Wikipedia

Talk:List of French monarchs/Archive 3

< Talk:List of French monarchs
(Redirected from Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 3)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 2

I did just notice something that I think could be changed on the page that might help a bit. Where it talks about centuries-old tradtion, it neglects to mention clearly that what exactly that tradition is. I think that section, leading into the formation of a national mythos and identity should more clearly state the connection to Clovis. I adamantly believe it should retain the discussion of the differences between tradition, reality, and new ideas on the meaning of nationalities, but I agree that that central bit should be more clearly expressed. What do you all think? JHK

agree, but obviously I don't participate in this nice project at this moment because I am simply fed up of the obnoxius comments, especially from Triton. Have fun!!! :| User:kt2
Triton, you must appologize for your obnoxius comments like: "Note, please it is titled Merovingian France, not Merovingian China.", before I would reply to your comment. User:kt2
ktc - I never meant to offend you. I was only making a vivid point, that is List of French monarchs --- Merovingian France -- coinnection. If I offended you, I most certainly apologize and will go out of my way to ensure such words used by me do not offend you Triton

Reading and research information on the Monarchs of France and the Merovingian Kings:

Encyclopedias:

  • Britannica Concise Encyclopedia says:
    • Merovingian Dynasty: Frankish dynasty considered the first French royal house
  • Hutchinson Encyclopedia - Merovingian dynasty:
    • Frankish dynasty, named after its founder, Merovech (5th century AD). His descendants ruled France from the time of Clovis (481511) to 751.
  • MEROVINGIAN DYNASTY: Medieval France: An Encyclopedia, eds. W. Kibler and G. Zinn. New York: Garland Publishing, 1995. -- This Encyclopedia states:
    • The Merovingians are considered to be the "first race" of French kings.

All the free men in the kingdom of Clovis, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin, called themselves Franks, and we must guard against the old mistake of looking upon the Franks after Clovis as no more than Germanic barbarians.

Internet info Medieval France:


Books:

Triton

These seem all to be secondary sources. Frankly, I would dismiss other encyclopedias and internet sources out of hand; I just think it is bad policy to write an encyclopedia based on other encyclopedias, or an internet resource based on other internet resources. I do think secondary sources can be valuable in researching an article in two ways. First, they can be the basis for a stub, a starting point for an article until someone better-informed comes along. Second, they are certainly fundamental to making claims about historiography and discourses about history. In other words, the books referenced above certainly validate the claim that "some authors have described ..." But when it comes to the actual study of history, I would defer to anyone relying on primary sources (in this case, JHK would be the perfect example), Slrubenstein


Triton, you don't improve your case by repeatedly misquoting the title of James's book. Further, I very, very strongly doubt that free Romans in Gaul at the time of Clovis really called themselves "Franks". To try to engage you a little bit, is there anything that could be done to this page, short of saying that the Merovingians were "Kings of France", that would satisfy you? What if we said a) that the Merovingian Frankish Kings ruled over most of what is now France; that b) in later French monarchical tradition, the Merovingians were considered the first Kings of France; and that c) the origins of modern France are to be found in the Merovingian period; but that d) the Merovingian Kings themselves cannot genuinely be considered to be kings of France, because d1) France as such cannot truly be said to have existed until considerably later and d2) the Merovingians also ruled over much of Germany, and saw themselves as a Germanic people. Would some statement of that sort satisfy you, or not? If not, I don't see how we're ever going to come to an agreement here.

On the issue of primary and secondary sources, I tend to think that for something like the question of whether the Merovingians were Kings of France (good) secondary sources are essential. The primary sources aren't going to give you any real direct information on the question, because they didn't even think about such things, so you need to look at secondary sources to see how historians view the issue. john 23:02 27 May 2003 (UTC)

My point would be, then, that we should write something like "...whom historians generally consider kings of France," or "...whom such historians as x, y, and z considerkings of France" or something along those lines, Slrubenstein
Yes, although part of my problem with triton is that many of the historians he claims do not actually say what he says they do. john 23:44 27 May 2003 (UTC)

