Talk:Biette de Cassinel

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mistress?

It is preposterous to say that Biette Cassinel was not the mistress of Dauphin Charles. A loaded and unsubstantiated quote in english 600 years removed from the subject matter and period DOES NOT qualify as a reference. If you do not read the actual french secondary sources from this period, which in this instance goes as far as describing how Charles specifically wore Biettes' family emblem in public, then you cannot be editing these pages, because all of the original sources are in french. Even finding where they are is difficult. The quote being left here should not be on this page. People need to edit subjects in the language they understand when it is not a contemporary subject, because it is inappropriate if you cannot or are not referencing the actual first hand and secondary sources when you are trying to have an actual encyclopedia, otherwise it is just another blog, and we are better than that.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"because it is inappropriate if you cannot or are not referencing the actual first hand and secondary sources when you are trying to have an actual encyclopedia, otherwise it is just another blog.."

Actually it was you who used a blog to support your own edit. So much for "600 years removed from the subject matter". LMAO. You search for what you wanted it to say and then used whatever supports your own personal POV.

Merlet, which I have added to both articles, explains clearly how Jean de Montagu could not be Charles V's son, and that he was 12 or 13 at the time of Jean's birth.

"A loaded and unsubstantiated quote in english 600 years removed from the subject matter and period DOES NOT qualify as a reference."

Actually it does. Feel free to take your own sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Also, another threat from you logged in or out as you did here, will result in the notification of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source, Champion, Chez H. (1884). Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France (Tome XI ed.). Paris. p. 220, is not written by Chez H. Champion which is the publisher. The page 220, cites Gilles Corrozet(a French writer), Antiquites de Paris, livre II, p.118. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]