Talk:Henry, son of Robert I of Burgundy

	Biography portal 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.

Identity of Wife[edit]

Can someone provide more information on comment "The name of his wife is unknown (that it was Sibil has been discredited)...". I have a source 'Royalty for Commoners' by Roderick Stuart that indicates the following: 'Line 85-30. Henry, Duke of Burgundy, heir apparent of the Duchy of Burgundy; b. c1035; d. 27 Jan 1070/74; md c1056 Sibylle (Sybilla) of Barcelona, d. 6 July 1074; dau of Raymond Berenger I (54-33), Count of Barcelona and Gisela of Lluca. Henry and Sibylle were parents of Henry I of Burgundy (85-30). Henry was son of Helie de Semur (85-31) and Robert I of Burgandy (154-33).

Line 245-32. Henry I, Duke of Burgundy; b. c1035; d. 27 Jan 1070/74; md Sibylle of Barcelona, b. c1035; d. 6 July 1074; bur Eglise St. Etienne, Besancon; dau Raymond Berenger I (54-33) and (3) Gisela of Lluca (85-30). Henry and Sibylle were parents of Eudes I Borel (245-31). Henry was son of Robert I of France (245-33, 154-33) and Helie de Semur (85-31).'

Andaleen 17:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have another source that says there is some uncertainty about her name but claims she's the daughter of Berenguer Ramon I, Count of Barcelona [1]. Its a genealogical website but this one is usually fairly conservative guessing famous fathers for wives. DavidRF (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original source that led to this name being assigned to Henry's wife was a charter naming 'Duchess Sybil'. Since Henry never succeeded to the title, this can't be his wife. There is no other known document that either names Henry's wife, or provides the least indication of her ancestry. It also should be added that Stuart's Royalty for Commoners does not represent a scholarly genealogical source, having been scourged by numerous reviewers for being sloppy, inaccurate and uncritical, and should not be used as a WP:RS. Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged[edit]

The individual is non-notable, a genealogical placeholder, and so I have merged this page with his father, Robert I, Duke of Burgundy.

. . . on second thought, following merger, this page converted to disambiguation. Agricolae (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Reinstated[edit]

Considering the historical importance of this character in the genealogical history of both the Burgundian and Portuguese royal houses, I feel that his presence is necessary as a separate entry. His lack of titles does not disqualify him as a relevant historical figure. Simply being a member of the Capetian dynasty is usually enough to warrant an article. For some reason Henry of Burgundy has been denied this. Three of his children rose to prominence with a four becoming a bishop. He was the grandson of a French king in the male line. I've expanded the article somewhat from its former version and I've added a more reliable and relevant primary source for the citation regarding his wife and his own existence. I hope this justifies this article's existence. If not, I'll see if I can dig up anything else about him. At least now the Robert I, Duke of Burgundy article doesn't have a crowded family history section as it did previously. That much information deserves its own page.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 08:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Medieval Genealogy Source[edit]

I'm not quite sure why a registered non-profit that uses primary source material almost exclusively for its aggregate research is consider a "questionable source" but I have been a dues paying member of this academic group for four years and their research is some of the best, most critical medieval genealogical material out there today. Their research has easily disproved parts of every other medieval genealogical study that predates it including Burke's Peerage. The foundation has its own scholarly journal as well an annual scholarship. I'm not sure what more you want from your citations. If you're looking for a print citation of this kind of material, you are extremely unlikely to find one.

Once more, this time formally, I ask to reinstate the citation from the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy which has been removed twice now. Thank you.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 09:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether its a "registered non-profit" is irrelevant. The "questionable source" issue is:

1.Who is/are the author(s)? The Trustees?

Robin Evans is by profession an airline pilot?

Joe Edwards graduated from Imperial College, London, in 2001 as a mechanical engineer?

Steve Edwards is a veterinarian by profession?

Jackie graduated in 2001 with a degree in History and Art History from the Open University. In 2006, she completed a Masters in Local and Regional History at Cambridge University?

Lindsay Brook graduated from Wadham College, Oxford, in 1964. He spent most of his career in social research?

Are the authors Giles Dickson? Rosie Bevan? Steven Edwards, (the veterinarian)? Joseph Edwards? Charles Cawley? Regina Hoffmann?

Only one listed trustee appears to even be an historian, although with an MA. As it stands right now, should Wikipedia allow a website that relies on a veterinarian to write medieval history, as a source? I noticed you did not give that information, which according to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source is important.

"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

the piece of work itself (the article, book);
the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting 1 week and receiving no response to my concerns over FMG, I will be removing FMG as a source. If and when FMG can be shown to be a reliable source(properly cited, academic author & published) then it can be re-added. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a critical misunderstanding here. The source being described as FGM is not a collaborative effort of that organization. Rather, FGM has decided to host on its web site the Medieval Lands database. This has been compiled by a single compiler, Charles Cawley, without editorial input from the overall organization. To evaluate the quality of the Medieval Lands database, only the qualifications of Mr. Cawley are relevant. 69.166.47.107 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 June 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– This little-known man is not the primary referent of "Henry of Burgundy", which is much more likely to describe his son. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal. My main complaint has been that Henry, son of Robert I of Burgundy, needs a page not just as a genealogical placeholder, but because of the importance of his children and how his premature death altered the history of the Duchy of Burgundy early in its history. He also was one of the only legitimate Capetian grandsons without a page when enough information is known about him to warrant a page. He certainly is not the most important Capetian, but he is also more relevant than many, including some Capetians who had titles.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 23:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Others' are known by this name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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