Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joan of Arc/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Joan of Arc 1.1 Low point 1.2 French and English 1.3 Angevin Empire 1.4 Letters 1.5 non-specific 1.6 Some thoughts

[edit] Joan of Arc

Article is still a featured article

Messages left at User talk:Durova , Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Sandy 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeking additional opinions about this article's NPOV balance. After FA approval it received some changes that prompted complaints on the talk page. As strange as it may seem that someone who died six centuries ago could inspire strong feelings, this subject does. Most of the disputes occurred in May-June. Some subtle changes survived until August.

To give an idea of the kinds of alterations that happened, here are some examples I spotted and corrected:

• One editor selectively removed all categories that contained the word "female" or "women" in the title (specifically "Female wartime crossdressers," "Medieval women," and "Women in war").
• An IP address removed William Shakespeare and Voltaire from an enumeration of famous authors who had written works about Joan of Arc, claiming that these were redundant while leaving others of lesser renown. The two deleted names were the only ones who had portrayed Joan of Arc in a negative light.
• The Visions section addresses shortcomings in neurological and psychiatric hypotheses for Joan of Arc's visions (various proposals have been advanced, none of which have gained consensus support in the scholarly community). Changes to this part of the article had implied that these shortcomings meant Catholic doctrine was literally true.
• Changes to cited passages gave opinions a religious overtone not present in the original source. For example, recharacterizing Edward Lucie-Smith's opinion from "more lucky than skilled" to "more blessed than skilled."
• Insertion of a January 6 birthdate despite a detailed footnote that explains how this date is hagiographic (it coincides with the Epiphany and is contradicted by almost all reliable evidence).
• Insertions within previously referenced paragraphs gave the appearance that new and uncited claims were referenced by the paragraph citation. One example is a statement that named Judy Grundy as a "scholar" to support a claim that Joan of Arc did not display psychiatric symptoms. Ms. Grundy's only apparent publication about Joan of Arc is a single article in a personal website that does not state her qualifications. (Article is published on the Joan of Arc Society page as well as Virginia Frohlicks page. It has been reviewed by a medical doctor, a university professor and was never intended to be taken as seriously as it was. I personally know the author and know she laughed at being refered to as a 'scholar' since it was written for fun and as she acknowledges,is not complete. Any references to qualifications are not placed as it was only put online at the urging of several other people she shared it with. Ms. Grundy is currently studying psychology and teaches music and never intends to be a scholar as she has other priorities. As for who I am - I'm a relative.).

Although most changes were probably made with good intentions, collectively they gave the article a religious POV that prompted several complaints. I have gone over the text and history carefully, added additional references, and - I hope - been fair to all notable viewpoints. I also added two short paragraphs to the Background section and added quote boxes (which, to boast a little, are my own translations of passages from Joan of Arc's letters). Is this article sufficiently balanced now? Please comment. Durova 19:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not much to discuss about the changes listed. Remove them. Wandalstouring 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Those changes have already been removed. I cite these as examples of subtle religious bias that crept into the article after passing FA. I've done my best to correct the imbalance. "FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing..." This is the type of FAR I intended when I opened this page. Durova 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Low point

• "The period that preceded Joan of Arc's career was one of the lowest points in French history." violates NPOV, better: was one of the lowest points for the house of Valois./was a hard time for the population of France and opponents of the reestablishing of the Angevin Empire.

