Jump to content

Talk:List of French monarchs/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Talk:List of French monarchs/archive 3

I have copied this from Talk:Clovis I at User:Triton's request:

Good day, Ms. K. I hope you are rested and that we will work with great diligence together to resolve the problem with putting the correct information into List of French monarchs. And, I do hope you will refrain from harsh language, swearing, or derogatory remarks about me or anyone else who might wish to contribute to Wikipedia. I give you my word, that I will go out of my way to assist so long as you support your theories with facts. I look forward to us cooperating to achieve Wikipedia's goal. I do apologize if my English is not perfect, I work very hard at always improving it. If I may, perhaps you should communicate with the person who wrote the article on Wotan. He is only a blip in Clovis history and I have no real interest in him (it?). Thank you, and may you have a wonderful experience here today. Triton

Hi Triton, I know who wrote most of the Wotan article -- an ex-user called HJ, and this is one of the reasons I questioned the information. I will eventually work on the French Monarchs article, but I am afraid that, unless you are willing to discuss the following, it will end up being more of the same.
  • Several wikipedians have posted reasons for choosing to have the article as it appears, with much explanation, and sources for much of that reasoning
    • You continue to argue about these things, and cite sources back -- even though several people have pointed out that those sources as cited do not support your claims.
    • Because of this, you have been given to opportunity on numerous occasions to bring forth exact quotes that support what you believe to be true, but you won't do that.
    • On the very top of the newest talk page, I suggested a solution, and john suggested something similar lower down. We both asked for opinions. A good start to cooperation would be offering your opinion, with reasoned explanations.
  • the new Con-triton ;-) is a pleasant change, but actions speak louder than words. Let's see what you're capable of.JHK

Thank you, Ms. K. Any discussion should be on the talk page of the article being dicussed, should it not? I'm not 100% sure, but I think you are talking about the List of French monarchs ? If so, move your last bit to that page, please or enlighten my slow mind. Triton


In an effort to bring in a voice of reason to this debate I left the following message at Mr. User:Llywrch.

Mr. User:Llywrch - Many thanks again for your valued input on Clovis I. There has been a stalemate at List of French monarchs that, as it stands, makes no account for the Merovingians as part of the History of France. I posted all kinds of sources that I felt were most approriate and correct including Britannica, but if you would be willing to lend your same reasoned approch here, I am certain everyone at Wikipedia would be appreciative. I am prepared to accept the numerous teachings/ writings I have already listed plus I would never question a Wikipedia List of French Monarchs in accordance with the way the United States University of Washington is teaching history to its students. If you are willing to assist, please check out the University’s course document titled "France's Kings and Rulers." Thank you, sir. Please have a joyous visit at Wikipedia.

Thanks, User:Triton!! you have once again provided information that supports the article as it stands -- in fact, it supports the idea of France starting in 987!!! Please note that, although the title of the page is France's Kings and Rulers, the page itself is clear that there are older Frankish kingdoms (as there are on the wikipedia, but they have a page devoted to them) and starts the Kingdom of France proper with the Capetians. In English, this is what we call "hoist with your own petard."
oh -- and by the way, Mr. User Triton, Your new attitude, sir, while welcome, cannot change the fact that you feel the need to continue to make nasty and unpleasant (and unprovable) accusations about me personally (as opposed to perhaps not very tactful comments about someone's writing) on other pages. I am sure that any sensible wikipedian jumping into the fray here will have read all of the pertinent disussions, so there's really no point in brownnosing, sir. Have a good day, and may the Lord's grace go with you. JHK

Okay, I'm adding my opinion, which is just that -- an opinion. I'm not a professional historian (although I've watched the History Channel once or twice), but maybe a fresh look at this long, & at times acrimonious, debate, might help bring us all to a consensus.

Now if I understand Triton's perspective, it is this: Clovis I created a political entity that can be demonstrated to lie ancestral to the modern French nation-state: Pepin the Short managed to get a Papl blessing to replace the rule of the feeble Merovingian Dynasty with that of his own family, & the dynasty he founded (the Carolingians) later were replaced by the Capetian Dynasty, & so forth. Triton has also attempted to confirm this interpretation by quoting a number of standard references, which can be understood to support (his? her? -- sorry, Triton, but I'm going to assume you're a he & apologize for the error in advance) his position.

However, there is another nation that believes it can also trace its existence back to Clovis I in one form or another -- Germany. As any history of Charlemagne & his descendants will show, his empire gradually broke into two parts: the western one that became the state of France, & the eastern one which became the Holy Roman Empire, an institution which is believed by the Germans to be ancestral to the modern German state. (At least that's what I was taught in my German classes.) The names of the 19th-century & early 20th-century German states (e.g., Deutsches Reich) clearly indicate that this is what at least some Germans believe. Further, to borrow Triton's argument above of talking about a "Merovingian China", we can properly speak of a "Merovingian Germany" or a Carolingina Germany" -- there is adequate evidence of institutional continuity between the Merovingian & Carolingian ages & modern German communities.

To insist that Clovis I is a French King, I worry would insult those Germans who believe he is as much their king. Can we compromise on the language as it is currently in the article, that some people believe Clovis founded the French kingdom, but begin the list of rulers from a later period? This would be following the example of what was done for the List of Roman Emperors and Byzantine Empires. If not, can someone explain to me the reason why this is a different case? -- llywrch 19:57 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Note to all -- this page is protected at present! Although sysops can make changes, I think it best that no one does until we have some consensus. I would not like anyone to think that people are abusing their sysop powers. JHK

Just to clarify, the article page is protected, not this page (talk page). Please feel free to add to the talk page as you see fit. --Dante Alighieri 20:06 29 May 2003 (UTC)

The narrative on this article, according to my interpretation, does not meet NPOV standards or encyclopedic norms and needs a considerable rewrite to make it something most all contributors/visitors worldwide to Wikipedia, including Mr. User:Jacques Delson and all Canadians can be proud of its ultimate end result. I most certainly have no great narrative gifts but would volunteer to spend the time to research things a little then post my efforts to start the process so that those who have factual input can edit and improve my work. In the meantime it is probably a good idea to allow sufficient time for input from others as to the proposed list structure. Triton

Perhaps another alternate solution would be to reverse the chronology, with annotations at each segment, explaining the relationship of each dynasty to the one before? By reversing, we could then include Roman rulers, and then step backwards to Gallic chieftains. This might help people to understand the difficulties in separating out modern countries from ancient kingdoms and empires, and how modern ethnic distinctions don't always work as a way of defining nationhood. Note: this is a serious suggestion, although the approach is a bit novel. I'm just trying to find a way that conveys the more subtle truths. JHK
That actually strikes me as a faitly interesting approach. I'd certainly like to see what that would look like. --Dante Alighieri 22:39 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Not to be impolite and dismiss Ms. K's latest proposal out of hand, but I agree with the University of Washington's list titled France's Kings and Rulers and am not about to contradict them and Encyclopedia Britannica as to whom they and all reputable scholars regard as the first French Royal House. Triton Triton