You are getting very close except saying "cannot genuinely be considered" is an inappropriate statement and we don't have it on the list of British Kings and no credible encyclopedia would use such terminology. Most people understand the title "France" or "England" didn't exist in the year 500. Our duty is to list all who ruled over what is now France something like this:

All I care is we are not out of sync, or look amateurish, to anyone visiting Wikipedia who traditionally goes to Britannica. I'm sure you would agree that if someone doing research clicked on the Encyclopedia Britannica and was told that the first French Royal House are the Merovingians then comes to Wikipedia List of French Monarchs and the Merovingians aren't on the list, we, not the credible Britannica look dumb. That type of experience for someone, quite naturally, makes all other Wikipedia articles come under question. Triton

Please clarify this statement from above: Triton, you don't improve your case by repeatedly misquoting the title of James's book.

The exact title is as I stated: The origins of France : from Clovis to the Capetians, 500-1000 by Edward James. Just go to Amazon.com Triton

Triton, seriously, you need to stop saying these things that simply aren't true. Encyclopedia Britannica says that the Merovingians are considered to be the first French royal house. not that they were. What it says they were is "Kings of the Franks" or "Frankish Kings". People have pointed this out to you repeatedly, and you have never yet responded to it. And the British kings comparison doesn't make any sense. Firstly, we don't say that, say, Alfred the Great was King of Britain, because he patently wasn't. He was a British King, in that he was a king on the island, then and now, called Britain. Clovis, on the other hand, was a king in the country that is now called France, but that was not called France at the time, but rather Gaul (for which see Britannica, which calls Clovis, "King of the Franks and ruler of much of Gaul from 481 to 511"). He was also a Frankish King, but the adjective "French" ought to be used to refer to a people who only came into existence in succeeding centuries by the mixture of Germanic Franks with Romanized Gauls. To keep this constructive, what if we said "are not considered by many historians to be genuinely Kings of France?" john 23:31 27 May 2003 (UTC)

P.S. you have occasionally quoted the James title correctly. You have also repeatedly tried to say that it is called "The History of France: from Clovis to the Capetians". john 23:31 27 May 2003 (UTC)

First: don't use derogatory words like "Tried to say" - that is insulting and carries the connotation of deliberate deceit. I am not the one who deleted peoples work here and their photos, nor have I called anyone a liar as Ms. K did. If I made a typing mistake, please forgive me but I wrote that title from memory each time. Note, when demanded that I provide references, my list has the title exact with the ISBN reference. Honest discussion is not filled with innuendo. Don't you agree? And if you can show one shred of dishonesty in any of my work, I will leave instantly. My good name sir, is as valued to me as I am sure yours is to you.

Second: Yes, I certainly did address the terminology "considered" but I’m too tired to repeat it. Please search for yourself in this or the Clovis I archive. And Britannica is very clear. They are stating a fact that they consider that to be true. This statement is supported (and I repeat again) by this from the further Britannica article on Clovis at http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386306 where it states: "He (Clovis) is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy and the original French champion of the Christian faith."

Now, if this is not enough, I regret I cannot do more. But I still haven’t see one single bit of contradictory facts posted from anyone. All I see is talk that goes on and on. If anyone here has proofs to the contrary and can list the names of the many historians who support your claim that are not considered by many historians to be genuinely Kings of France they should do as was asked of me: Post their names, their writings (with ISBN), their web sites. I'd gladly check them out. Triton

