Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 4

message: Dzonatas, it is simply unacceptable to revert a footnote three times in one day and obliterate a proper citation to a leading historian.  As a gesture of goodwill I have retained the link to your addition at Joan of Arc factes and trivia.  However, the material you inserted there is inadequately referenced.  The version of Christine de Pizan's poem you use is not the original text but an edited edition published in 1977.  No versions are given for the other three documents.  You are attempting to conduct original research about fifteenth century linguistics without access to the original material and presenting yourself as a better authority than the conservator of the Archives of France.  These violations are actionable under Wikipedia policies.  Please to not push this to the point of administrator intervention. Durova 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I left you a message on your talk page as a more appropriate forum for non-article related issues. — Dzonatas 16:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can hardly expect another editor to remain silent after you accuse them of things they haven't done.  This is a form of baiting.  Please refrain from it.  Durova 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Durova, please keep your comments related to the article 

message: After a careful review, it appears thet the DesIsles family tree can be used as a source for this article. It is, however, limited to just a primary source. I haven't released it to the public domain, so that step needs to be finalized. To complete it, it would be best for me to leave out any descension added since it was last traced since there was attempts to use personal information from it. With all the arguments against the document, there has not been any that would not let it be a primary source. It's been published on-line and in local academic work, but I do not plan to publish it in some mainstream book where I have to pay for such publishment. Any other advice to help keep it a primary source is welcome. Perhaps, somebody would like to use it to create a secondary source. — Dzonatas 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DesIsles family tree 

message: Who conducted this review?  The strong consensus has always been that this violates WP:V, with you as the sole dissenter.  If you insist this remains an open issue I'll initiate an RfC.Durova 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a review of guidelines about primary sources. There was a notion against it in usage for original research on here. Surely, I did not put original research into this article based on the document as a secondary source. If anything, you have tried to use your sources to disqualify other sources from this article. The disqualification attempt itself is original research. I've always said I've heard many stories about Joan of Arc. I even like the one where it doesn't even envolve saints or sainthood, which is pretty neat. However, I doubt such a story will find its way into this article. Primary sources still can be cited -- just like the testimony. — Dzonatas 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I'd like to go ahead with RfC.  That way we'll get fresh opinions and you'll know they're not biased.  You mentioned editing the family tree to remove the most recent generations.  Let me know when it's ready.  We can link to it from the current talk page and get a fair response. Durova 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be your statement to open the RfC? — Dzonatas 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That puts the cart before the horse. Consider that we can use diaries and testimony as a primary source, your'''''''']] question is already answered. Your question could be made more neutral: "is a primary source an appropriate reference to use in Joan of Arc?" — Dzonatas 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Durova, that is not helpful. The intent was to help it stay a primary source, not to question it as a primary source because you don't agree with it by your own original research found in this talk page archive. I've already edited out additions made after the last author and republished it (not on my site). As for you intent to question a primary source, there is already a thread on the mail-list about primary sources. — Dzonatas 14:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There is another about sources, too. — Dzonatas 14:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is the place to discuss how to edit this article.  No consensus is needed to initiate an RfC, yet I sought agreement as a gesture of good faith.  Earlier you had stated that you wanted to remove the most recent names from the record to protect your family's privacy.  I provided you a full day to do so.  Rather than removing those names or agreeing upon a neutral wording you insisted upon a rhetorical statement of your own POV and made repeated accusations against me.  The RfC is now open. Durova 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I just didn't think you'd believe me. Durova 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary section header 

message: Someone added this to the article yesterday.  As a photograph it has several problems: composition, underexposure, color balance.  It also needs a better caption.  This looks like a candidate for Wikimedia Commons unless somebody wants to put it through photoshop. Durova 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears very sharp and clear on my screen. The words under the statue are "Jahaune an Sacre." — Dzonatas 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No rush: they loaded it to commons and categorized it pretty well. Durova 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to change it. The yellow is from the spot. An increase in gamma would flood the specular, which would change the appearance of material. The details in the background are visiable. There is only a very small area under the arches and flag where the darkness blurs the shadow, which was most likely a limitation of the camera. The gray in the front and top suggests the color balance is fine, and that the yellowish orange light is from a spot. If it wasn't for the shadow blur, the lack of depth makes it almost appear computer rendered. — Dzonatas 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What would be fair is to request a software change to let ImageMagick (the software that modifies the images on the fly) to also crop and tweak as you see fit for the thumbnail. That could be done by extra parameters in the image tag. The original is fine; there is no need to change it. — Dzonatas 14:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image 

message: Request:
Dzonatas asserts he has a document that should be used for editing this article.  It claims his family is descended from Joan of Arc's brother.  He has transcribed it to Wikifamilies at DesIsle Family Tree.  He has said his relative traced this around 1958 and the research was done at the Smithsonian and the New York Public Libarary (Talk:Joan of Arc#Tone (revisited)).  Dzonatas attempted to introduce this document as an encyclopedic source months ago when he edited under his old username Mr. Ballard.
The family tree itself states that none of the American branch of the family speaks French so his relative Ms. Bearwald was unable to read in the original language.  The extent of her research is unknown since she recorded no references.  When this first came to my attention I reviewed it, mainly for his benefit, and I also gave him links to French archivists who could help investigate his claim of descent.  Two points from that discussion are relevant here:
*Joan of Arc was born a peasant.  The practice of parish registers for non-noble births did not begin until several generations after her death.
*The chronology has large gaps.  Between 1436 and 1580 it records only one event, a marriage in 1485.
When this matter was under discussion last fall other editors protested that the family tree had never been peer reviewed or published in a reliable venue.  A few days ago Dzonatas returned and asserted that this is a primary source, hence appropriate for an encyclopedia without review.  I have a university degree in history and I believe he misunderstands the definition of a primary source.  Additionally, a French forensic investigation of Joan of Arc's reputed remains began in February 2006.  Lead scientist Philippe Charlier told the BBC that, "no DNA comparison with possible descendants will be carried out because Joan of Arc's family tree is probably false."   Dzonatas is unreceptive to my feedback so I invite the opinions of other editors. Durova 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, my comment is based on a reading of the talk page and its archives. Please don't assume what I have and haven't read. If the "primary source" isn't the DesIsle Family Tree formerly reproduced on the now-blanked out webpage, what is the "primary source"? If it's verifiable, where can we verify it? Thanks, Akhilleus 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your interest. My point is to simply make the document a solid primary source. Its main purpose was to trace the relationship, not to be a genealogy. It also contains notes. There are expired reviews, as not verifiable by standards here, of it. Edna (who wrote the last hardcopy edition) also reviewed the earlier traces. Consider how Durova has acted here, I do not want to release the new address right now on this talk page. Durova's claims are false. I have already started to send out requests for peer-review -- just not directly to Durova or for Durova's supervision of the review. Despite Durova's peer-pressure, I do busy myself with other aspect of life and not just focus Durova's demands to rush and get this done. Durova has only proven one thing about the document; that it is "testable," which is a major factor for a primary source. Do you want me to update you when I have completed more progress on the document? — Dzonatas 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your reply. I'm still unclear on one thing, which is really what's most important for this RfC: does the document date from the 1950s? If so, it's not a primary source for 15th century French history. It's possible that it would be an appropriate secondary source, but only once it's been reviewed, verified, and made openly accessible to wikipedia editors. Thanks, Akhilleus 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That date of the document edition is a good question as if that is final to determine it a primary source or not. It could be a secondary source because it uses information from earlier family. It's not intentional, but some bits are unclear because of more complicated issues found by a simple review. For example, the trace was done for a family member who lived in the early 1800's, which was around the time of the French Revolution. It is unclear if the trace successfully continued the family's status of nobility, or if the French Revolution influenced access to previous sources like the reference to the preists' booked records of births in the 14th-15th century. I could do my own judgement, but I believe a proper peer-review would be able to help sort out these issues. It's notable because it does seem to time-capsule a primary source (this is not just my opinion) -- even if the "entire" document is not a primary source altogther. Thank you. — Dzonatas 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Durova, your RfC is a futile experiment. Look at WP:V, please.
:"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
— Dzonatas 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make many odd presumptions.  The fact is, your family tree cannot be treated as a primary source for an encyclopedic biography about Joan of Arc.  Your family tree was compiled more than five centuries after she died.  As you have stated, and as the family tree itself states, the early entries were derived from other documents.  It's unfortunate that you take this so personally. Durova 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clear evidence that you made it personal. Your argument is illogical and continually misinforms. Other editors have started to respond to the RfC based on your original research alone. Consider, you just made that research. — Dzonatas 03:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the reply despite the fact that Durova has confused the issues, which led you to create an opinion over a non-issue. — Dzonatas 03:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If we can put the wiki-egos away for a second, I think its pretty clear that someone's family tree cannot be used, and even if it could, we probably wouldn't want it. Vanity, definitely my favorite sin. Please do not comment on any issue here other than content of the article. No one cares about who started a dispute, etc. As for that, I can safely say that its not original research to say that your family tree is not a primary source, and is, in fact not published by any reputable process. savidan(talk) (e@) 12:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V#Verifiability, not truth|Verifiability, not truth]] 

