Talk:Philip of France (1116–1131)

Walter Map: odd man out
Suger describes Philip as "[u]n fils du roi Louis, un enfant d'une santé florissante et de façons agréables...l'espoir des gens de bien et la terreur des méchants...". I understand that Orderic Vitalis is similarly well disposed towards the subject of the article. Why quote Map? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Because I was paraphrasing Meade's brief account of Philip in Eleanor of Aquitaine, and used (and referenced) her quotes. If you have more information about him, write it in by all means. Michael Sanders 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, although I'm of the opinion that you should quote the source you read rather than the ones they reference. I'll see what I can come up with: I don't have a book and chapter reference for the Suger quote, and I can't lay my hands on Orderic's version. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps - my opinion is that if a modern writer quotes a previous writer, it's more informative to say where the quote came from originally (so as to maintain the distinction between what a modern writer says and someone more contemporary says). But never mind. Michael Sanders 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Map was born several years after the incident in question and adds the details about the Greve and the dunghill. He does not specifically say the Greve was a market. While it is true that a market was held there, nothing in either Segur or Map tells us it was being held there that day (if Philip and his friends were indeed galloping through an active market, that greatly changes the story). Segur lived during these events and may actually have seen the prince dying. His account in Latin is here:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k112280b/f170.image.r=philip?fbclid=IwAR18p6W0l97qr8qy7TPjNiKOwaN9zOFRt4Vtag4a1H_t8oBx6mRLRsKgqfg


 * and in French here:

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k94604t/f170.item.r=porc?fbclid=IwAR1Xi6-mawBKMShAdGs5BVXpwd_pMACwxulZFrrEwpZsvgBWikdyDH1YEcs


 * (Should anyone still be around fourteen years later. :) )

2600:1700:8D40:9B60:993E:C8E7:69F:E4CF (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Article title
Michaelsanders has twice renamed this page "Philip (II) of France". He has provided no evidence that this is what this prince is called in the scholarly literature. Such a move is controversial and should not be done unilaterally by one editor. Noel S McFerran 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no proof is required here. The boy was a monarch. According to Naming conventions (names and titles): "Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries in the format "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Examples: Edward I of England; Alfonso XII of Spain; Henry I of France." He was Philip, he was the second King Philip of his kingdom but is not numbered as such, he was King of France; therefore, Philip (II) of France is required by the rules. The exceptions being:


 * 1) "These conventions do not apply to Eastern and Polynesian civilizations. See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Thailand-related articles)." N/A
 * 2) "# Roman Emperors do not need the "of the Roman Empire", nor would Pericles be "of Athens" nor Algirdas "of Lithuania" — their names already indicate where they were from. The first line of the article can say when (and which empire) they ruled. Otherwise, we get stuck with Roman Emperor, Western R. E., Eastern R. E., Byzantine E., and (under the Carolingians) Roman Emperor (again). See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)" N/A
 * 3) "It has been proposed that leaders of a people, rather than a country or nation, (for example, the late antique Germanic tribes) should be called "of the Goths", etc., or have no ethnic disambiguation at all. "Of the Goths", "Picts", "Lombards", are not widely used, but this is a reasonable suggestion when disambiguation is necessary." N/A
 * 4) "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc...". But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionhearted is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England; again, if two kings of different countries are both known in English as Name the Great (for example Louis the Great of Hungary and Louis the Great of France), do not use the epithet but disambiguate them by country (those two are at Louis I of Hungary and Louis XIV of France)." N/A - this person is not known by any cognomen. Unless you are suggesting that Philip of France (1116-1131) is a universally recognisable name that would be surprising to be omitted, exception 4 is irrelevant.

So, I'm sorry. The Burgundian Dukes were given never-used titles because of the rules. The same applies here: if you stand by the naming conventions, you have to stand by them full time. Michael Sanders 13:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the (II) is a problem. Philip (II) of France is Philip Augustus. Never being senior king, this guy never had a regnal number bestowed on him. It's the same issue as with Charles the Younger, son of Charlemagne, who is not Charles II, that's Charles the Bald. Hard cases make bad law, et cetera. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe bracketed ordinals are generally used to denote someone who would hold those ordinals, but who has been supplanted in the chain by another; see Henry (VII) of Germany, who is much the same case. The point here is that this person was a monarch, but does not, as is the case with Henry the Young King or Hugh Magnus of France, or for that matter Charles the Younger, have an immediately recognisable cognomen that anyone who knows about the person will know and use; accordingly, he needs to be properly represented as a monarch, rather than as an indistinguishable prince (or shall we represent all the Kings by dates: Louis of France (1120-1180), for example?). Either you stand by the naming conventions or you don't; yes this name is artificial, but yes, it is required by the rules; just as the Burgundian Dukes were given artificial titles to keep in line with the rules. If we don't follow the rules here, what's stopping me renaming Philip III, Duke of Burgundy as Philip the Good? Michael Sanders 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's try something else. The OUP's indexers say "Philip, the young king of France, Louis VI's son" in their edition of Map, and "Philip, Louis VI's son" (ooh, ambiguous) in their edition of Henry of Huntingdon. What does your book on the fair Eleanor call him in the index? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Capet, Philip (son of Louis VI of France). Not much help. Michael Sanders 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A pity, because Philip the Young King would have been rather neat. Unfortunately gbooks doesn't have the P-Z part of the index for the New Cambridge Medieval Hist., vol 4. I do not especially like this name: I picked it because it's a translation of the French wiki name. His brothers should likely be renamed Henry of France, Archbishop of Reims and Philip of France, Bishop of Paris, but this guy is a puzzle. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look up the word "convention" in a dictionary. There are all sorts of exceptions to the naming conventions.  An official policy of Wikipedia (and an official policy always trumps a convention) is no original research.  We are not permitted to define new terms.  If it hasn't been done in published scholarship, then it can't be done here. Noel S McFerran 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The monarchs are named according to rules. Not conventions. Nor is it original research to name a person in line with the rules of the encyclopaedia. Artificial, yes, I admit that (but he was a monarch, and the (1116-1131) title doesn't properly indicate that); OR, no. It would be OR to concoct a new title of 'Philip the Young King', since such a name doesn't exist, and is never used. The title of 'Philip (II) of France' is hardly satisfactory (but then there are plenty of unsatisfactory titles in wikipedia: the Dukes of Burgundy, for a start), but the rules clearly demand it. Michael Sanders 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no naming rules; there is a naming conventions guideline. Wikipedia doesn't decide to name somebody by a name which has never been used for that person before. Encyclopedias don't make up new things; they collect and summarize what has already been published. Noel S McFerran 21:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And what, pray tell, has been made up? Do you dispute that he was a King? Because if not, this is clearly the title. After all, I could ask, where do the article titles of the Burgundian Dukes derive from? The point remains, in wikipedia, we clearly denote monarchs by their names. You claim it is merely a 'guideline'. I disagree there; it is enforced as a rule. No European monarch, post about 1066, is not treated according to the conventions regarding the titles of monarchs. This person is no different. So do you have any constructive proposals about what to name him, if you object to the current title? Michael Sanders 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What was made up? WP:NCNT was made up; Noel was one of the people who wrote it. Please stop arguing with him and go do something useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If he wrote it then he should be more committed to it, not less; since it clearly states that monarchs are to be disambiguated with country and ordinal. But thanks, by the way, for barging in with your helpful attitude; just the sort of behaviour which can turn a mild disagreement into an all-out flame war. So helpful. Michael Sanders 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly acceptable - indeed it's a good thing - when other editors enter into a discussion. Regarding Naming conventions (names and titles), please read the first line, "This page is a naming conventions guideline for Wikipedia".  The word "guideline" is a link to the Policies and guidelines page where the word "guidelines" is defined as "less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases." Michaelsanders clearly believes that the guideline applies here; several other editors, including myself, believe otherwise. Noel S McFerran 19:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. So I could rename Charles VI of France as Charles the Mad? Philip V of France as Philip the Tall? Charles I, Duke of Burgundy (who was Charles II, by the way?) as Charles the Bold? If you say that these are really 'only guidelines', then you have to explain why they are enforced as rules: although, judging by your unacceptable behaviour at Louis, Dauphin of France (1729-1765), I get the impression that you maintain a "do as I say, not as I do" approach to the rules. In any case, they are enforced as rules, in order to clearly disambiguate monarchs from non-monarchs and from each other.


 * And incidentally, it is never acceptable to burst into a discussion solely in order to insult someone, and to claim that I shouldn't be asking you to enforce the rules you wrote. Michael Sanders 19:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Philip (II) of France → Philip of France (1116-1131) — The current name is not used in the scholarly literature. It has been made up by a Wikipedia editor. There is a king of France called Philip II, but he is a totally different person. The man who lived from 1116 to 1131 has never been called "Philip II of France" (with or without parentheses). Noel S McFerran 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as nominator. Noel S McFerran 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: wikipedia is very strict about disambiguating monarchs: and this person was a monarch. The current title is thus fully in line with wikipedia rules and conventions. Michael Sanders 20:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. When we discussed this a while back, disambiguation by birth/death dates was accepted as the last resort in desperate cases. This person has no generally accepted name, and no ordinal can be applied, which leaves dates as the only option. This is belongs to an unusual subset of articles where the conventional guidelines are not applicable. No rules can be expected to cover every case equally well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Including this title in the article would violate WP:NPOV which, as an official policy, trumps the Naming conventions guideline. Using "Philip II" as the article title would be justified if it 1. were the title by which he is best known, or 2. both conventional and non-controversial -- otherwise the usage is misleading (because it isn't prevalent) and POV. The objective of the Naming conventions is ease in article location, not advancement of disputed titles -- which violates WP:GAME. Since neither criterion is met here, the usage isn't justified. Lethiere 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. No use adding an ordinal in parentheses which is the actual ordinal of a later French monarch. That's just confusing for those not familiar with the period. Srnec 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

This is 4-1, and the four wrote the relevant guideline: WP:NCGN. Michael, please acknowledge that there is consensus against you, and stop moving the page.

The versions of this talk page should be merged, I trust that will be uncontroversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Preceded by
Having the subject's grandfather be his predecessor is useless and misleading. He was preceeded as King of France by his father; if we want to be au pied de la lettre, as "co-King under Louis VI", he had none. Either will do, but Philip I suggests strongly that he came co-King at the beginning of his father's reign, which is false.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * But the last person to have been a King ruling jointly with another King was Philip I. Louis VI was not crowned in his father's lifetime, and consequently only became King on his coronation at Orleans after his father's death. Michael Sanders 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see how any reader would expect that to be the meaning of the previous: box. It totally confused me the first time I saw it, which is why I have altered it twice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)