Talk:Louis X of France

Untitled
this information i say is very useful especially if your using it to do a french project or write a page on france.
 * It's badly written and uninformative.

Expansion
I've gone through, expanded a bit and added in-line citations. It will probably need a mild scrub for style etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Quarreler > Quarrelsome?
Hey, Hc, thanks for doing that work.

Everyone: I've been tempted to change the Hutin's nickname from "quarreler" to "quarrelsome"--the latter seems like a better translation to me, and Google finds thirty times more common than <~quarreler>. What do you think? Eric talk 18:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems a reasonable suggestion to me! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC):


 * Eric- great suggestion. --LeValley 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of primary sources
For shame! This page contains numerous errors (just one of which is claiming that Louis X had indoor tennis courts built in the late 1290s--when he was not even born until October 1289!). The author relies only on secondary- and tertiary or later sources. No primary sources are listed in the references, and thus, one must assume they have not been consulted. Where are the references to the contemporary chronicles, such as Chronique Metrique, Les Grandes Chroniques de France, or the continuations of the efforts of the monks at St. Denis by Guillaume de Nangis? Seriously, if you mean to write an encyclopedic entry for a 14th-century French king, you simply cannot get around the need to consult the original sources. If you can't read the Latin or the Old French or the Anglo-Norman, you need to find someone who can, instead of relying on other people's repetitions of mistranslated texts and erroneous, near-mythological "facts." Or go the honorable route and refrain from writing with such pretensions of historical accuracy on a subject you know nothing about, and leave it to those who have studied the original sources. Anyone who uses this information for a school project deserves a failing grade for lack of proper research disciplines. 99.69.176.214 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You clearly have strong views on this topic. Like you, I often find that the wikipedia is frustrating where the use of primary sources is concerned - at one case I desperately wished I could just prove a particular point by referring back to a particular subject's personal letters in an archive in London - but I can't, under the guidelines for using the wikipedia project. The guidelines are that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This doesn't prevent the citing of primary sources, I'm told, but places a range of restraints on this. With this in mind, it may well be that you won't ever find the quantity of primary source citation you would properly like in a wikipedia article - a common weakness to any tertiary, encyclopedia style article. That said, if you are able to read Latin, Old French and Anglo-Norman, you'll almost certainly be able to make a huge difference to the community (I can only do one of those, and deeply admire anyone who's grappled with the others!). To take the particular case you raise, I've shifted the wording in the article to a direct quote; the source is Paul Newman, a lecturer in medieval history on the east coast of the US, at first glance a reliable source. If we then disagree with him, then we ideally need contrary evidence from secondary sources etc. Where it gets awkward, if you're used to standard academia, is that I can't just quote a primary source saying something different - we rapidly get into primary research then, which isn't the purpose of the wikipedia. It is a pain, but I look forward to developing this and other articles with you.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, anonymous Texan, and for your work, Hc. Someday I would like to learn Latin and have at this stuff myself. I did just find this on Google books: Les grandes chroniques de France: Roy Phelippe, fils monseigneur Saint Loys .... I don't have time to go through this article now, but if anyone ever wants me to translate something from the Chroniques, let me know. I am pretty familiar with the Google environment, but have yet to discover how to extract an absolute url for a specific book (hence the epic url above). If anyone can tell me how, please do! Eric talk 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture...
The latest revision moved the picture of Louis back to an older version. Two issues...

... firstly, I remember User:CJ DUB going through and altering the Victorian pictures of these kings to medieval versions back in February. I'd be keen to discuss on the talk page which one the community prefers before we alter again else we'll go backwards and forwards indefinitely between medieval and (I'm guessing) 19th century. I have a mild preference for CJ DUB's edits on this one personally.