Triton, I think at this point nobody really cares about this nonsense. As far as listing Kings backwards, I don't know. I tend to find that irritating in lists, but if it would enable a better discussion of the development of France, perhaps that's a good idea. By the way, has anyone checked out the History of France page? That thing could use some serious work. john 23:28 29 May 2003 (UTC)
John, I don't think your last response ("nobody really cares about this nonsense") is fair or in compliance with Wikiquette. If we expect Triton to talk to us in a reasonable tone, we need to set a good example. Might the University of Washington's list, with France in the title but "Frankish" in the section title, not be a model for ours? --Eloquence 23:44 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Hmm... I didn't intend to be insulting, rather just to indicate that I'm getting really damned sick of Triton making exactly the same arguments again and again, without ever responding to anything anybody says to him. But perhaps I was a bit harsh, for which I apologize. I will note that if you will read the archives, I've really tried to initiate a dialogue with Triton in order to come up with some compromise that would satisfy everyone. He never did anything but repeat his same talking points. In any event, I'm coming towards the thought that perhaps including the Merovingian kings in a list, so long as we're careful to indicate that they weren't really kings of France, but precursors to the Kings of France (and Germany!), wouldn't be awful. However, given that we already have a list of Kings of the Franks, I'd still prefer a list that starts with 843, and links back to the earlier lists. john 00:20 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I think the problems in communication result in different definitions of the words "France" and "French". I believe the U. of Washington page was very deliberately titled "Rulers of France" and not "French rulers", because there's a distinction between the two, which is, however, not immediately apparent. --Eloquence 00:27 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I think the distinction is that France is a physical geographic region, French denotes you come from there. France could be kingdom-specific or it could be simply referring to a general geopolitical area that was not yet formed into a state, the way for example a ruler of Britain didn't necessary rule over the modern Kingdom of Great Britain or its successor, the UK, but simply the geographic area that we know as Britain. French would denote someone who came from France, not elsewhere, and for whom France was his base, not merely some lands he happened to control. FearÉIREANN 00:58 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Well, "Rulers of France" is also problematic, since the region wasn't called France under the Merovingians. Were the Byzantine Emperors "Rulers of Turkey"? That is to say, the word "France" is intimately connected with the word "French". john 00:29 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Only if you are talking about France as a clear state. John, If you are talking geographically, then it is possible to rule the areas known as France later on but without being French. French denotes of France. France doesn't automatically mean French if it was just part of far wider territories. Yes the region wasn't called France then, but they may be using the term just to explain in a purely geographic sense what the general area was. To give another example, from 1541 to 1800 English monarchs reigned and ruled as King/Queen of Ireland. But they were never Irish kings/queens; they were englishmen and women who simply ruled in Ireland. This page is about French monarchs, not kings who simply reigned in the geographical area that is now France, which is where I think Triton's confusion is coming from. FearÉIREANN 02:07 30 May 2003 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm surprised by your response, Triton. You asked for my help, I offered an opinion in hope to create a consensus & asked for feedback, but the only thing you wrote was that you don't like the narrative of this article. I find that a vague statement, too vague for me to understand what you don't like about it. Please help me understand your concern with the article as it stands.
(A note the rest of us -- I'm getting a warning about this article being too long. Would someone like to archive another chunk of it?)-- llywrch 23:31 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I fail to understand what the war is over this page. It is well written, factual and clearly defines the definition it is applying. The language here could be restructured and tidied here slightly. In terms of solving the overall issues that have caused the dispute, JHK's proposal is interesting and worth exploring and deserves to be treated with respect. FearÉIREANN 23:56 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Mr. llywrch - Regret sir, I never noticed your input on this above the others when I came back and I responded to Ms. K and Mr. Dante who I saw. Before you even intimate even the slightest of disrespect on my part, would you in the future please give me the benefit of the doubt -- always until I break any trust or lie, or make derogatory remarks to you or your contributions? My willingness to cooperate and massive, I repeat massive, documentation and responses to questions from many (note I get the many, many, many, many, questions demanding I reply AT ONCE to anywhere from two to seven places) (note there is total inconsistency as to how or where different people post questions but by God I had better find them) does derserve some degree of respectful consideration. Do you agree? As I think I may have stated somewhere in Wikipedia already, there are people who use this tactic to gang up and wear one down then accuse them of not responding to questions and being uncooperatiuve. Then, as you will see if you read these pages thoroughly, after I have listed numerous specific reliable sources, several mutiple paragraphs later, they then state I provided no proofs. Too, I gave one proof where a line later I was told if I had that proof then it was a different matter, So, I saud read my reply but that did not mastter and with great respect to that user, he was caught dead wrong making a statement. But, no, I am still grilled, told I don't listen to their proofs? And of course I would listen to you. I appreciated you stating you have no formal training, and admired your detailed research despite that. On the Internet people can claim anything or take any identity so you being so open is appreciated. I didn't specifically invite your opinion to ignore you. Have I done or said anything to give you reason to believe I act that way. If so, sir, please point it out and I will apologize. But dealing with who or who may not have ruled over what we have called Germany for only 100 (?) years or its predecessors is a separate task that was/is being done at Wikipedia, isn't it? I must assume that Encyclopedia Britannica, and the University of Washington and all the others have dealt with that issue. Would they not have? Or would they have ignored it and made their encyclopedias and university courses anyway? You said: "that some people believe Clovis founded the French kingdom." That insinuates there are those of credible standing who diasagree with Britannica, the numerous reputable authors I listed, the University of Washington and more. That sir, and again with all due respect, appears to me as being left in the air unfinished. I have never found even one credible source who disagrees so before we blaze new trails here and contradict so many undoubted sources, we should provide the names and creditenials and published works of the "Some" who disagree. Then we can all assess the facts on both scholary points of view buit I for one would refrain from such a scholarly task. I stand in acceptance with the sources named that I have listed already. Until someone produces credible contrary opinions in a succinct list as I did (with multiple repeats), how can anyone judge that Encyclopedia Brittanica et al is wrong? In all honesty, I am not qualified to overule Britannica or any of the other scholars listed already. So lets look at the "some" you say who do. Then of course, we have the Roman rulers of Britain to add to their list to discuss along with and all the various chietains in Scotland plus Spain, Italy, and every other country in the world on Wikipedia where we have or may soon have a list of monarchs or foreign rulers or temporary conquerors to add. Thank you, sir. Triton