Let me take some risks in stepping into a somewhat heated discussion. Without any hope of settling it. As a Frenchman, it is a little disturbing not to see the list start with Clovis. I would not say it is offending. And I like it that the topic is debated. I would prefer the list to start with Clovis though, but I do not claim to be an authority. As I understand the question, France is more a state than it is a place or a people. The question might be when does this state begin? I do not think there is any clearcut answer, which is why I would rather stick to tradition. I believe the state has existed without disruption since the treaty of Verdun. I understand 987 may be a very important moment, but several ancestors of Hugues (Robetians) were king, and when he was elected, the point was selecting a new king, not starting a new country. One might argue the Capetians are more french than the Carolingians. Maybe something wrong with having French monarchs, instead of monarchs of France. If we look before Verdun, and consider the merits of Pepin the short, or Charles Martel, it may be said that the Kingdom was united after them, while it was splitted several times before. Which make them a possible start. On the other hand, they shifted the center of power to a more german -less latin- area (austrasie) and it shifted east again with Charlemagne. In favor of Clovis, there is tradition, not numbering because no names were taken again, but it is hard to believe they would have renumbered, (well, there is Louis the pious with Ist, with Louis some derivative of Clovis, but not the same). He is not the founder of the kingdom of francks (regnum francorum I think) but the one who carved the territory to approximate Gaul and who converted to catholicism. The kingdom was splitted and reunited a few times later on, but it is rather reunited than refounded. When Pepin took over, I think it is more fair to say he took the title of king than he founded a new kingdom. So it is regnum francorum and rex francorum all along, and it goes on very late, at least in latin. All of this is from memory, subject to review. To sum it up:

  • I do not think there is some great truth to expect, as to when all of this starts. It is fine to mention the debate in length, but pointless to expect a final answer, or proofs or whatever. Which is why I'd rather stick to tradition.
  • Besides clovis, I do not see any moment where it may be said "then a state exists that did not exits before" but the treaty of Verdun. Which is not very convenient a start, as numbering had already started. To be honest, Clovis is not exactly a "moment". I believe tradition is to start at baptism.

Please forgive my english.

Something else completely, but as this is a page where I have some chance to find french speaking persons, I take my chance : could someone there help me to tranlsate to french some law terms, for fr: wikipedia, such as common law, due process, with all deliberate speed (plenty left). Please answer that point on my page Didup 00:00 28 May 2003 (UTC) Hey, it is hard to edit this page before someone else does!

Triton: I apologize if I have made insinuations that you are being dishonest. It becomes rather frustrating to engage in argument with someone who doesn't seem to be listening to what one has to say, and repeatedly makes the same arguments that have (to my mind, at least) been refuted quite conclusively.

Getting to more substantive points, I agree with you, Clovis is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy. Britannica says that, you say that, I say that, JK says that. The question is: Was he the founder of the French monarchy? That's a harder question to get at, but Britannica certainly doesn't say he was. The Clovis article, as I pointed out, describes him as being the King of the Franks and ruler of much of Gaul, while only being considered (implicitly by later people) to be the first King of France. To my mind, this suggests that Britannica, in fact, does not view Clovis as having actually been a king of France, only to have been considered to have been one in later times.

Okay, here's a final possible compromise: The Merovingian Kings are not listed on this page. Neither are the early Carolingians. We start with Charles the Bald, as I suggested earlier. It is explained at the beginning that in French national tradition, the Merovingians were regarded as the first kings of France, that the Franks ruled over most of what is now France, and that an understanding of the origins of France is impossible without an understanding of the Merovingian period. It is then said that, however, the realm ruled by the Merovingians was very different from the later Kingdom of France as it emerged in the high Middle Ages, and that, as such, it is more appropriate to discuss the Kingdom of the Franks separately from the later Kingdom of France. That way, we don't explicitly say that they weren't kings of France, but we don't say that they were, either. I'd like other input than Triton's on these suggestions, as a compromise that satisfies Triton while pissing off everybody else isn't really worth it.

Didup: you make some sensible points about continuities and discontinuities. I agree with you that 987 is too late. I would still say that 481 (or whenever Clovis converted...) is too early. And, as you point out, the only good date in between is 843. And that's what I would argue for. Yes, the numbering for two of the Kings started earlier. But that can be explained. And I think your point about starting with Pepin as being bad is pretty well taken - it doesn't make sense to exclude Neustrian Merovingians, and then to start with an Austrasian monarch who moved the center of gravity back into Germany. ---john 00:11 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Question John: You say: "I would still say " --- based on what? Not having this encyclopedia article be based on someone's unsubstantiated theories is my whole point. Triton

When did Britain get the name Britain?Triton


A very long time ago. Julius Caesar was calling it that in his bestseller of 698 AUC, Volume IV of "De Bello Gallico", so it was before that. It's thought to come from a Celtic word Pretani meaning tattooed, because the British of the time were big on tattoos -- Derek Ross 00:52 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Dear John, oh how I hate to write. But -- you said: I don't listen but that is how I feel about you and maybe, just maybe I have a liitle, tiny bit of an example: You said just above:

  • The question is: Was he the founder of the French monarchy? That's a harder question to get at, but Britannica certainly doesn't say he was.