...secondly, the caption for the new version read "Louis X of France, a contemporary picture from the L'arbre généalogique Bernard Gui, Généalogie des rois de France'". Looking at the engraving, it certainly wasn't a medieval contemporary picture! Did it mean that it was a later picture based on a contemporary medieval seal or coin? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the pages on French Kings consisent as to beginning of reign date?
I know French history isn't always consistent about when they have dates of reigns, but with the Capetians, for some of the Kings, the date is their date of coronation (which I believe to be the better choice) as opposed to the date of the death of the previous King (whether their parent or not). The whole reason that some of the Capetians crowned some of their kings before the old one died is to stave off questions of accession - and the period between death and coronation. Was Louis X's accession completely uncontested and no talk of any regent? Maybe that's buried in the article somewhere, too, but somehow the article needs to distinguish between the fact that Louis was King for several months (according to the dates in the sidebar) before he had Margaret killed, and it happened before the coronation. The lead sentence was makes it sound like the coronation occurred first. Make sense?--LeValley 03:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we sure the baby king's name was John? Not Jean?--LeValley 04:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Morning! I'm writing from memory here, but I don't think medieval French kings needed to be coronated in order to be king - it was symbolic and politically important, but it didn't make them a king. You were already a king, the coronation confimed the fact. I vaguely recall some philosophical discussions about how "kingship" instantly transfered from the late king to the other. Indeed, you could be coronated several times if you remarried etc., although later coronations tended to be less fancy. I can try and fish out the references if you like, but it's been a while! I don't recall any talk of Louis X's accession being un contested, but I stand ready to be corrected!


 * I'll shift the "crowned at Reims in August 1315" clause to the end of the paragraph to avoid any confusion.


 * Jean is the French word for John; in English language histories and the English wikipedia, therefore, you'll usually see it as King John I; in French histories and the French wikipedia, King Jean I. You'll also find the odd English language history in which Jean is used, but they're usually the minority.


 * Hchc2009 (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Death of Margaret of Burgundy
See Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Queen of France for a discussion on the cause of death. For now I'll remove the rather dubious claim that she died of a cold. Huon (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Double funeral
Hello all- I just added a ref to the burial date in the infobox -- not the preferred place to cite, I know. The funeral is not mentioned in the body text at the moment. In checking out the hasty ref pasted into the previous edit summary, I came across some documentation referring to account(s) that Louis X enjoyed two funerals at St Denis, the second because his brother Philip (future V) couldn't attend the first. I thought this might make an interesting addition to Louis_X_of_France, but don't have time to do it right now. If we add a mention of the "double funeral" to the body, we could move the burial date cite from the infobox down to it. So I'm leaving this here as a note for us (maybe me?) so we'll have the ref set aside. See the extract here of the source cited by the author of the book I cited in the burial date ref. Side note: ref no. 58 on that page also mentions June 7 as the date of the first funeral. Eric talk 18:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

First sentence
I believe the current first sentence could use improvement. I tried improving it, but got reverted. In general writing it is advised to use shorter sentences, so I tried to shorten it. The current sentence is 39 words long, I reduced it to 25, without unduly taking out notable material. I removed one nickname and moved his alternate name to another sentence. I moved his reign years out of the first sentence to elsewhere in the lead, because it is info that could be in other sentences. There is something more notable that sets him apart from other kings of France. He abolished slavery. Therefore I included it in the first sentence, while moving other material out for conciseness. Thinker78 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "In general writing it is advised to use shorter sentences.."
 * Oddly you made no mention of any of this in your edit summaries.
 * Your version:


 * "'Louis X (4 October 1289 – 5 June 1316), called the Quarreler or the Stubborn (le Hutin), was a king of France who abolished slavery. He also emancipated serfs who could buy their freedom and readmitted Jews into the kingdom. As Luis I, he was also king of Navarre from 1305 until his death.''"

Instead, why not:
 * "''Louis X (4 October 1289 - 5 June 1316), was king of France King of France from 1314 and King of Navarre as Louis I (Basque: Luis) from 1305 until his death. He also abolished slavery, emancipated serfs who could buy their freedom, and readmitted Jews into the kingdom. He was known as the the Quarrelsome, the Quarreler, (le Hutin).


