information was also backed up by a reliable source, and I usually look around for replacement sources when I come across facts in an article that cites Plant's website.

What raised my interest in the sourcing of this type of European nobility biography was the work of some rouge editors such as user:LouisPhilippeCharles, and because I occasionally come across biographies in the areas I am interested in that use this type of source. For example I find Lundy's website useful, but I would never cite him unless I can cite his source via WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. -- PBS (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

AD, I have seen some ancestry trees that contain citations, but it is not something I bookmark, Next time I come across one, I'll be happy to provide a link to the article on your talk page.

To answer your question about "At what stage [could I] justifiably remove your uncited-section tag" as soon as there is one inline citation, but one swallow does not make a summer and it should probably probably be replaced with a refimprove-section tag. When that should be removed is similar to the question about when should {{refimprove}} be removed (and possibly substituted with {{citation needed}} on specific points). It is a matter of judgement and consensus.

"'No such list exists for each of the ancestry sections' I'm afraid I don't understand this sentence" OK let me do it with an example: Take the article Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington at the bottom of that article are over twenty navigation boxes. In most cases (every case?) there is a link to an article that contains the information, so one can check the validity of the information in the navigation box by looking at the list to which the navigation box links. For example the first navigation is for his being a member of Parliament for Trim, and the place to query who proceeded and succeed him is in the article Trim (Parliament of Ireland constituency) or to take another one British Ambassador to France etc, etc. So in a reasonable interpretation of WP:CHALLENGE, the place to challenge a navigation box error for British Ambassador to France would be in the article British Ambassador to France.

In this case, the ancestry of this individual can not be easily extracted from any one article on Wikiepdia other than in this specific article, so the entries for ancestry in this article needs to be cited in this article.

In the case of a navigation boxes there are usually only two nodes that need to be correct (and usually a Wikipedia list to find out it if is sourced correctly), but it only takes one entry early on in an ancestry tree to be wrong for large parts of the tree to be inaccurate. Suppose one wrong entry for a grandmother. Such a mistake would mean that a quarter of the tree would be wrong, because no matter how accurate the sources for the linage of the grandmother, if the grandmother's entry is wrong so are all the ancestors who proceeded the grandmother. In this case suppose that the entry "7. Beatrice of Clermont" is wrong and in fact the grandmother was "Reine de Got" (John I, Count of Armagnac first wife) then the next level (positions 14. and 15.) would be Gaillardde de Got and Pélegrine de Blanquefort (according to the unreliable source which I used to trace the ancestry of Reine de Got).

Does that explain why ancestry trees are not like navigation boxes and why if they are included they need to be sourced? Of course in the long run, if a tree is accurately sourced and the children of a marriage are accurately recorded then like using Logo, Wikipedia articles can fit the information from the mother's tree into half of the ancestry tree for the children. But if the mother's tree is not accurately sourced there is a good chance that the errors will be propagated into the children's trees. -- PBS (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't immediately agree with Jeanne, but I'm beginning to see what she means. This does sound like "This is PBS country and I'll drive off anyone I don't like." I'll begin to take you seriously when you show me one Ahnentafel that is sourced the way you want, and when you show me a discussion that you've had about this with anyone else. (NB -- meanwhile I have asked at WP:RSN#Ancestry section (Ahnentafel) at Marie, Duchess of Auvergne )

Meanwhile, your reformatting of the references is largely OK I think, but you need to tell me what's missing in the following cases:

• (in French) Papertiant, G. (1952). "Note sur les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry". Revue des Arts. 2: 52–58. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) !--Not clear if this is a book or a journal, and lots of publications probably La Revue des Arts March 1952--! "Revue" is the French for a journal, and there is a La Revue des arts that started in 1951, so that looks OK doesn't it?
• (in French) Reynaud, Gaston, ed. (1905). Les cent ballades. Paris. pp. li–lii. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Thanks for your help there. William Govan is a nice page, by the way! Andrew Dalby 17:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the conformation, I guessed that it was "La Revue des Arts", (as my hidden comment says) and formatted it as a journal, but it was a guess "Revue des arts" could have been something else and the indication is that the journal was more than an annual publication--I flagged it as I was not sure.

In the case of Reynaud who was the publisher?

-- PBS (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks.

On the issue of the ancestry section, you've now started a discussion (and thanks for the link to it) and someone else has found me some footnoted Ahnentafels for pedigree horses, so I do take the issue seriously now!

In two footnote references I have just changed "credibility=failed" to "better source" as a consequence of the discussion at RSN. If anyone thinks I was wrong about this, I suggest we discuss it at Template talk:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley, where I have made an analogous change and will explain more fully. Andrew Dalby 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)