Talk:Alberic I, Count of Dammartin

	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.

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.

Problematic description of this man

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The only reliable source quoted here concludes that Aubrey I was son of Odo de Dammartin, of the English branch of the family - ths is a distinct theory from the conclusion that the later counts descended from Aubrey de Mello and his wife Adela. Thus the entire text of this article is an incomprehensible muddle of two competing theories. Agricolae (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

And now the problem has been 'fixed' by deleting the one option that was documented by a reliable source but didn't have a page number in the cite, while leaving the entirely unreferenced alternative. I am not following the logic of that edit. Agricolae (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I assume you are speaking at me, since I am the one that removed;

Medlands Project. An unreliable source, at best. Which I have proven to be wrong(if not outright lying) on at least 4 occasions.
The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume V, Contest of Empire and Papacy', Cambridge at the University Press, 1926. Which I checked for mention of Alberic, Count of Dammartin to no avail.[1]
Mathieu, J. N., Recherches sur les premiers Comtes de Dammartin, Mémoires publiés par la Fédération des sociétés historiques et archéologiques de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France, 1996. Unsearchable to me.

So should not the creator of this article be held to some responsiblility for their creation? I guess not. So far I see source misrepresentation, an unverifiable source, and unsourced speculation. As for "following the logic of that edit", know I have restored this article to its condition before my edits and will hence forth avoid all Grampinator's articles leaving them for what they are. Oddly enough, I thought this was an encyclopedia that was held to certain forms like Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia:V, and Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

And what ended up being left was no source, misrepresentation and unsourced speculation. To quote a wise Wikipedian, "Oddly enough, I thought this was an encyclopedia that was held to certain forms like Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia:V, and Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS." Agricolae (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic