Talk:Éléonore de Roye

Eleanor's converting Prince de Conde

Per R.J. Knecht's, The French Civil Wars, page 53:

• "Other important Protestant ladies included Madeleine de Mailly, comtesse de Roye, whose daughter married and converted the prince de Conde.."
  

Per the article;

• "Eleonore was a loyal spouse, a devoted mother, and, above all, a fervent believer in the Reformed (Protestant) faith, having converted her husband Louis.",Knecht,p=53
  

Not seeing what the issue is. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi! It's not the conversion statement that I'm against - this is actually her main argument for inclusion, according to all sources I could find. First of all, if it's direct attribution it should be quoted, otherwise it a)would be plagiarism, b)it would be extremely non-neutral. I was under the impression these things were unacceptable on Wikipedia! In Knecht (2000), where does it say she was "a loyal spouse, a devoted mother, and, above all, a fervent believer"? Not only that, but "her final hours filled with loving admonitions to her family as well as prayers and meditations" is unreferenced too. Even if it did say those things, I hardly would consider such comments appropriate for an encyclopedia. I look forward to your rebuttal or consequent corrections. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKen (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, after checking my edits, I added, "having converted her husband Louis", with the cooresponding reference. The rest of the sentence was already there. I am ok with taking her conversion of Louis to somewhere else within the article if this part;

• "Eleonore was a loyal spouse, a devoted mother, and, above all, a fervent believer in the Reformed (Protestant) faith"
  

...bothers you, we can remove it. Numerous editors write a bit too much flowery, most times highly unsourced, prose into articles.

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We might leave this part:

• "She died on 23 July 1564"

Fairly certain she's dead now. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And I fixed the formatting of your reference to match the other references. Hope that was not a problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that unsourced flowery prose, and moved the sourced part to within the article. If you have any other concerns, just let me know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)