Now, John, I've cut and paste from above that you obviosly didn't read even though I bolded it: QUOTE FROM BEFORE YOUR STATEMENT:

  • This statement is supported (and I repeat again) by this from the further Britannica article on Clovis at http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=386306 where it states: "He (Clovis) is traditionally regarded as the founder of the French monarchy and the original French champion of the Christian faith."

Triton

Now, could we please list the founder of the French Monarchy on the List of French Monarchs? Triton

OK, I'm certain that I'll regret jumping into the middle of this, but....
What is the point of Britannica mentioning that he is "traditionally regarded" as the founder of the French monarchy if he truly WAS? I mean, if the position of the EB was that Clovis was, in fact, the founder of the French monarchy, wouldn't the sentence read more like:
He (Clovis) founded the French monarchy and was the original French champion of the Christian faith.
Now, keep in mind that I know precious little about Frankish/French monarchs, I'm just analyzing this from a grammatical standpoint. I don't see why the EB would use language that, in my mind, implies that Clovis is only considered to be the founder, unless their position was that evidence is lacking that he factually was the founder.
--Dante Alighieri 00:39 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Dictionary:
  • Considered: Consider or deem to be; regard:
  • Synonyms: believed, regarded
Dante, does this help a little? John ? Triton
Perhaps you need to get a better dictionary. First there's that "contemporary" = "present day" fiasco, now it tries defining a perfect participle with its own infinitive form? -- John Owens 01:13 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes, Dante, this is what we have been trying to get across to Triton for the last several days. Triton: Britain got the name Britain before the Romans. I doubt any of the monarchs listed there are before the Romans. Further, let's get past this. What do you think of my compromise solution? Is it acceptable to you? john 00:46 28 May 2003 (UTC)

The list of French Monarchs has to include the founder. It should start with the Merovingians to the Carolingians and so on. Text can explain each dynasty in an appropriate manner, but if each of the monarchs bio is properly written, then I can't see how there can be any misunderstandings. It certainly cannot start at Bald Charlie and User: Didup and others like Anthere (I think without looking him up on Wikien L), Olivier, Ericd and several others expressed that it should start with the Merovingians too. (As an aside, Ms. K intimidated some of these people who either now say nothing or have left.) Triton

Tiny bio insertion here :-) Anthere is not a he. Anthere is a proud Wikiwoman, and will add nothing else to the debate as she does not feel knowledgeable enough about it (not because of any intimidation :-)). m:Anthere

John, I was right about Anthere:

  • Anthere [email protected]
  • Sun, 25 May 2003 11:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
  • He ! We indeed consider he was the first king of

> France when he was made Christian by Saint Rémi > (even > though we usually refer to him as King of the franks > ...). He was the one who started the history of > France, and we are tought he was chosen by the tribe > of franks to be king, and gave its name to our > country. But, what do we know ? It is just what we > learn in school :-) With no proof he was indeed > considered a king at that time. > Another future info fork between the french and the > english wiki :-)


SURPRISE: Note this is Ms. Ks words:

  • In the French case, what Anthere says, is kinda,

> sorta right ;-) Clovis > was the first Orthodox Christian King of a > consolidated Frankish kingdom > -- and the name France is derived from Francia, the > Latin name for the > Frankish kingdom.


Look, Triton, I'm sick of this. I'm trying to work out a compromise that everyone can agree to. Old Bald Charlie, as you call him is a fair person to start with, since he was the first King of the Kingdom which is a direct precursor to modern France. The article, in my proposed compromise, would not deny that the Frankish Kings were Kings of France, merely say that it's a complicated question, and that the Frankish kings are discussed somewhere else. It will specifically mention that they are considered, in the French monarchical tradition, to be the first Kings of France, and that they ruled over most of what is now France, and that they are an integral part in the evolution of what would become modern France. Given that it is very unlikely that you will get people to agree to include the Merovingians on this page, would such a compromise be acceptable to you?

Again, no matter how many times you repeat the titles of books, we are not going to agree to put the Merovingians on this page. Given that, I feel like this would go pretty far towards meeting a lot of your objections. And starting in 843 obviates the problem of the fact that the early Carolingian realm was obviously the same one as the Merovingian one, so that the complaint that the Carolingians are being treated differently from the Merovingians would no longer be true. Again, would this be at all acceptable, or are you going to keep arguing so long as the Merovingians aren't listed on this page?
---john 01:16 28 May 2003 (UTC)


OK, as long as we're on the subject, here's what my 15th edition (1988) Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about France (bold is mine):
"The development of France as a nation was a long process, the first stage of which can be placed in the period between the division of the Carolingian Empire in the mid-9th century and the emergence of a powerful French monarchy at the end of the 12th century.
This period, which began with the separation of the West Frankish kingdom (approximately the area of present France) from the Frankish domains in what is now Germany was marked by a fragmentation of political power and the development of feudalism. It was a time of violentce but also one of renewal, during which the culture of the High Middle Ages was formed."
Now, I know this isn't the article on Clovis, but it certainly seems as if the EB is saying that the nation of France did not exist prior to the separation of the West Frankish kingdom from the rest of the Frankish domains. That is, of course, circa 9th century. There can hardly have been a French monarch before there was a France. Ergo, EB says that Clovis is regarded as the founder of the French monarchy, but not that he was, himself, a French monarch because it is the opinion of the EB that Clovis was not a French monarch.
--Dante Alighieri 01:21 28 May 2003 (UTC)

John: If from the start, "we are not going to agree to put the Merovingians on this page", then why do you bother to discuss it? Unfortunately or fortunately, I do not accept your theories, and they are only theories. Triton


  • Gee John Owens, sure glad you have polite input to offer. I'm just a mere scraper-by who uses WORDWEB on his computer. Guess they don't know what they are talking about, so I'll delete it and send them an e-mail pointing out your astuteness. Thanks for pointing out my naive thinking and setting dummies like me straight. You sure are a great help. May the Prophet bless you for all your thoughtfullness.Triton
    • You're welcome. Want to give me their email address, so I can ream 'em out too? -- John Owens 01:29 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Triton, could you please explain how I have intimidated anyone? DOn't you think that you are giving me far too much power, and everyone else no credit?
Also, What exactly do you think is wrong with what you have just quoted? or what does it prove? I have asserted this all along, as have several others. I also suggested (top of this page) that we make the section of the Merovingians being traditionally considered the first French Kings clearer on the page in question, and then explain why the tradition exists and that the entire theory of nations (of the kind you are talking about) has come into question by such noted authors as Patrick Geary (at least as well-known and highly regarded as James) and the gentleman John referred to in earlier discussions.
I am very sorry, but at this point, I cannot understand your arguments and consider them unclear and poorly supported. Several of us have asked you pointed questions, and tried to work with you, but you refuse to answer and of our questions thoughtfully or to provide the types of examples useful to this kind of discussion. Instead, you repeat the same hackneyed lists of titles and quotes that no one accepts as proof. If you really want to make this work, and to demonstrate your ability to cooperate with others at a fairly professional level, I suggest you go through and read the comments and suggestions for resolution that others have made and really try to think them through, giving the people who have spent by now hours of their time the credit they deserve for their patience, goodwill, and perseverence.JHK

Ms. K, you love to set your self above and use words to make yourself look good to others looking in. I answered all questions, provided all info requested. No one else, including you, has done anything but talk and provided no proofs of your theories. You did nothing but delete facts, delete important photos twice, deny the existence of Wotan and on and on. And you certainly did insult and drive people away. Read your "obtuse" - "Misrepresenter" - "Liar" name calling on talk Clovis I. I will not allow you to intimidate me. None of your input does a thing to back up your theories. Now, please make a list of French monarchs starting at the Merovingians with proper expanations, not theories or "I'll allow" or "of course they are not really". Please use dignity in an encyclopedia and I will gladly assist and work with you in a professional and cordial manner subject to your apology for the improper deletions and remarks about my work. Triton