I'm sorry that I jumped to the conclusion, Triton, that you were ignoring me. I'll try to be more patient & understanding in the future: I have a problem wiht that, & it has givne me problems in the past.
If you had broken up your response into smaller paragraphs, I could respond directly to your point, but if you don't mind I'd like to quote a few sentences of yours to help create the context. You wrote:
"You said: 'that some people believe Clovis founded the French kingdom.' That insinuates there are those of credible standing who diasagree with Britannica, the numerous reputable authors I listed, the University of Washington and more. That sir, and again with all due respect, appears to me as being left in the air unfinished. I have never found even one credible source who disagrees so before we blaze new trails here and contradict so many undoubted sources, we should provide the names and creditenials and published works of the 'Some' who disagree."
Well, I for one disagree with the assertion that Clovis founded the Frnech kingdom, & I set my argument forth above -- that it could be argued that Clovis also founded the later German kingdom. A continuity of political entities can be traced between the two. So the question then becomes, am I a credible person? Do my opinions matter? I would hope so, but I understand that it would not be practical for every opinion -- or perhaps any -- of mine to be recorded in the Wikipedia. But since my opinion can be implied -- I'd prefer this word to insinuate, if you don't mind -- by using the word some, or the word many, then I am satisfied.
Would you agree with this?
You wrote later: "Then of course, we have the Roman rulers of Britain to add to their list to discuss along with and all the various chietains in Scotland plus Spain, Italy, and every other country in the world on Wikipedia where we have or may soon have a list of monarchs or foreign rulers or temporary conquerors to add."
I don't understand your point. Could you explain this to me? If you'd like, feel free to put a response on my User Talk page -- I'll look both there & here for your response. -- llywrch 04:51 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Begin JHK's response here

Triton, I'm very sorry that you are unable to make the differentiations the rest of us are. I'm also sorry you seem to be overwhelmed with questions. Perhaps you should try to break down the lists of questions, and answer one part at a time. No one here (except you, it seems) is in a rush to make these changes -- quality is more important than speed. Also, FYI, the UW website you cite is NOT a University website. It's something that may have been posted by a professor or a grad student. If it belongs to a professor, then it's likely one two people, and I'm on speaking terms with one of them and would certainly be glad to ask him to clarify the meaning -- but since your language towards me indicates you don't believe anything I say, I doubt that would help. Perhaps, though, you might look again at Eloquence's comments above, and try to see if you get the difference that we all see.JHK

Thank you Ms.K, ma’am, but I have no factual input to add until you or some other contributor provides the credible sources who disagree with the Encyclopedia Britannica and other credible sources I documented. Please present them in a simple list for easy examination. Do that instead of constant talk with no proof and everyone can discuss and examine the views of experts.

all righty, Mr Triton, sir -- I will try to make this simple for you

And please do obtain the Professor's name at the University of Washington who teaches the French history course and his/her written confirmation that the list is not the University and the URL listing as a course is either stolen or fraudulently used.

You misunderstand me. What I said was that the site was the work of a Professor or grad student, but not "the University". I never said or implied it was stolen, just that, from the address, one can only tell that SOMEONE who lectures at the university posted it -- not their specialty.
As it happens, you can see from my comments and the comments of others above, that although the list says "rulers of France" the contents of the table clearly show that the person who made it DOES NOT think the Merovingians were French (Kings of "France" a country) but Frankish (a Germanic people). I am not arguing -- just pointing out that your own source doesn't say what you think it does.

I doubt it, I tested the course link but I’m a nothing on computers so I might be wrong and there is fraud. Also at the University of North Carolina too, ask if their views are being faked by someone. I would say McGill University but you have already made clear your views on Canadians. As we both know, Encyclopedia Britannica is the most respected source in the world because they maintain lucrative contingency contracts with the world’s most outstanding authorities on all important matters relative to encyclopedic information.