Does anyone argue a lower point for the house of Valois? The consensus I've seen is that only the Nazi occupation was lower in all of French history (define its beginning however you like). Please cite a reference if this is mistaken. The article's statement is already sourced. Durova 18:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"I agree that this conflict shared some traits of a civil war (for somewhat different reasons than you express), yet civil war implies the idea of nationhood - concepts that do not graft well onto a fifteenth century context." So if there is no French nation how can this be the lowest point of a nation´s history? Besides what definition of lowest point does your source have? For example the Nazi occupation was a heyday for all supporters of Vichy (they were French natives) and the time afterwards was not so good for them. Besides it is a good time for historians to write about. Brittany and Burgundy are listed as allies of the king of England (!not the English king!) in Hundred Years War and they consider themselves French. Was winning the war against the Valois a good or a bad thing for these French? What kind of source should I show you? One stating this time was a time of peace and prosperity? Isn`t it obvious that defining a lowest point of a nation´s history (nation did not exist) is always POV. Wandalstouring 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify: nowhere does this article assert a modern concept of nationhood. The assumptions a twenty-first century reader brings to the term nation are misleading in a fifteenth century context. That discussion, which you raise, is worthy in its own right yet outside the scope of this article. What a brief background can accommodate is to name "France" and "England" without defining to what degree these were feudal states or incipient nations. The existing text is already referenced. You seem to be asserting that emergent nationalism rendered French history so fundamentally discontinuous that Joan of Arc is not part of French history. Have I understood the claim correctly? This would be so idiosyncratic that I'll wait for a citation before addressing it. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand completly. Please read again. My argumentation has nothing to do with your interpretation: "Isn`t it obvious that defining a lowest point of a nation´s history (nation did not exist) is always POV."

This is not POV when it constitutes expert consensus: DeVries expresses the matter in far stronger terms than this article does and both her conclusion and its vehemence are typical. It would violate WP:NOR to further dilute the statement without some specific citation to demonstrate the existence of a scholarly controversy. The way you expressed your criticism, hinging it on a remarkable interpretation that places Joan of Arc outside French history, led me to request a citation before addressing the matter further. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no citation possibly if no other scientist uses such an expression and feels not urged to refer to such nonsense. Find simply another unbiased scientific (no extremists) source stating exactly this. And who makes this ranking of low points in French history on what basis? Where does this rating put 13 Vendémiaire, Napoleon_III_of_France#Authoritarian_Empire, Algerian War of Independence (Algeria was officially part of France) and the Reign of Terror? The reader needs verifiability (WP:VERIFY) of this claim. Wandalstouring 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I realize it can be hard to express an idea in one's second language. It's difficult to parse your meaning. Kelly DeVries is associate professor of history at Loyola College in Maryland and has published about Joan of Arc since 1994: surely this citation satisfies WP:Verify. Durova 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No verification WP:Verify. You pose an unverifiable claim. For example: Nigel Bagnall was Chief of General Staff of the British Army and devoted to studying military history. Still his book "The Punic Wars" has errors and I need further material to write a properly sourced article. So tossing authorities does not help you. Verify such a rating. If your authority has a rating he needs to name his criteria. So what are the criteria used? Wandalstouring 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that amateur historians are more likely to make mistakes than professional academics. Here professor DeVries writes within her specialty. You keep asking what she says: have you read the quote in the footnote? There have been only two times in French history that the country was in danger of ceasing to exist as an independent power: this was one and the other was Vichy. Durova 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote this, so you can never agree on this. Authority tossing is pointless. No I keep not asking what she says, I ask what the criteria are. So the criteria for low should be the possibility of territorial extinction? Than I have definetly to question why Vichy was the lowest point. There have been other times of foreign occupation and France was still France (it was divided for some time between a German military command in the northern zone and a French in the south, later it was all under German command, as well as the usual Alsace dispute), unlike Poland. On the other hand, what does highest point mean according to this definition? Wandalstouring 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Authority tossing" as you call it is required by Wikipedia policy. You seem to be interpolating something like a list of the ten lowest points in French history, then asking me exactly where the year 1428 would rank and why. That would be a futile exercise: what you or I think on the subject is not pertinent. If you were to cite a source that contended, for instance, that the chevauchée practice were much more limited, that estimates of the French population stagnation following the black death were inaccurate, and that French tradesmen had much better access to foreign markets than DeVries concludes - then we would have a basis for editorial discussion. Durova 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Try reading again. I simply asked questions on the categorization. Try to answer or keep quiet. Switching topics as you did is no answer. Wandalstouring 19:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you find Kiril Lokshin's suggestion below acceptable? Durova 20:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if author and reason(existance) for labeling it low point are mentioned. Wandalstouring 20:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the distinction here to be made was that it was a low point for the peasents and bourgois rather than a low point of political power/independance. It was a low point (moral) for the population residing in the kingdom of France. The ever increasing number of brigands, raiding forces and ever resource depleating war took a toll on the peasents far outweighting the political en-jeux. Even under Nazi occupation, the country side did not see so much rampage. Either way I agree with our coordinator's proposed solution.--Dryzen 14:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was both. The political/military aspects are detailed and cited later in the section. But rather than focus on "low point" which seems to draw criticism, I've rewritten the paragraph. Durova 16:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Here's the new paragraph, minus the citation (which is in the article): Durova 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Historian Kelly DeVries describes the period preceding Joan of Arc's appearance with, "If anything could have discouraged her, the state of France in 1429 should have." The Hundred Years' War had begun 1337 as a succession dispute to the French throne with intermittent periods of relative peace. Nearly all of the fighting had taken place in France and the English use of chevauchée tactics had decimated the French economy. The French population had not recovered from the black death of the previous century and its merchants were cut off from international markets. At the outset of Joan of Arc's career the English had almost realized their goal of a dual monarchy under English control and the French army had won no major victory for a generation. In DeVries's words, "the kingdom of France was not even a shadow of its thirteenth-century prototype."