message: Shouldn't the infobox accompany the lead section, with the current lead image in the infobox?  (The chapel image currently in the infobox could be moved elsewhere.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of saint boxes came up a few times in the archives.  To summarize:
*Some editors were concerned that a saint box would give a hagiographic slant to the article.  Joan of Arc is important for both secular and religious reasons.
*The saint box generates a huge amount of white space when it leads the article.  Try it in the sandbox and see for yourself.
*The only other way to resolve the layout is to take information out of the saint box.
*Joan of Arc was canonized quite recently so it's fair to cover sainthood in the legacy section (and the layout looks much better that way).
*Among saints who are also historic figures in a secular sense, this is the first article to have a saint box.  There was really no precedent for this type of article.
*Discussion on the matter remains open.  If you have a better solution, please offer it. Durova 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I would have raised the same objections as ALoan if I hadn't heard this explanation, but, having heard it, I now fully support keeping the infobox in the "Legacy" section. In light of the fact that she became a saint relatively recently and that her importance is as a historical figure as well as a religious one, this seems like a very appropriate and useful compromise. -Silence 21:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I'm copyediting more of the article now, but a few lines aren't so clear-cut that I can immediately change them.
*"The period that preceded Joan of Arc's career was the lowest era in French history until the Nazi occupation." - This statement definitely needs a citation and/or attestation. "Lowness" is an ephemeral, and very disputable, concept. We may also want to reword this sentence significantly (if not remove it altogether) to use a clearer and more explicit descriptor than "low".
*The piped link to The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World seems out-of-pace and will probably confuse readers who click on "siege to Orléans" expecting to read an article about the battle, not about a tangentially-related book. If the reason a different link was chosen is out of wanting to avoid linking to the battle's page twice, it should be noted that it is not a crime to link to the same article more than once in the course of a single page, if that article is significant enough. In fact, it can be quite helpful to many readers.
I'll continue the list as I move down the page; I've only finished the lead section and Background thus far. -Silence 22:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your second comment.  Regarding the first, please advise: the statement really is a truism of French history.  These were the only two moments in at least the last thousand years when so much of the country was under foreign occupation or when there was real danger that France could cease to exist as an independent power.  If you have a better way of expressing the thought, please make the alteration.  It's very hard to credit this to any particular authority. Durova 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your own explanation just now is a superb way to minimize this problem. Much better to explain clearly that the Nazi occupation and this period are the two moments in a thousand years when much of the country was under foreign occupation and there was a real danger that France would cease to exist as an independent power. In addition to being less POVed (though I'd still feel a bit less squeamish about it if we can find a citation sometime in the future; cross-temporal historical comparisons are very iffy territory), this phrasing would also give our readers much more valuable and concrete information than simply saying that those two historical periods were when France was at its "lowest". -Silence 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a very fine distinction but a valid one.  I'll look into it. Durova 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a good observation. When I come to such points, it makes me want to not read the article and skip to the references. An encyclopedia is more of a reference than a conclusive story. Also, when I see passive voice used, it create the same point. Passive sentences state an action without reference to a subject, and that can lead to such drawn conclusions. — Dzonatas 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I'd say most of the article is very well-referenced indeed (though the style of the references isn't my favorite, being that it's a fairly disorganized mix of very brief page-number-cites, fuller bibliographical fields (complete with publisher, title and ISBN), and footnote-style elaborations on the text itself; I'd prefer something a bit more consistent and regulated in style, like the reference/footnote style on articles like Saffron), but an occasional dramatic claim, like the ones I've mentioned above, has no clear citation and thus requires either rewording or referencing (or both). -Silence 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed those.  I also worked on another footnote from an inactive editor and came across an online version of the relevant Adrien Harmand text.  The page still has a few other old notes that look odd to me. Durova 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Do we really need footnote 21?  It emerged last fall as a compromise when one editor wanted explicitly hagiographic statements in the text.  Since he never actually cited a published edition of Jean Gerson's treatise this note doesn't add much to the article. Durova 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Do we need footnote 30?  That was another former editor's creation.  The dates are probably right, but the specific chronology may be too obscure for this article.  It doesn't state a source, which means someone ought to look it up if it stays. Durova 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assorted questions and comments regarding the later text