 * Pinging others for opinions.
 * --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * While I understand the motivation to be more concise, and I often see lede sentences in WP articles that are ungainly long, I don't see an issue with the first sentence as it was, and I prefer the intro as Kansas Bear renders it. Eric talk 02:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Kansas Bear,
 * 1. I don't think the edit summary would be a summary if I explained the complete rationale of my edit. The recommendation of shorter sentences was only one factor that drove my edit.
 * 2. I don't understand why suppressing from the first sentence the very notable action by Louis (even in worldwide standards) of the abolition of slavery. As I indicated in my original post, there are many kings of France and kings of Navarre. In my opinion it would be more useful to include what differentiate Louis from the other kings, than adding the years of his reigns, if your intention is to keep the sentence short. Per MOS:LEADBIO, "The first sentence should usually state:
 * [...]
 * 3.Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.
 * 4.One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
 * 5.The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)"
 * 3. I like that you moved alternative names to a separate sentence, but I don't understand why you chose the alternative names that basically means the same thing, instead of choosing more diverse ones.
 * 4. I think that given that Louis was called in many ways, per MOS:ALTNAME, "If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names"". Thinker78  (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "In my opinion it would be more useful to include what differentiate Louis from the other kings, than adding the years of his reigns, if your intention is to keep the sentence short."
 * I think we should stick to something similar to Philip II of France, Louis IX of France, Philip III of France(GA), Philip IV of France, Richard I of England. The William the Conqueror(FA) article has two "nicknames" in the lead sentence, Richard II of England(FA) also has their nickname in the first sentence. I could see doing it that way. The Louis VIII article should state, "reigned from 1223 until his death in 1226." The rest of the information, "invaded the Kingdom of England and led the Albigensian Crusade.", should be after that.
 * "I like that you moved alternative names to a separate sentence, but I don't understand why you chose the alternative names that basically means the same thing, instead of choosing more diverse ones."
 * I took the ones that are referenced in the article. You wish to add more, then find a WP:RS calling him those names.
 * " I think that given that Louis was called in many ways, per MOS:ALTNAME, "If there are three or more alternative names, or if there is something notable about the names themselves, they may be moved to and discussed in a separate section with a title such as "Names""."
 * I have seen various articles doing that different ways. Louis IX of France, has alternative names in the lead sentence, whereas Richard I of England's nickname appears in the 4th sentence.
 * I would prefer input from other editors regarding this issue.--Kansas Bear (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 1."I think we should stick to something similar to":
 * Philip II (21 August 1165 – 14 July 1223), byname Philip Augustus (French: Philippe Auguste), was King of France from 1180 to 1223.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 3, context (two items): 1.location is France, 2.regnal period is 1180 to 1223.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 4, role: king.
 * MOS:FIRSTBIO item 5, key accomplishment, notability other than role: MISSING.
 * Louis IX (25 April 1214 – 25 August 1270), commonly known as Saint Louis or Louis the Saint, was King of France from 1226 to 1270, and the most illustrious of the Direct Capetians.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 3, context (two items): 1.location: France, 2.regnal period is 1226 to 1270.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 4, role: king.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 5, key accomplishment: the most illustrious of the Direct Capetians.
 * Philip III (1 May 1245 – 5 October 1285), called the Bold[a] (French: le Hardi), was King of France from 1270 until his death in 1285. GOOD ARTICLE
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 3, context (two items): 1.location is France, 2.regnal period is 1270 until his death in 1285.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 4, role: king.
 * MOS:FIRSTBIO item 5, key accomplishment, notability other than role: MISSING
 * Note: One of the six good article criteria is that "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections". It seems that this previous article doesn't comply with the MOS:FIRSTBIO guideline fully.
 * William I[a] (c. 1028[1] – 9 September 1087), usually known as William the Conqueror and sometimes William the Bastard,[2][b] was the first Norman king of England, reigning from 1066 until his death in 1087. FEATURED ARTICLE
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 3, context (three items): 1.location is England, 2.regnal period is 1066 until his death in 1087, 3.ethnicity is Norman.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 4, role: king.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 5, key accomplishment, notability other than role: first Norman king of England.
 * Now let's analyze the article at hand, Louis X, as it is in the current version.
 * Louis X (4 October 1289 – 5 June 1316), called the Quarrelsome, the Headstrong, or the Stubborn (French: le Hutin), was King of France from 1314 and King of Navarre as Louis I (Basque: Luis) from 1305 until his death.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 3, context (three items): 1.locations are 1.France and 2.Navarre, 3.regnal period is 1305 until his death.
 * ✅ MOS:FIRSTBIO item 4, role (two items): 1.king of France and 2.king of Navarre.
 * MOS:FIRSTBIO item 5, key accomplishment, notability other than role: MISSING


