Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:31, 5 April 2005

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Please, let's focus on progress.

Names: 15th Century or Modern

I understand your point of view Mr. Williamson:

The forms "d'Arc" or "D'Arc" are the modern versions of her family's surname; the latter spelling (with two capitalized letters) is a recently-invented attempt at a compromise between those who believe the name was a contraction and those who believe it was a single word. In the 15th century manuscripts, the name appears in numerous forms - Darc, Daix, Day, Tarc, etc. "Jehanne (or "Jhenne", etc) was the 15th century version of her personal name.

Which I did try to combine other POVs into it, like yours. You may have a very valid point, but I simply do not agree. We could perfect it with every detail to make it NPOV. I felt we should not bring a linguistics debate in the article, so I kept it out and kept it simple. I hope you can agree to that. I've always heard "d'Arc" said with a glottal stop and have never known it as only a recent invention to spell it as such. In my studies of french, I learned that diacritical marks did exist to produce a glottal stop before a vowel. The capitalized "D" & "A" in "D'Arc" is just how it was recorded and still is recorded. Ordinarily, it is written "d'Arc". Just because "Jehanne" is a 15th century version of her name doesn't explicity mean her name was spelt as such by her. Others may have heard her name "Jeanne" and thought it was spelt as "Jehanne". That is very evident as it happens even in my first name. Your view above doesn't even try to include this kind of information. If you can write a better version that expresses all the POVs, please try. Otherwise, let's just keep it stated without the POV and hint to the reader it is disputed, which is a fact and not a POV. – Mr. Ballard 05:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To make this as brief as possible: no 15th century document ever spelled her name with an apostrophe - you may have seen a transcription or translation which followed the common practice of adding such punctuation (as even most scholarly transcriptions do), but that doesn't reflect the actual spelling in the original manuscripts. More importantly, there was no such thing as a "standard" form of anyone's name (or even of common words) in that era - all spelling was phonetic, and each scribe simply spelled it as he saw fit. Joan of Arc never insisted on a standard spelling, much less "had the spelling changed", nor could she have possibly done so given that no such concept existed - you're taking a modern mentality and assuming that it was also followed in the 15th century.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 02:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Obviously, you did not understand my point of view if you assume I based it on "modern mentality." (Note: I tried to reference your web pages for brevity, but the links were broken.) To use your logic sample that the name was "common among witches," you expressed "Jeheanne" is the common 15th century name, and you conclude that is the correct form. At least, that is what you seem to demand in the footnote on the name. With "d'Arc" it is the same logic implication that you made. Runic languages are phonetical, but french used the alphabetic language with diacritical marks. A modern glottal stop exists, like the word "Sallé" which has a distinct glottal stop. We could mispell "D'Arc" as "Dárc," just to demonstrate the variation but hint at a similar glottal stop. The glottal stop is not a modern concept. Your version of the footnote narrows it down to either a contraction or a single word because that is how it is commonly related. I have known it to be different, and that is with a glottal stop. I don't try to say that my point of view is the only correct version. I don't even try to push an arguement, like "well, hey, this is what my family says and I'm a descendant, so there." I just want the footnote to be open about the history of the name and not to express any particular conclusion. You even stated, "The lack of any apostrophe in 15th century contractions has left the matter open to speculation, although the Latin form, "Darco", has been taken to indicate that it was simply a name rather than a contracted phrase." Is it open for speculation or did you make a conclusion? - Mr. Ballard 05:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

first paragraph

Here is the attempted version done by Noisy on 3 April 2005:

Joan of ArcTemplate:Fn (January 6, 1412Template:Fn – May 30 1431) (also styled the Maid of OrléansTemplate:Fn) is a national heroine of France and a Saint of the Catholic Church. By birth a peasant, during the turmoil of the Hundred Years War she became an inspirational figure such that in 1429 and 1430 the French Royal army followed her command, and they defeated the English at the siege of Orleans, the Battle of Patay and other engagements. The accomplishments of Joan and the army enabled the coronationTemplate:Fn of King Charles VII, and he therefore ennobled her family. Subsequently, the Burgundians captured and delivered her to the English. Clergymen condemned her for heresy and she was burned at the stakeTemplate:Fn. Centuries later, Pope Benedict XV canonized her, recognising her innocenceTemplate:Fn as found by an earlier appeal after her death.

Which reverted many previous changes for reasons of NPOV. As noted in the edit summary, Noisy stated the format is standard to wikipedia; however, I disagree. We can discuss here. For example, the use of the footnotes or like helps keep the introduction NPOV while the details of different POVs can be expressed in details further in the article. Noisy's version also seem to imply that the article focuses on her being a Saint, but the entire article already expresses more. Mr. Ballard 18:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's revise these sentences further:

After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent on 7 July 1456 during an appeal on her case. The Church later canonized her in 1920.

The previous version I wrote was:

Centuries later, the Catholic church canonized her with her innocence as found by an earlier appeal after her death.

Sentences compliment each other in order. The idea that supports the main sentence is the canonization by the catholic church. The point about the appeal and her innocence supports the canonization. The previous sentence about the execution supports the main sentence. In MLA style, the point about the appeal would follow after the point about the canonization. If the paragraph was strictly in chronological order, each sentence would have a sequential order rather than complimentary.

We know the part about the appeal is important, but to much detail distracts the reader. We want to entice the reader to want to read the entire article. Too many dates and the article appears technical; the reader has to think about what is written. Instead of "this occurred on blah-blah and this occurred on blah-blah" we just summarize and say "a few years later" That is why I put "Centuries later" instead of specific dates that are already covered in the body text. I tried to use similar sentences like the two above. I put it in MLA format and got the awkward:

The Church later canonized her in 1920. After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent on 7 July 1456 during an appeal on her case.

