Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 3

message: The article text has 31 numbered line citations but only 24 footnotes.  Normally this might result from multiple references to the same footnote.  That does not explain this problem because the a, b, c multiple citation convention has only been used once.  Footnote 19 has been blanked and contains no information.  This leaves roughly half a dozen line citations unaccounted.
:From Wikipedia:Footnotes, "Editors must make sure to keep the numbered list at the bottom of the page in the same order as the references in the article text, or else the numbers may not match up."  See also Wikipedia:Citing sources.
:From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."  See also Wikipedia:No original research. 
:From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each...  To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."
When the footnote decay problem first appeared in December another editor accused me of exploiting it as an excuse to change the article's content.  That accusation was false, but it would have a grain of truth this time.  If I fix these citations myself I will also edit the associated text into compliance with the policies listed above.  Again I will wait an appropriate length of time for the person or persons who created the faulty citations to fix them.  I will not provide feedback if repairs fail to work.  That information was taken in bad faith when I provided it. Durova 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I may just delete the latter part of the section.  I've already spent enough hours chasing down citations for other editors' text.  Rei has offered to remove Vita Sackville-West, the only source named in support of the view.  The text fails to identify which of Regine Pernoud's many publications refutes Sackville-West. Durova 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the twentieth century a small number of writers interpreted the historical record as suggesting that Joan of Arc had gender identity issues or was homosexual.  This began with novelist and poet Vita Sackville-West (cite) and included (list other names with references and page numbers).  Most if not all of these were people whose professional expertise was literary rather than historical.  Their reasons were... (summarize briefly).  (Cite a historian or two who refutes these views). Durova 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote decay (again) 

message: * I've returned to an older and shorter version of the text regarding Geoffroy Therange.  The deleted sentence would be more appropriate to a discussion about hagiography, which I wouldn't mind having if someone decided to create it.  Due to space constraints that would work best as a branching article. Durova 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I may just delete the latter part of the section.  I've already spent enough hours chasing down citations for other editors' text.  Rei has offered to remove Vita Sackville-West, the only source named in support of the view.  The text fails to identify which of Regine Pernoud's many publications refutes Sackville-West. Durova 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: In the twentieth century a small number of writers interpreted the historical record as suggesting that Joan of Arc had gender identity issues or was homosexual.  This began with novelist and poet Vita Sackville-West (cite) and included (list other names with references and page numbers).  Most if not all of these were people whose professional expertise was literary rather than historical.  Their reasons were... (summarize briefly).  (Cite a historian or two who refutes these views). Durova 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text changes related to citations. 

message: A link to the Project Gutenberg text of his book is already available at Joan of Arc bibliography.  Please add future reference works there.  Regards, Durova 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronald Sutherland Gower 

message: I replaced the link to the Hundred Years' war in the historical context section, because the only other link to it is much further down the page, in a caption (at least as far as I can see). I also changed a tiny bit of wording, since it seemed awkward. I removed the spaces around the comment because in the viewed article, it results in a big gap between the heading and the body of the text, which is awkward. Makemi 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got a good point.  Now that I think about it, the name of the war would be even better in the introduction.  Regards, Durova 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical context

message: Take a closer look at her biography and work at world of biography  Is this worth to add as external link in the article? i would consider it for external link --Kbi911 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly well presented and has depth.  Thank you for asking.  Most of external links are to sites that would be suitable resources for a student writing a term paper.  My main concerns are its lack of citations and that it's commercially run by a tech firm.  There are hundreds, probably thousands of online biographies about Joan of Arc.  The call could go either way.  You decide. Durova 16:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since i am directly affiliated with the company, i will see we add all bibliography before updating you here and putting external link. --Kbi911 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good.  Regards, Durova 08:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World of Biography

message: One of the hardest things to do is to revert an edit I agree with, and revert it because it violates NPOV.  The edit that favored Richey over Perroy went beyond the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Durova 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perroy v. Richey 

message: Someone put a lot of work into adding Wikilinks to the article and - unfortunately - I've had to undo most of them.  Date links are for major dates (think Bastille Day), not for every time a Wikipedian accesses an external website in a footnote.  Internal links to other articles are necessary only the first time a name is mentioned.  I've culled down the duplicate links and removed redlinks to minor trial witnesses.  Wikipedia actually went through a deletion vote with Geoffroy Therage and voted to have his name redirect to Joan of Arc.
Also, one editor altered several sections with the view that the ceremony in Rheims was primarily a consecration rather than a coronation.  The way to represent that within the article is by providing a reference to some scholarly authority who argues that point, not by changing citations to other sources who called it a coronation. Durova 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits discussed 

message: The recent peer review commented on the article's sentence structure and another editor contributed some copyediting a few weeks ago.  Now I've returned for a fresh look.  Those edits were done with the best intentions by a good editor who wasn't very familiar with this subject.  In some places the changes introduced syntactical problems, such as an ambiguity in the introduction as to whether Joan of Arc or the duke of Bedford was nineteen years old when she died.  In other places the alterations themselves, intended by the editor's statement to increase the article's sentence complexity, have inadvertently clouded the sequence of events.  I'll be reviewing these changes and making more alterations.  Durova 19:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting 

message: Is the Front National image at the bottom of the article sufficiently covered by fair use policy?  At the end of the FAC an editor questioned it, but this was someone whose comments may have been overly strict.  Here's an alternative I've kept in reserve.  In order to maintain NPOV this would probably mean removing the image of the church in the saint box.  It wouldn't be appropriate to use two United States images.  I'd prefer the newer image because it shows her significance in current events. Durova 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All fair use images need a fair use rationale, just add one to the image and make sure the image is mentioned in the text.--nixie 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use? 

message: Despite this article being promoted to FA, the refernces used to write the article should be provided here. As I mentioned in the FAC there is no problem with length.--nixie 05:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Personally, I don't think that her biographical column should be so far down the page within the Legacy section.  I feel it would better be served to be at the top, in the introductory section, as many other articles are (like country pages).  However, I don't know how to move it up there properly.  Does anyone else agree?--Oscabat 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When it first got implemented it was at the top of the page.  That caused serious problems with the layout.  The saint box is much longer than the introduction so it causes a huge amount of white space.  Try it in the sandbox and see what you get.  She was canonized 489 years after her death, which makes the legacy section reasonable.  When the saint box was first proposed some editors expressed a concern that it would slant the article toward a religious POV.  I surveyed dozens of saint articles looking for prececents: none of the ones who were famous for both secular and religious reasons had saint boxes yet.  Call this a compromise (with room for a better compromise if one comes along). Durova 08:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographical Column