Talk:Ermengarde of Anjou (died 1146)

Check the source(s), re-addition of unsourced information
Next time why not check the sources?


 * "But Stephen Philp, poet and mediaeval historian, has counter-argued that Tyre's apparent error in the names is not in itself proof a marriage between William and a woman named Ermengarde never took place, especially as several sources give colorful accounts of the marriage and its aftermath."

Feel free to show me the exact quote from this page, supporting this information.

Also, I find your comment; misplaced and judgmental, since I removed unsourced speculation. These same speculations you restored, without any sources!
 * "since this is a well known issue mentioned many times in connection to her, it should be mentioned in the article and adressed there even if it is totally unfounded. It should not be erased completely even if it is wrong"


 * "It has long been presumed that, in 1089, her marriage was arranged to the young Duke and poet, William IX of Aquitaine. However, this union proved a dismal failure. Her husband was a voracious philanderer, whose affairs infuriated his wife. She had severe mood swings, vacillating between vivacity and sullenness, and would nag her husband. She also had a habit of retiring in bad temper to a cloister after an argument, cutting off all contact with the outside world, before suddenly making a reappearance in the court as if her absence had never occurred. Such behavior, coupled with her failure to conceive a child, led William to send her back to her father and have the marriage dissolved in 1091. Her behavior during her marriage to the Duke has been described by both Marion Meade and Alison Weir as "schizophrenic", with Weir adding a suggestion of "manic depression""

I am assuming you have a source(s) for this "well known issue"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Releax. You appear to be intensely invested in this, and I have no wish to engage in many years of heated debate. I was simply pointing out, in a chill and relaxed tone, that if these things has long been mentioned in connection to her, then of course they should be found in the article, of course with sources to were these errors have been mentioned. Information that has been debunked should first be mentioned in full (with references) followed by the information debunking them (with references). If some of these things lack references, you should either add references, or ask for references to be added for them, and not just delete everything. You sound very invested in this issue, but if you expect me to devote months and months of tiring heated debate around this issue with someone who is intensely invested in it, you have made a mistake. I only expect normal procedure to be followed and I did not change much. I am not emotionally invested in this, and I will not spend the next half a year in an emotionally charged and heated debate about it. Have a wonderful, and above all relaxing, day. I intend to.--Aciram (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow. Three personalized comments("You appear to be intensely invested in this", "You sound very invested in this issue", "I am not emotionally invested in this") after being asked to provide sources for unsourced speculation. Nice. As such I will be delisting this from my watchlist. Done here! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)