I'm very sorry to disagree, but it is not. It is a very highly regarded encyclopedia, but encyclopedias are as a whole not considered to have the most accurate information, because they are written for a very general population. The information is therefore very much an introduction. The wikipedia is different because we have the freedom to update much more frequently.

However, please give me the title and ISBN number of your own published works and I would be glad to increase your royalty income by purchasing it/them. I did check Mellen Press, but no person named JHK is listed.

Well, you wouldn't find it under that name, because you've spelled it wrong again! Also, why would it be under Mellen Press? If you have access to the University Microfilms abstracts database (most academic institutions in N. America do), you can search under my correctly spelled name and "Carolingians" as a key word. You will see in the abstract exactly what my PhD thesis is about, where I went to school, and who was on my thesis committee, and that the degree was granted. I can't prove I'm who I say I am. I can only say that I came to this project at a time when most of us used our real names and no one had the discourtesy of accusing someone of faking their expertise. If you don't believe me, it doesn't really matter -- the people here with good historical skills can tell what's what.

Then again, on the Internet, identity theft would render that meaningless anyway. So, I will eagerly wait for your information on the scholarly works that have been published by a JHK.

Sorry -- forgot this -- not published yet, because I teach 3-4 courses most quarters and have not been out of Grad School all that long. but the thesis is on record

And oh yes, “we all”? I named a few already, should I start by posting the complete document: WikiEN-l] Re: Jacques Delson and Helga-ism Daniel Ehrenberg wikien-l@wikipedia.org Mon, 26 May 2003 12:48:55 -0700 (PDT).

Gee, I wish that it were that easy to be published!

Thank you ma'am, with the Prophet's blessing for you, I truly hope that the absolute best day of your life in the past is the worst day of your life in the future. And good night, I will now wait and look forward to all your scholarly proofs. Triton

Triton, in regard to other answers, citations, etc., I and others have posted them. You claim that we have made the answers and our questions to you too complex to deal with. I find that interesting, if you have no trouble understanding the books you have cited, but no matter. Please feel free to post, here or on my page, the specific questions on sources you want answered, and I will try to answer them. Please don't ask me to disprove you -- it's not scholarly. Tell me what of the article you disagree with, and I'll tell you where I got the information for it.
Then, perhaps you will point out which of our questions you have trouble with. You can just cut and paste them, and I'll break them down and try to clarify them. Then maybe you will feel able to answer them. Deal?? Have a good evening, Mr. Triton. JHK

Ms. USER:K you stated, ma'am: You claim that we have made the answers and our questions to you too complex to deal with. I did???

NEXT: We disagreed on a matter, I stated what I saw as fact from credible sources. And, at your request neatly and clearly posted the credible sources. You have not posted one piece of proof to one single thing you say. Nowhere on any of the pages, not once. Where is the Edward James book you were on your way out the door to get. Where is the University of Washington documentation you promised from your friend at the University?

You said the UW website you cite is NOT a University website. I beg to differ, any three year old can test it and I know almost nothing about computers. But hey, you should e-mail them advising your alleged name and credentials and informing them of your charges of a fraud being perpetuated under their name. If you like, I will do it for you. What we have had so far from you is a lot more verbalizing but not one single fact or one promise fulfilled. So, I repeat again: Just provide the sources to support your claim. No big deal just do what you ask of others. And, no, I do not believe the claims of identity or credentials of anyone logging into Wikipedia nor would I ever ask anyone to risk revealing such information as may be factual. But, I do ask that you support your claims with proper sources so that all can see, not just me. You asked it of me, so I don’t think I’m being overly demanding in working from equality for Wikipedia authenticity, particularly where you deleted facts on Clovis I describing it as nonsense which in fact was wrong. And, you deleted my work arbitrarily, without proper Wikipedia procedure rules and insulted me which seems a bit contradictory and confusing to my feeble mind based on your own words:

  • 21:39 25 May 2003 Talk:List of French monarchs (Jacuqes -- you can respond to reasonable questions and collaborate, but you can't just revert and insult)

Ms. K: Remember Jacques (your spelling version Jacuges) Delson? He is one of the Canadians you debased and who left Wikipedia because of your abuse. And, he made real and valuable contributions.


Note also that I politely asked that you apologize so we could move on in the best interest of Wikipedia. You never have apologized even remotely, yet this is what YOU arrogantly demand of others:

  • 16:09 23 Aug 2002 Talk:German expulsion after World War II (Helga -- read this, apologize, or leave.)

It seems you consistently bless other contributors at Wikipedia with your insults and demeaning of their abilities and sincere efforts to contribute. As you said on your own page (my bolding):

  • Here's the deal, for those who are interested. I unintentionally started a flame war with Eloquence by saying he'd been involved in flame wars on subjects where he has little or no expertise.

And, Ms.User:HK, ma’am, I am apparently not the only one who thinks you should provide proof, real proof, not a bunch of meaningless verbal quotes based on your alleged identity and credentials done in an arrogant and abusive manner. Your own words:

  • 11:13 29 Aug 2002 User:JHK (Would like it if people occasionally trusted that I know what I'm talking about in my field)

Now I don’t think telling me and other users that we are just not intelligent enough to understand your vast wisdom is a reason not to provide facts to support your theories or claims. Just as an aside, in case you never get around to reading what others have said at Wikipedia about one of my credible sources, the Encyclopedia Britannica., here is the first line of OUR article:

  • Encyclopædia Britannica is the most prestigious encyclopedia in the English language. Its articles are commonly considered most accurate, reliable and well-written.

Thank you Ms. K, ma’am I await all your promised credible proofs that have not once appeared anywhere to support your arguments (prove me wrong and I will apologize and leave Wikipedia immediately). In the meantime, may the Prophet bless you, your family and your children. Triton 15:40 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Triton, I consider my past disagreements with Julie closed and do not appreciate that you bring them up again. In order to effectively work together, it is important to be willing to forgive past conflicts and make a fresh start, i.e. "tit for tat" [1]. Reading through your past replies, I notice that you seem to deliberately ignore what everyone has been trying to tell you, namely that the sources you cite do not say what you think they say; or rather, say two things: That Clovis I was a Frankish ruler who governed what is now France, but that France as a recognizable nation-state did not yet exist. Specifically, the quite nice table at the UCW website [2] calls these two separate eras "The Old Frankish Kingdom" and "The Kingdom of France". Please try to work towards a compromise that takes this distinction into account, instead of making no distinction between the Frankish rulers and those who followed. It is pointless to ask for sources if your own sources do not support your claims. --Eloquence 16:00 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Any objections to unprotecting the page? I think this should now be tackled in the "wiki way". --Eloquence 16:36 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I have no objection. I don't think any more can be settled by this navel-gazing on the talk page. john 18:31 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I obviously have no objections -- and apologise to all if I jumped the gun -- I saw the comment in recent changes and thought it had already been unprotected and didn't notice it hadn't till I'd made a bunch of changes ;-( JHK

No, it is still protected. I am still denied access but Ms. K can use her sysop powers to edit: (cur) (last) . . 18:36 30 May 2003 . . JHK (Strengthened bit about Merovingians for Triton, but please see talk) Triton 18:41 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I believe that is what I said, and I apologized. I am sure Eloquence or someone else will unblock it soon. In a spirit of goodwill, Triton, I would be more than happy to revert the changes I made. However, it would also be nice to know if they help to make this article acceptable to you, rather than to receive yet another slander on my character.JHK

"Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. Both are objectively valuable moral principles. Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends. And I'll treat you the same way." I think this is an excellent policy for Wikipedia to have Triton 19:42 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Does this mean that JHK didn't represent your views correctly? I'm not being snide, Triton, I'm just trying to understand your objections, so I can help mediate here. And did you see my questions above? -- llywrch 22:23 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Mr. llywrch, sir, I did not see any questions above because there are too many all over the place in no organized order. I just finished another huge reply for Mr. User:Dante Aleg????. You said: Does this mean that JHK didn't represent your views correctly? - I say, that regarding my dealings with her, it is only partially correct, but add to it that she deliberately distorted things and lied which I will gladly prove and have tried to prove before but my words are ignored, and distortion and put downs have succeeded to obfuscate the issue. Thank you. Triton 22:52 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Mr. llywrch, sir, I still can't find your question? In fact, there is stuff here in such a mush that I can't figure out who asked them. Please ask a question of me on my talk page with a header saying REList of ?????? However, if you read you will see that I have asked repeatedly that Ms. K who originated this debate, to fullfil her promises and provide her proofs. Instead, you MR. User John somebody and Dante User Alegh??? and User Elequence and Usr:JTdrlfireman and God knows who else, keeping asking me to repeat what I've already said, plus ask a new question to add to my dilema, but not once does a reply come to my question from Ms. K and she says she does not need to provide proof (but I do). And, oh yes, Mr. John was caught flat footedwrong on a most significant issue but when I pointed it out it was ignored and then between all the others started with overwhelming assertions and questions to obfuscate the issue. Then User: John ???? accuses me of not understanding or not listening or not etc. etc. etc. But of course, I don't listen, I don't understand, I am a troll (read Wikien L) plus other derogatory remarks. Thank you, sir. May I live to be 135 and may you be a pallbearer at my funeral. Triton 23:26 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Triton, I'm going to copy my comments over to your User Talk page. I agree, it's hard for us to to find each other's comments here. Let's continue our conversation there. -- llywrch 00:08 31 May 2003 (UTC)

And finally to everone: Mr. Eloquence who protected the page proposed a solution. I accepted and am waiting for him to act accordingly. Ms. K is also waiting. It is now only proper to wait for him before we continue discussions that might be irrelevant anyway. Triton 23:32 30 May 2003 (UTC)

As currently written, this page does part of what Eloquence suggests. To wit:

  • It separates the Kings of France from Frankish Kings.

What it does not do is say that Hugh Capet was the first King of France. This is what the UW table says.

(By the way, the table is for Prof. O'Neil's History 112. The course is on Late Medieval, Renaissance, and Reformation. Professor O'neil is a specialist in the Italian Renaissance)
  • Question for Triton -- do you want this to follow the table exactly and say that the Capetians are the first Kings of France?


Ours is in fact much more of a compromise:

  • it explains why many historians (like O'Neil) consider the Capetians the first kings of France
  • it explains why other historians think that the idea of Kings of France should start with Charles the Bald
  • It explains that there is a tradition for Clovis I to be considered the first King of France, and that that tradition is part of the French national identity
  • It adds a bit about recent scholarship on the history of "Nations" Citing Geary's books below, and should add the other citation someone put in talk.

Triton, if you are serious about contributing, and you still disagree with this page, perhaps you could answer under one or more of the specific points above what you disagree with, or what you think needs to be clearer. Thank you. JHK

Ms. User:K et al. Thank you. It is not my goal to control the content in this page. My concern was not showing the Merovingians on a List of French Monarchs nor reversing the list and adding Roman rulers and Gallic chieftains. As I have no professional expertise in this area, it seems most sensible to post the list as presented by the University of Washington, with, as I suggested, explanations or notations in proper encyclopedic etiquette and with a clear NPOV that is deemed appropriate by whoever wishes to provide input so that hopefully we end up with a page that an ordinary high school researcher or someone just wanting to learn from a quality encyclopedia to a Rhodes Scholar who might look at it, would understand. Too, it will bring us more in line with the French version article of Wikipedia at the French Wikipedia: Monarques de France and actually help them construct and/or improve theirs as the bilingual gentleman from France said. Certainly I might add some comments or question a statement someone might make as for certain some other visitor to this article will exercise their Wikipedia right to do. And, of from the only Rhodes Scholar friend I have, I am told there is no shortage of historians with diverse opinions. Thank you, may the Prophet bless our honest endeavors and each and every one who worked to help make this a success. Triton 02:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Before I depart, please, if I am not clear here with my English then after someone inserts the Merovingians and does comments, I will look again when I came back and if I have questions I will leave them here on the talk page. Thank you, please. Triton 02:14 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry Triton. Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying that your opinion is that this particular list should include a list of all the Frankish monarchs, as well as the French ones?
I am only trying to figure out what the problem is, because you didn't respond to any of the specific issues listed above.
The article as it stands links (or should -- I will make sure) to the list on the "Frankish Monarchs" page. It explains the separation, and the contents of Professor O'Neil's list more than support the idea of separation.
Could you please explain why this is unacceptable? Thanks! JHK
Talk:List of French monarchs
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_French_monarchs/Archive_4&oldid=96256468"