Looks clean and to the point.--Dryzen 17:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Wandalstouring 17:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French and English

It is not without difficult to label a fight between French and English. It was at this time a reestablishing of the Angevin Empire, which had lost most continental possesions while its ruler had decided to become King of England. So the Hundred Years' War was to some extend a French civil war. In modern scientific literature the term Angevin Empire is used for this Empire with its main strongholds in the Normandy and England lasting from 1154 till ~1399. Wikipedia has the concerning article poorly sourced. The conclusion there, that it only lasted till 1215 is not widely accepted and likely to be a misinterpretation of the wiki-editor (See German article).

I agree that this conflict shared some traits of a civil war (for somewhat different reasons than you express), yet civil war implies the idea of nationhood - concepts that do not graft well onto a fifteenth century context. I haven't seen the term Angevin Empire used in relation the Hundred Years' War. The expression itself is a nineteenth century creation. The English goal in this conflict went beyond reestablishing Henry II's realm and aspired to an actual dual monarchy. Their elite had spoken English as a first language for several generations by the time Joan of Arc appeared. All of this is well sourced in the article. Perhaps a sentence could be added for the English partisans in France - would you suggest one? The section is already overlong. If there are important works I have missed that support your other assertions, please cite them. Durova 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

(Harriss, Gerald; Shaping the Nation; England 1360-1461, Oxford 2005) or a contemporary source for the war (Froissart, Jean; Chroniques de France, d'Angleterre, d'Ecosse, de Bretagne, de Gascogne, de Flandre et lieux circonvoisinsan) could be used to source the actual political state. There it refers to a war between the English crown and the French crown. Usually this war is seen as the birth of the French and the English nation, but speaking of them as existant during the war is a bit unhistoric. You still have the Medieval concepts of rulers of small territories fighting for their gains, like Burgundy.Wandalstouring 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement here: to speak of nationhood in the context of the Hundred Years' War would problematic at best (which is why the article does not do so). Is this what Harris, Gerald assert? If they make some other point then please give a page number and quote a few relevant lines. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree, nationhood is problematic during the war, because it is seen as its origin. But nation also includes a nations country, so if we speak of somebody acting we have to refer to the Medieval concept of acting ruler (or ruling institution), not acting people of a country as in the modern nationhood concept. Wandalstouring 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a specific modification here? Rather than take a side on the question of nationalism's origins, which would tread on WP:NPOV, I've simply referred to these polities as "France" and "England." Those seem to be the terms that best accommodate the competing interpretations. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No "so if we speak of somebody acting we have to refer to the Medieval concept of acting ruler (or ruling institution), not acting people of a country as in the modern nationhood concept."

