Talk:Isabelle of Chartres

Rating

@Johnsoniensis: Can you explain the C rating? What exactly do you think the article is missing? Srnec (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Category

@Aciram: I don't know about following the practice, but "count" is not gender neutral in that sense and "countess" does not just mean "wife of a count". You need to get the categories re-named if you want all the ruling counts and countesses in the same category. But nothing about "countess" implies non-rulership, so I don't see the problem. Srnec (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, it is, and have always been, the common practice to place ruling monarchs/rulers - and in this time period, that is in effect what these vassals were in all but name - in a different category from the consorts of monarchs/rulers. The key difference is to separate rulers from ruler-consorts. The title as such is of less importance than the meaning/practice of the title. This person was a ruler. She ruled a county. That makes her a ruler. To sort her as a ruler is the main purpose of placing her in the category. In the category "Counts of Chartres", we see the rulers of the County of Chartres. Therefore, that is the category she should be placed. The fact that she was called countress because of her gender is of less importance. This is the common rule here on Wikipedia. For example: look at the article of Eleanor of Aquitaine. Because of her gender, she was called "Duchess". But she is still placed in the category "Dukes of Aquitaine". Why? Because she was a ruling Duchess. She was not a duchess simply because she was married to the Duke: she was not a duchess-consort. She was a ruling duchess. Therefore, she is categorized as a duke. That is the norm out of practicality. It gives a trughtful illustration of her position: she was in the same position as a Duke, that is, a ruler, since no Dukes were ever just spouses of a ruler. If we place her in the duchess-category, she will simply be among the women who were duchesses merely because they were married to the dukes. That would make the category useless, and give a wrongful impression of her position as a ruler.

Now, since you appear to be attached to this article in particular, you can have it your way in this case. I do not have the time or energy to engage in a conflict about the issue. It would make her appear to be simply a wife among wives rather than the ruling count(ess) she was, and that would make an erranous impression. But if that is what you prefer for this article, then so be it. I assume it will eventually be changed back by someone else, who might have more time and energy to spend on this discussion. Have a nice Christmas. --Aciram (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Eleanor of Aquitaine, you, Aciram, seem to be the one responsible for the change. Was there a discussion somewhere? Srnec (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)