You know, I went looking at Talk:Clovis I for the aforementioned rope to hang JHK with. And I found this. I find not a single one of those pejoratives you mention in any of that; the closest to is the letter combination "lie" coming up in "believe". So, are we going to get back to the usual discussion of libel and slander? -- John Owens 01:59 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I’m very tired. Please set up the List of French monarchs as per tradition with the Merovingians first then the Carolingians etc. all of coursde with proper explanations. As soon as you or someone digs up credible rebuttals then by gosh, let’s change this sucker fast.Triton

This isn't about compromise or about making people happy - especially not banned ex-users, who are not entitled to any consideration - it's about getting things as right as we can possibly get them. Seems to me that John is making a good deal of sense, and that most (all?) legitimate contributors agree with the thrust of his suggestions. Is it time to unprotect the page now so that John (and others) can make the changes?

Triton/DW, please remember that you are a banned ex-user, and were responsible for making it necessary to protect the page in the first place. People have tolerated your presence here on the talk page, but will not tolerate you editing the main page directly. If you have anything to contribute, then do it here on the talk page. If - and only if - you can persuade others to support a proposed change, then those others are at liberty to implement it. Implement it yourself, Triton/DW, and you'll be reverted; if need be, the page can be protected again. So here is a new challenge for you, which I trust you will find both novel and stimulating: in order to influence the page, you are going to have persuade people to make the changes you recommend, which in turn will doubtless require that you practice the unfamiliar art of being pleasant and cooperative. Think of it as a learning experience. Tannin 01:53 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Bravo, Tannin.
Triton, I have explained my reasoning.
  • I have added supplementary sources and mentioned other authors' names in discussion.
  • Others here have themselves pointed out that even the sources you quote support the idea that Clovis was not King of France (a place) but in reality King of the Franks (a people) -- what you would have people believe is my personal theory when it is patently not.
  • I have offered at least twice to even accentuate the point of a traditional acceptance of Clovis and its place in France's national identity, because I agreed that it was not clear enough in the article as it stood.
  • I have not deleted anything, simple removed it from the visible article page -- and stated why. I even asked for you to supply citations, which you have declined to do. The information is all there to be re-inserted and edited for flow, chronology and context -- but if you don't want to ease the process, you'll have to wait till I do some checking.
  • I have certainly not deleted a photo, and in fact it's on the page right now -- it has been ever since the copyright question (asked first some time in 2002) was answered.
You know, repeating something endlessly doesn't make it truer anywhere but in an unquestioning mind. Most wikipedians ask far too many questions for that dog to hunt. JHK
Funny, I was just thinking exactly that "repeating something endlessly" thought about those assertions above of how you've denigrated some user on Talk:Clovis I. Maybe if it repeats them often enough we'll start to believe them? -- John Owens 02:07 28 May 2003 (UTC)
Apparently, Triton believes you are all somehow under my sway anyway. Check out Merovingian if you want to see the next fire in need of putting out! Cheers! JHK
<span style="voice:zombie">Yes, my mistress.</span> -- John Owens 02:25 28 May 2003 (UTC)

To the User logged in calling himself Tannin - refrain from accusations unless you have proof. If I am a banned user that you call DW or whatever, please present your proof to Mr. Wales and he will certainly investigate. If you have no proof, it is best to show good manners and talk with respect to all. I think that is what Mr. Wales said, didn't he? Thank you, and have a lovely evening improving the content of Wikipedia. Triton

Shouldn't you have proof of your accusations as well? Like that JHK said all those nasty things about some unnamed person at Talk:Clovis I? Or is this a shoe that only fits Tannin... and JHK... and probably myself... well, and everyone but Triton and a select few of its tribe? -- John Owens 02:39 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Dear MR. Owens: Perhaps you should read the page. Of course, we have no way of knowing where you come from so this might be a cultural thing. I'm one who thinks calling people names and their sincere contributions as nonsense is not the conduct Mr., Wales said he demands of contributors at Wikipedia. Particularly when they have to turn around and admit the "nonsense" was fact. But again, with your expertise here, and the outstanding knowledge you possess, it could ewell be my cultural background that makes me see things differently. If so, and I have offended you, Mr. Owens, sir, I am indeed sorry. Have a good evening and may the Prophet bless all your sincere endeavors. Triton