Acting is the king of England against the king of France. Major French provinces (Brittany, Burgundy) have sided with the English king, making it not a war of the French entity against an outside invador. I checked J.F. Verbruggen "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages" Second revised translation, ISBN 0-85115-570-7 Nowhere in his accounts of the Hundred Years War or else is England or France as acting political unit mentioned, always the king or the local commander, while for troops it is referred to their native origins (Flemish, English, Welsh, French, etc.). For it is a scientific book forming the modern interpretation of Medieval warfare and translated twice, I think the content is worth it. If need is, I can quote you some pages. Wandalstouring 19:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have specified this before, but the discussion was ranging over too many issues: political alignments in this conflict were somewhat different from what you've asserted. Burgundy was allied with England for only sixteen years of a war that lasted more than a century. During Joan of Arc's career Brittany went from neutrality to Valois allegiance. Since you are familiar with her letter to the Hussites perhaps you also know 28 March 1430, to the citizens of Reims: Austre chose quant á présent ne vous rescri fors que toute Bretaigne est francaise et doibt le duc envoier au roy III mille combatans paiez pour iy moys.(Quicherat V, p. 161). Note the choice of words: que toute Bretaigne est francaise - referring not to the duke but to the province. Why introduce verbose qualifiers?

This discussion strays very far from the point: an opening paragraph to the background has to summarize matters for a general reader. Subsequent passages detail the most germane politics. If you can suggest some concise and specific improvement, I'll be glad to use it. Durova 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Acting is the king of England against the king of France. The rulers of major French provinces (Brittany, Burgundy) have sided with the English king, making it not a war of the French entity against an outside invador. What relevance has your source for the citizens of Reims switching sides very lately in this war? And how reliable is your source if it is a contemporary French source?

I checked J.F. Verbruggen "The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages" Second revised translation, ISBN 0-85115-570-7 Nowhere in his accounts of the Hundred Years War or else is England or France as acting political unit mentioned, always the king or the local commander, while for troops it is referred to their native origins (Flemish, English, Welsh, French, etc.). One exception are the Flemish cities, which act on their own. For this is a scientific book, forming the modern interpretation of Medieval warfare and translated twice, I think the content is worth it. If need is, I can quote you some pages.

So please tell me what you don't understand? This is a very clear directive for naming.Wandalstouring 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What you have described is an example rather than a directive. If Verbruggen states explicitly that it is inappropriate to refer to France as a political unit in the early fifteenth century, please provide a page citation. Bear in mind that your reference is a broad survey history. So far I see no need to require a distinction that neither the original source material nor pertinent specialty studies necessarily use: introductory statements are inherently brief.