 * 2."You wish to add more, then find a WP:RS calling him those names." 1.The alternate names that are currently in the article are not of my addition. 2.They are backed by reliable sources. Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "1.The alternate names that are currently in the article are not of my addition."
 * Never said they were. You said:
 * "but I don't understand why you chose the alternative names that basically means the same thing, instead of choosing more diverse ones."
 * And I replied, "I took the ones that are referenced in the article. You wish to add more, then find a WP:RS calling him those names." You responded:
 * "2.They are backed by reliable sources."
 * Really? Headstrong, appears only in the lead, nowhere else in the article(no source next to it). Stubborn, appears only in the lead, nowhere else in the article(no source next to it). Clearly they are not referenced in the article, as such I did not include them in my version for the Lead.
 * FYI, No. 5 The main reason the person is notable. Louis X was the king of France.
 * Also, No. 5 does not state, "notability other than role". And you also missed this part, "However, try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread relevant information over the lead section." Which is exactly what my idea for the Lead does.
 * As I said before, I would like the input from other editors.--Kansas Bear (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2. I never said they were referenced in the article. I said they are backed by reliable sources. It's a matter of doing a cursory search online. It is not standard practice to use inline citations for alternate names. If you take a look in MOS:NICK, you won't find any citation for any of the alternate names.
 * No.5. I understand you have a different interpretation and opinion. Every mind is a world. King of France is already included in the first sentence because of items 3 and 4 of MOS:BIO. Using item 5 also as its main notability is repetitive and redundant. He is notable per item 4, due to his role of king of France. Item 5 is more about what notable action the subject did that sets him apart from the other subjects that have the same role.
 * I think this is important and useful information to include in the first sentence when said additional notability exists and is concise enough to fit there. Regarding your objection about overloading, my suggestion is not about overloading, because I am simply treating item 5 of the guideline as a separate item than items 3 and 4. Therefore, it is simply following the guideline, not overloading with more notable things than is advised there.
 * Now that I think that the alternate names should be taken out of the first sentence and being informed by your comments and suggestions, I propose as first sentence the following.
 * T78 option 1: 'Louis X' (4 October 1289 – 5 June 1316) was King of France who abolished slavery. Words: 16.
 * T78 option 2: 'Louis X' (4 October 1289 – 5 June 1316) was King of France and of Navarre who abolished slavery. Words: 19.
 * T78-Kn option 3: 'Louis X' (4 October 1289 – 5 June 1316) was King of France from 1314 and of Navarre from 1305 till his death, who abolished slavery. Words: 26.  Thinker78  (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Edited 19:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kansas Bear I don't see how you think there is consensus for your change. The other two editors simply stated their preference with your version without even explaining why, something not in accordance with WP:TALKDONTREVERT, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
 * Also, you stated you wanted "the input from other editors", which hasn't happened. One other editor intervened but didn't state a preference, only suggested the use of King of France instead of a king. I have to point out that you didn't have the courtesy to reply to my proposals. Certainly there is no consensus. Thinker78  (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, I prefer KB's version. As a side note, from a quick look through multiple French reference sources, it seems that hutin is an archaic term that for a long time has only persisted as Louis X's nickname. So our inclusion of three possible English takes on his archaic French nickname seems to me to be no more than an attempt to aggregate the various English translations of hutin that have been used over the years in various English-language works. I might suggest we just keep quarrelsome in the first sentence; then, if we really find it has value to expand on the meanings of hutin, we could include that discussion later in the article. Eric talk 03:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Again, I prefer KB's version." Per WP:TALKDONTREVERT, for consensus there needs to be more substantive input than personal preference.
 * "As a side note". I do suggest informing the readers about that in a separate section, per MOS:ALTNAME. Thinker78  (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, "common sense" is an acceptable reason for preferring something; since KB's version is clearly better than yours, it is fine for people to make that observation. Likewise, consensus is not unanimity, and it is not necessary that you be personally satisfied that your objections have been met. JBL (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * JBL, it's common sense that improvements are achieved through meaningful discussion, not just by subjective opinions of "I like this better" or "it is clearly better". Although Kansas disagrees with me, certainly they are providing meaningful input. Your input is certainly not meaningful. There are thousands of editors in Wikipedia. If 2 or 3 show disagreementincluding me with an edit in 24 hours, it doesn't mean that said disagreement reflects the community as a whole. Specially, as I indicated, because "arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that everyone else agrees that KB's version is better is meaningful, even if not all of us feel that there's much point in trying to express why to someone who is not willing to recognize a clear consensus against their preferred version. You are well into tedious bludgeoning and wikilawyering -- please stop. JBL (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I recommend that we use "King of France", rather then "king of France". Since there's no prefix used. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the first sentence in Louis X
Was wp:consensus reached in the first sentence discussion above and which first sentence version would be better to include in the article? Thinker78 (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Do us a favor and don’t call an RfC to adjudicate consensus. I suggest striking first of your two questions. On whether a consensus was reached, I have to say the above discussion is against you, Thinker78. — HTGS (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggestion As an outsider, with no direct access to relevant sources, I can’t tell what status each of the nicknames have. My take, reading the article and the above discussion, is that the nickname Hutin was only ever applied in French? If that’s the case, and his English-speaking contemporaries didn’t call him “the Quarrelsome” etc, then I would lead with the French, and follow that with “translated as quarrelsome or headstrong”, and I definitely wouldn’t call him both “the quarrelsome” and “the quarreler” in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with HTGS' suggestion for how to present the translation of Hutin; in any case "the quarreler" should be dropped. Eric talk 02:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Normal editing and consensus processes have already fully addressed these questions; starting an RfC merely because you do not accept the clear consensus of other editors is a pointless waste of time. --JBL (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