That SO completely avoided being an answer. Where on Talk:Clovis I did JHK say those things, about whom? -- John Owens 03:05 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Oh no! Did someone accidentally delete the page? Me and a few friends who want to do good work at Wikipedia always download certain pages to enjoy the valuable content until the day comes when we have it on the CD that Mr. Vibber is hoping to have. I'll check to see if the page is still there, if not I'll check my downloads and see if I have it. Thank you for being so concerned. I greatly appreciate someone as esteemed as you, wanting to make sure there is no violation of Mr. Wales courtesy rules. It is amazing how some people will communicate with another and say horrific things about other Wikipedia users. Bless you John Owens, you are fine man indeed. I'm proud just to be on the same website with a man of your caliber. Now, Mr. Owens, sir, I'll check for you. Triton

Delete? Are you talking "real" delete delete, or the "they deleted my picture" blanking kind of delete? I certainly didn't just check the Talk:Clovis I page as it is now. Were you around for some discussion before the page was last created? -- John Owens 03:27 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not too swift on all this computer stuff. Yes, Ms. K deleted my photo then after Mr. Vibber posted the proper notice that is was indeed a vaid copyright-free photo, poof! she deleted it again. But Mr. Owens, sir. By gosh, the page is there! Although, I had a copy anyway. You can go read it for yourself. Of course, as I said, perhaps calling someones erstwhile efforts as "Obtuse", "misrepresenting" and "lies" or deleting stuff, calling it nonsense when it was fact, is just my cultural background not understanding that that is really nice behaviour the way Mr. Wales insists on. And Sir? Thank you again for your concern. Sure look forward to assisting you any way I can. Just call on me anytime. Triton

OK, assist me by showing me where in Talk:Clovis I she ever used any one of the words "obtuse", "misrepresent", "liar", or "lie". The history's all there. She didn't make that many edits to it. If you like, you can check against my summed up version that I mentioned before, but you needn't take my word for it. -- John Owens 03:40 28 May 2003 (UTC)
HI JohnOwens -- here is the passage in question (from May 1?)-- I thought I would quote it in context. I will have to see if I can find the statement it refers to -- it may be even an insult from 64 or Ron or whoever (an earlier incarnation of Triton?) on my talk page. Anyway, I think Triton is presenting things in a less than completely truthful context:
"The statement about all prominent scholars considering the Merovingians to be French is at best a sad demonstration of obtuseness by a well-meaning amateur, at worst, a deliberate misinterpretation and/or outright lie. There is a fundamental difference at work. While one cannot write a history of France without discussing the Merovingians (and so every history of France includes them), because they present a major step in the transition from Roman Gaul to Medieval France, virtually no expert in the field calls them French. The James book, which is very good, also does not say this IIRC (it's been a while, as I read it when it first came out) -- nor does James call them French. Patrick Geary, in Before France and Germany doesn't call the Merovingians French, nor do Ganshof, Wallace-Hadrill, nor any other I can think of. They are Frankish, and intrinsic to the development of modern France -- but as Geary and many others (James as well, IIRC, in his The Franks) to modern Germany! But neither the Merovingians nor the earlier Carolingians were ever considered Kings of France -- especially in any of the records of the time -- that they were coopted by the Capetians and that this was for sometime historic convention is another problem -- one which James and other historians of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages are currently revising. JHK
Note please, that even at this point I was mentioning sources ...
Oh, and Triton, back the hell off from your claims that I deleted a pic after Brion verified it. Conversations about this picture were happening on several different pages at once -- by the time I saw that Brion had checked it, I had removed it, but Fred had put it back. Since the matter had been resolved, there was no reason to do anything else. This really is an unfounded accusation, and reflects none of the allowances that so many of us have made for you JHK
Ah, that explains it. You weren't logged in at the time. All clear now, thanks for the help. -- John Owens 03:54 28 May 2003 (UTC)