Joan of Arc was not commenting on the citizens of Reims changing allegiance; she was reporting to Reims that Brittany had joined the Valois cause (Reims is not in Brittany). This cited quote contradicts your assertion that Brittany was allied with the English at the time, and also your contention that the Wikipedia article should not refer to provinces and countries as political units. To touch on a delicate matter, this is one example of a pattern of problems that appear to arise from your reading comprehension. I understand how this can happen in a second language. While you have demonstrated some fairly extensive reading on medieval European history, some of your assertions fall well outside the mainstream. Perhaps you misunderstood those sources as well? Durova 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very hard to remain kind. You say lots of things, hide behind big authorities, are not able to answer simple question and constantly try to diminish my ability to understand English. It is impossible to work with this attitude of an editor to say the least. I do not claim to be any expert on the topic of Medieval history. It seems that some points I bring up have already been mentioned earlier by other competent editors. Wandalstouring 18:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If your feelings are hurt, I apologize sincerely. I don't mean this as any criticism of your intellect: my German is now somewhat rusty, but even at its best when Germans sometimes mistook me for a native speaker, I could read Der Spiegel but got confused by the Frankfurter Allgemeine. I understand how these things can happen - there were several points in this discussion where things seemed out of step and I hesitated a while before mentioning the pattern. There was another point in your previous post that I forgot to answer: Quicherat's compilation of documents regarding Joan of Arc has been the gold standard, second only to the original French archives, since its publication in the 1840s. By the standards of historical method, an original contemporary letter by Joan of Arc has a high degree of reliability. This was one of the three letters she signed. Durova 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Was there some other discussion going on while this one raged? If not I seem to have lost some mesure of information. You both agreed on the principle of nation then disagreed on what?--Dryzen 14:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring wanted to reword the statement in a way that would not only omit outright mention of nationalism, but would reflect a POV that this era had no traits of nationalism at all. I considered that an inappropriate editorial position on an open question. Durova 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a touchy subject, first off what are your perceives definitions of Nationalism? The was definitly an quasi-"nationalist" spirit involved, yet rather than being driven by the image of a Nation (as we have today) it stemmed more from a Faction within wich a person existed. Comming out from his kinship on to his local lands and onward towards the magnates with varying degrees of completion. You both agree that there was nationalist spirit as we know it involved at this time, correct?--Dryzen 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The early origins of nationalism are not well studied. To many French people Joan of Arc is the embodiment of nationalism, although Napoleon's use of her memory for political propaganda might have altered perceptions of her as a folk hero. This is an intriguing topic: one often sees superficial mentions of Joan of Arc in connection with "French nationalism" in modern histories. The Richey quote touches on that. Yet Joan of Arc's connection to early nationalism has not been the subject of in-depth analysis. The best approach here seems to be to sidestep the issue - which is less a reflection of my personal preferance than a respectful nod to WP:NOR and the undue weight discussion at WP:NPOV. Durova 18:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to state there was no nationalism, but I wanted to avoid it in cases it can be misleading. It is common usage to talk about acting rulers in the Medieval Ages, not acting people, so as long as it is not definite we have a acting nation I would not refer to this concept. The Hundred Years' War was officially a lengthy legal dispute between two kings until she appeared. Of course the reported statements of Joan show different and there it is at least appropriate. I can try some research tomorrow. Wandalstouring 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We're pretty close to agreement here: both of us feel that "national" as a term is inappropriate. I bowed to further input on the topic of "low point." Would you accept the opinions of other editors that "France" and "England" are sufficient in this context? Durova 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

pretty close. I was wondering about the legal disputes, but I think I can live with it. Wandalstouring 20:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angevin Empire

Source on the Angevin Empire refering to its existence till ~1399: Dieter Berg, Die Anjou-Plantagenets. Die englischen Könige im Europa des Mittelalters 1100–1400, Stuttgart 2003

Then I suppose I have to agree that some scholar has referred to the Angevin Empire as existing during part of the Hundred Years' War, particularly since I'm not likely to find that title at an American university library. Still, if a single German source is all that advocates extending this definition as late as the fourteenth century, I doubt it constitutes a need to alter the English language article about fifteenth century events. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Origins of the Hundred Years War: The Angevin Legacy 1250-1340 by Malcolm Vale

This shows the Angevin Empire Legacy contributing to the start of the Hundred Years War. There are several interpretations how long this empire lasted (most end it around (1215-1225) and how long its legacy lasted (beginning of the Hundred Years War or end of the Hundred Years War). Wandalstouring 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The sources you specify date its end in the fourteenth century. Since you also state that most sources end it a century earlier, it looks safe to omit mention of the Angevin Empire in this article. Maybe you could update the Angevin Empire article? It looks like it would benefit from your help. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Letters