1315 Ordinance
The information concerning this ordinance is referenced by:

Jean Lacouture is a journalist not an historian and has no specialization in this area.
 * Lacouture, Jean (1984). Pierre Mendès France. Holmes & Meier. p. 30. ISBN 0841908567.

Unauthored and outdated
 * Ordonnances des Roi de France, V, p.1311, as quoted in Travers Twist. "The Extraterritoriality of Public Ships of War in Foreign Waters", The Law Magazine and Review: A Quarterly Review of Jurisprudence, Volume 1, No. 219, Saunders and Benning (February 1876)

Has been misrepresented and cherry-picked.
 * The French Atlantic Triangle: Literature and Culture of the Slave Trade", Christopher L. Miller, page 20
 * "If any moral scruples impaired the French entry into the trade—for example, those that made for a ban on the sale of slaves in Bordeaux in the 1570s—by the time labor was called for by Caribbean planters in the second quarter of the seventeenth century, everything moral and material was in place. There could not have been great obstacles, since forms of slavery (serfdom and galley slavery, for example), still existed in France itself. The Church not only did not object but, in the person of Bossuet, encouraged slavery." --"The French Atlantic Triangle: Literature and Culture of the Slave Trade", Christopher L. Miller, Duke University Press, page 20.

Whereas;
 * "Thus, no matter how suggestive the linguistic similarity between France and affranchissement, the fact remains that the practice of freeing slaves upon arrival in France had no basis in Louis X's 1315 ordinance." --"There Are No Slaves in France, The Political Culture of Race and Slavery in the Ancien Regime" -- Sue Peabody, Oxford University Press, 1996.


 * "Serfdom continued to be an existing though declining institution right until the end of Ancien Regime France, and the famous 1315 act of Louis X enfranchised hardly any serfs, and no slaves at all." --"Liberty, Slavery and the Law in Early Modern Western Europe: Omnes Homines Aut Liberi Sunt Aut Servi", Filip Batselé, Springer International Publishing, page 77.
 * "One origin of the French freedom principle can easily be discarded; Louis X was talking about serfs, not slaves, in his 1315 ordonnance, and he was not even planning to free all of them." -- "Liberty, Slavery and the Law in Early Modern Western Europe: Omnes Homines Aut Liberi Sunt Aut Servi", Filip Batselé, Springer International Publishing, page 87.


 * "In 1315 King Louis X of France issued a decree enfranchising serfs on certain Crown lands." --"Liberty Intact: Human Rights in English Law", Michael Tugendhat, Oxford University Press, page 41.

Sue Peabody is Professor of history at Washington State University Vancouver. Filip Batselé works at Ghent University’s Institute for Legal History. Michael Tugendhat was a scholar at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge where he graduated in Classics and Philosophy. In 1967-8 he held a Henry Fellowship at Yale University. Christopher L. Miller, professor in the Department of French and the Program in African and African-American Studies at Yale University.

I believe this is enough evidence to bring cause to rewrite the portion concerning the 1315 ordinance. As such it should clearly not be mentioned in the lead of the article. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * KB, thank you for looking into this issue. Based on the sources you provide, I'm inclined to agree with you. Eric talk 21:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Kansas Bear It seems to be you did a thorough job into looking these sources. I beg to ask a few questions. What was your methodology? Did you search for information regarding Louis ordinance of "freeing the slaves" in general or were you more specific and looking for evidence that Louis did not free slaves? Did you find material that was acceptable to your standards for references that indicated that Louis did free the slaves? What was your conclusion? Thinker78  (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Investigating myself, I have to concede that the claim that Louis X abolished slavery is controversial and some experts believe it was actually about abolishing serfdom and then only for certain serfs. Thinker78  (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)