There you go,Mr Owens, sir. Ms. K gave some of it to you that you couldn't find on the page. But I'll paste it again below. Now, if she would just straighten out the deleting of my photo twice and calling my input on Clovis I as nonsense then oops. I was right. Gosh, pooor old Wotan was rolling in hisd skygrave or wherever the Germanic tribes kept their gods. Of course there are a few other little deletions called nonsense, but why labor on the point. Thank you again, sir. I hope this has clarified things. Now, will you be telling Ms. K to refrain from these comments or is it me just not understanding? Triton

Shoot, I apologize. I forgot to paste Ms. Ks words as promised. But, I am so confused. Mr. Owens, how is it she was logged out while she deleted a picture? Is that possible on the Wikipedia program? Triton

  • "The statement about all prominent scholars considering the Merovingians to be French is at best a sad demonstration of obtuseness by a well-meaning amateur, at worst, a deliberate misinterpretation and/or outright lie.

Triton

Now, Ms. K, you are using all your smartness to confuse me. And oh, I don't use "hell" when addressing someone because in my culture that is swearing and very impolite and Mr. Wales insists we not do that. Now, let's figure out the photo. You deleted it; I asked why but you never replied. Mr. Vibber then appeared and asked me to prove its copyright-free status. I did immediately and Mr. Vibber posted the appropriate notice that indeed the photo was perfectly legal. As soon as I saw his notice on "Recent Changes", I followed proper procedure and replaced the photo. Then, Ms. K ignored Mr. Vibber's notice and deleted it again. Yes Sir, that's two deletions, the second after Mr. Vibber had gone to all that work. Then, I pointed out this second deletion to MR. Vibber and THEN MR. Fred Bauder was kind enough to reinsert it for everyone at Wikipedia to enjoy. Now, did I satisfactorily explain it? If not, please let me know sir, and I will do everything in my power to clarify it. Boy, I still think it's pretty amazing that Ms. K could delete a photo while being logged off. WOW! Computers sure do incredible stuff. Now, good night all and please have a joyous visit at Wikipedia. Thank you again for all your help. Triton

Apparently, swearing is not culturally acceptable, but being rude, obstinate, and overwhelmingly snide and insulting is ok? Interesting culture. No one said I was logged out when I removed not deleted your photo. I was logged out when I made the comment to 64, who may be you, or Ron Davis, or MammaBear or all three. As I pointed out, I wasn't aware that Brion had cleared up the copyright questions (). Since I pay much more attention to my watch list, and hardly ever look at recent changes, it's no wonder I didn't notice. Oh -- and what culture thinks it's ok to load every sentence with nasty implications and outright ad hominem attacks? I have never been anything but straghtforward with you, Triton -- it's a bit rich that you can only speak to me in such insulting and upleasant tones, yet you try to make me the villain. Fortunately, I'm not so far gone that I'll fall for your act -- and neither will anyone else.JHK

If I'm "rude, obstinate, and overwhelmingly snide and insulting", please advise Mr. Wales immediately as he will not tolerate that kind of behavior. And what wes the "not without some trouble, I'll remind you" about the copyright issue. Check with Mr. Vibber, I acted on his request instantly and gave him my total cooperation and within minutes provided all the information he needed. FULL, FACTUAL LEGAL, PERFECT IN ALL RESPECTS. So now, Wikipedia has a gtreat source for maps and you have a real Professor of History at Fordham to learn from. Of course I might not be telling the truth? Or you aren't? Perhaps the records and Mr. Vibber will reveal the truth? Want to have Mr. Wales examine if I was uncooperative or abusive, or uncivil? Oh yes, in my culture we don't call someone's erstwhile efforts as "nonsense" and then, what was it tonight? Oh yes, "ridiculous." And, in my culture when we are wrong, we apologize, admit our mistake, and move on in the spirit of harmony. Triton

Please people. All this off-topic talk is misdirecting valuable time and energy that could otherwise be put into creating more content for the encyclopedia. --mav

I get the feeling that that's the actual point of it... -- Derek Ross 14:42 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 4

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_French_monarchs/Archive_3&oldid=96256417"