Her letter against the Hussites is missing. Wandalstouring 20:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You know the subject well. I really couldn't see a way to set an excerpt from this letter into context for the main article. This is the only one attributed to her where there is real scholarly doubt about whether she actually dictated it: it could have been the work of her confessor Jean Pasquerel. She never actually warred against the Hussites or even made serious preparations to do so. The ancillary article Joan of Arc facts and trivia covers specialized interest topics - perhaps this would be appropriate there. Durova 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning it at least with a link (perhaps even a comment) could be useful, because the sheer existance of this letter condemming the Hussites is important. The Hussites are the first Czech nationalists from a modern Czech perspective and they were a very religious group who inflincted special Catholic traditions in their homeland till nowadays.Wandalstouring 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the Hussites were a notable movement: did her letter had any effect? Did some Hussites abandon the movement because of it? Did others dispatch spies to France? To the best of my knowledge, none of that happened as a result. This makes the matter a good candidate for the Joan of Arc facts and trivia article: I invite you to add a section there. Of course, if you do find reliable source that argues the letter had some real impact, by all means provide a reference. I'd be very interested. If it's a German source, just quote the original. Please supply full citation information including page number. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"did her letter have any effect?" Does this matter? She claimed divine inspiration and fought in a war in France. If she wrote this letter, she claims to influence events outside of France. Simple logic. Wandalstouring 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this letter has encyclopedic merit. To address the matter from a different perspective, every month or two a new editor joins the dialogue to advocate inclusion of some ancillary topic. Joan of Arc is already 57k: in order to keep it a reasonable size the editors here split off two pages Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc (a featured list) and Joan of Arc facts and trivia: "Joan of Arc facts and trivia covers topics of specialized interest that pertain to the life and legacy of Joan of Arc." Sooner or later someone will also raise the matter of her letter to the count of Armagnac and the Great Schism. While these events are important in themselves, her relation to them is slight, and without some editorial discretion this article would eventually grow as large as the Catalan language version (165k). It is hard to discuss these issues adequately in the main article without giving them undue weight. Durova 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Not mentioning is the wrong choice. Make a list of what she probably did and link to specific articles concerning these things. But having no link or comment on them makes this article B-class. They are substantial information, because this woman seems more than a divine-inspired-soldiergirl. Wandalstouring 19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, that is an unusual opinion. I know of no featured biography that lists all the letters its subject wrote (full length books, yes, but not short correspondence). The main article links to Joan of Arc facts and trivia twice: at the start of the legacy section and at the "See also" section. It would go against Wikipedia convention to add a list of section headings to a Wikilink. Durova 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Constant change of topic makes it impossible to get anywhere. Otto von Bismarck and Ems Dispatch (but no featured article yet). Wandalstouring 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Otto von Bismarck contains no list of Bismark's correspondence and the Ems Dispatch started a war. If the letter to the Hussites had started a war then it would certainly deserve attention on the main article. Do you have a citation to any evidence that it produced any effect at all? Include a page number, please. Durova 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For my little two farthings, I think the letters are a source from wich one can judge the character of Joan of Arc, gain insite on her personnality rather than on her ability to affect the politics. Of course I could be reading this argument the wrong way, we are speaking about keeping her letters in her articles?--Dryzen 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's hard to follow this without background knowledge: an additional letter not in the article threatens military action against the Hussites, a heretical sect outside France. Joan of Arc never actually crusaded against the Hussites and, to further complicate things, there is serious scholarly dispute about whether she even dictated that particular letter. I suggest adding this topic to Joan of Arc facts and trivia unless someone cites evidence that the letter was more than an empty threat. Wandalstouring has not provided a citation, but insists it belongs in the main article rather than the ancillary page. I'm not certain why (he or she) rejects that alternative, but unless that editor provides some new pertinent information I'll stand firm. The article sees regular attempts at expansion into tangential areas and some editorial discretion is necessary for space reasons. Just today a different editor tried to add a list of other notable women who had been compared to Joan of Arc: a pretty good idea for a list, but more appropriate on the subsidiary article. Durova 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-specific

