Talk:John, Duke of Berry

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility 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 This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

According to

Confusion can only be created when the title of an article can equally refer to two men. In this case, it can equally refer to this man and his nephew,

John II, Duke of Berry. Has it ever crossed your mind that French Wiki calls him fr:Jean Ire de Berry for a reason? You say that nobody has ever referred to "John II, Duke of Berry". That is not true.

Please get your facts straight before jumping to conclusions.

Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy should also get his facts straight. John's title was not merely a courtesy title. It was an appanage, attached to the Duchy of Berry. Using ordinals to distinguish two namesakes who held the title is thus completely normal. Surtsicna (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You find TWO references in the whole of google books. In fact if you had looked at the first (some sort of typed paper), you would have seen that it clearly refers to the subject of this article as a commissioner of manuscripts, and cites a proper book which uses the plain name just like everyone else. Presumably it is a misprint. The 2nd one is equally puzzling, as it refers to "Catherine of France" marrying John II, Duke of Berry, but neither the subject of this article nor his (actually) great-nephew

Catherine of Valois, Countess of Montpensier (neice of the duc de Berry, aunt of Dauphin Jean) as a child, but pre-deceased his father, so was never "Duke of Berry", though he is also known as "John of Berry". So both these references turn out to be mistakes, and you have yet to demonstrate any RS using John II, Duke of Berry, even in a family tree! Many thanks to Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy for restoring the correct title. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If two are not enough, I can give you more. Besides, two is much more than nothing, as you claimed. Here's a RS referring directly and clearly to the Dauphin as Jean II de Berry. You obviously feel about this more strongly than I do, so I won't push towards precision and unambiguity anymore. But please don't claim that it is incorrect to call him John I when it's obviously not, for there were two Johns of Berry and two Dukes of Berry named John. Surtsicna (talk) 12:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But both those two are wrong, wrong, wrong! Neither refer to the "right" Jean II. I can't read the highlighted bit in the new link (off the snippet, i can only see the top of the highlight), but obviously no one is going to refer to the Dauphin as the duc de Berry in general contexts. This is about the article title, using normal WP policies, not whether he actually was John I, Duke of Berry in an abstract sense, which I have no problem with. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article only seriously cites a single article from Richard K. Emmerson's Key Figures in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia (2013), which is not a strong enough source for much of the material on this page. Numerous books have been written on topics touching on Jean de Berry, including a multi-volume series specifically on his life which is nowhere cited here. Much of the information on this page is not cited, there is a ton of information missing or overly simplified, and there are at least a few potential errors such as the date that Jean returned from captivity in England. Had I the time, I would re-write this entire article, but I do not at present. Some material on the reconquest of Poitou can be brought over from the French article, but other material, specifically relating to the

Should not John, consequently, merely be identified as a son of John II and a member of the House of Valois? Random noter (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]