• If the article was Featured standard before these changes were made, then surely the changes can be reverted so the article goes back to the state it was in when it was agreed to be Featured standard? It's not as if this is one of those very old articles which was made Featured a long time ago before the current criteria were brought in: it was only made Featured this year, and went through the nomination process - and passed - properly. Also, since Miss Of Arc has been dead for hundreds of years, no new information has come to light... and what was true in March 2006 remains true in August 2006. I say, simply, Keep the Featured status and revert any changes made since the nomination which did not serve to improve the quality of the article further. EuroSong ^talk 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real doubt that this remains featured article quality. I requested this review because I've addressed the NPOV matter pretty much on my own. A few fresh perspectives always helps. There have been about 1000 edits to the article since it passed FA, which makes direct comparison between versions difficult (I've done this repeatedly and keep spotting new things). Some of the changes have been beneficial and wholesale reversion would risk violating WP:OWN. Instead of thinking this is a solid FA and letting the article rest on its laurels, I'd really like to put Wikipedia's best foot forward when the 0.5 CD comes out. Thanks very much for the suggestions. Durova 15:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Review is not over. Wandalstouring 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I welcome all feedback. Durova 13:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may draw this back to the original review request, I posted here because I wanted to see whether the religious and secular aspects of the article are balanced. Welcoming feedback of any sort, yet those were the particular issues that came up on talk while I was on Wikibreak. Durova 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Kyriakos 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Support issues solved. Wandalstouring 09:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's no need to support or object yet. This is still the first review section. Keep working away! Marskell 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to make clear it is yet not readdy to pass. Wandalstouring 19:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Have we ironed out your objections now? Durova 15:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Wandalstouring 15:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

My, this is getting rather heated. Let's try to avoid having this descend into a personal argument, and focus instead on (what seem to me) to be the main issues:

Lowest points in French history 

This is almost certainly a debatable point, particularly as there's no distinction made vis-a-vis French military history versus French history in general. Certainly there are any number of very unpleasant periods that can be brought forth. However, I think the credentials of the source making the claim are decent enough that it can be included. The best course of action, in my opinion, would be to specify the source explicitly: "According to the historian So-and-So, ..." This avoids the thorny issue of whether the judgement is truly objective while at the same time presenting what appears to be a significant and defensible view of the matter.

England & France 

Technically, this could be described as a fight between two claimants to the French throne (by virtue of the Treaty of Troyes), between the English king and the French one, between the English crown and the Valois, and any number of other possibilities. However, I would suggest that by far the most common manner of assigning labels here is to identify the dauphin with "France" and Henry with "England". That these labels are not exact may be explained in a footnote, if desired; but adopting a different usage will bewilder readers.

Hussites 

I don't think this is all that significant of a point, since the Hussites drew threats of crusades like moths to a candle, and Joan disappeared from the political arena too early to actually do anything in this regard. It's a topic that may very well deserve an article in its own right; but I would recommend against jamming it into this article, given that space is at a premium and there's already a number of more important letters presented.

I suspect my comments are going to provoke a storm of disagreement from everyone involved, as I think I stepped on all toes equally ;-) Having said that, let's make every effort to ensure that comments here are about the article, not about the reviewers. Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. I'll think about how to reword the statement and mention DeVries by name. Durova 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I share much of Kirill Lokshin's thoughts. To share a my fealling of thsi page: the two main speakers found here, Durova and Wandalstouring, seem to be arguing semantics and sources with little actual contest between the two's view points. As there is a language element present the semantics themselves are a naturaly occuring pitfall. Reading about I have on many occasion lost the orignal spark that started the debate and at the end of it all am more confused as to what was the problem and what where to be the solutions.--Dryzen 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)