We can remove the dates because they are expressed in the body text. If the reader is really interested in the dates, the reader will read the entire article.

The Church later canonized her. After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

Which is easier to read but still awkard. We can see that a few centuries passed between her death and her canonization. Let's simply explain that to the reader.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

We still need the info about the appeal, but the phrase "after the war" is vague. Since "centuries later" follow right behind the date recorder of her death that is not so vague. The reader doesn't know about which war. We originally had the Hundred Year's war, but that is replaced by "In 1429 and 1430." Let's delete it becuase the war isn't significant at that time anyways.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. The Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

Which is not so awkward, but it lacks clarity and implication that joins the two ideas together. This is simply done:

Centuries later, the Church canonized her, for the Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

We could use "so" instead of "for":

The Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case, so, centuries later, the Church canonized her.

Which implies that her canonization happened directly because of the appeal, which is not true, so we can't use "for" or "so" here. Let's update the tense, but I don't like this version:

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. The Inquisition declared her innocent from an appeal on her condemnation.

Which could change to imply "condemnation" by the pointed out metonym "death" in the previous sentence.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. The Inquisition declared her innocent from an appeal after her death.

Let's try to join these ideas again, and represent the time between the "centuries later" and "death."

Centuries later, the Church canonized her with her innocence as declared by the Inquistion from an earlier appeal after her death.

This almost works, but it needs clarity because "from" is vague with either the declaration or the canonization. This is why I had it, like:

Centuries later, the Church canonized her with her innocence as found by an earlier appeal after her death.

Which works. It doesn't distract the reader with too many dates. It leaves out some critical information, but such is already found elsewhere in the document. We could expand it and put some critical information back in, but that might be another distraction. I prefer the simplier form, for I know I can read further into the body text to get more details. The only problematic word here is the word "church," as it is vague for which church. Do we know of a specific group inside the church besides the pope that started the canonization? - Jhballard 20:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is the proposed sentence for reasons specifically stated above.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her with her innocence, found by an earlier appeal after her death.

Added a seperation to this talk, so we can focus on the issues. Instead of an answer to the question or comments about the sentence structures above, this was the discussion:

Hate do do a drive-by posting on this, but I don't have the time to delve deeply. I couldn't even make it past the first section of the main entry; the grammar was so poor as to be uncomprehensible. Lines like the one about the United States military combine errors of misplaced capitals, incorrectly applied objective case, and odd construction. It reads like it was translated poorly from an unfamiliar text. I'd edit that line, but it has no citation or source, so I have no idea what the true intent of it is. Please, please, please... Clean this up. Run it by a copy editor.

That part was added by JHBallard, who has steadily reverted all attempts to correct the grammar. (AWilliamson 03:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC))

In response, I checked further, and "United States Military" is the correct capitalization. The original quote may have come from Louis Kossuth and later adopted by the US military. A medal of St. Joan of Arc is given to honor women that have shown such spirit. "grammar was so poor," do tell. --- Jhballard 06:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any native speaker of English can see why it's wrong - there shouldn't be any need to painstakingly argue the point. This has been going on for over a week now. (AWilliamson 03:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Major edits without discussion

Seems an anonymous user did a major edit without bothering to look at the discussion page. Logged in as 205.188.116.203 entire sections were deleted, the summary was removed, and substantial portions of text were removed. I restored the last edit prior to this major edit with a note in my "Edit Summary" about engaging in discussino before a major edit.--Wjbean 01:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jhballard 02:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) wrote: I updated the text from the major edit by AWilliamson, and I explained every detail, mainly MLA style. I hope we can add more body text or links that refer within the text to add complete detail. I suspect it is the only way for this piece move towards npov.

NPOV

Moved discussion to Talk:Joan_of_Arc/NPOV.

Various

The old pages Joan of Arc (cross-dressing) and Talk:Joan of Arc (cross-dressing), which have a lot of history and disucussion (respectively) have been archived into Talk: space subpages here, as Talk:Joan of Arc/cross-dressing and Talk:Joan of Arc/cross-dressing-talk (respectively). Noel (talk) 16:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hearing voices is a sign of psychosis. How is Joan viewed by advocates of the "hearing voices means psychosis" schoold of thought? --Ed Poor

No, hearing voices that aren't there is a symptom of psychosis. You demonstrate that Joan's voices weren't there, and then we'll have a basis for discussion. -- isis 3 Sep 2002

The burden of proof surely lies with those who support a divine version of the story. They should demonstrate that there is a plausible mechanism for hearing voices (from where?!) that "are there" but have no external manifestation. -- Ashley - May 30 2004

See comments on this subject farther above.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC))

The article says that different plays offered very different interpretations on her life. Could this point be elaborated on? For instance, what interpretation did each play use, or how did each portray her? Wesley

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has two songs the subject of which are Joan of Arc: "Joan of Arc" and "Maid of Orleans." --Daniel C. Boyer

"Eventually, the Roman Catholic church canonized her as a saint on May 16, 1920."

What about a List of Catholic saints burned by the Church? ;-) --zeno 22:48, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS: Just kidding - I did not want to offend anyone's religious feelings ...

Formally, the Church didn't burnt them. At least with the Inquisitions, sinners were "relaxed to the secular arm", the civil (or militar) authorities. "The Church does not shed blood". But I don't remember another case of a Christian saint martyrized by a same-confession Chutch. Maybe Thomas Beckett? Have some repressed Jesuit or Templar become saint? -- Error 00:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Samuel Clemens wrote a fictional autobiography of Joan of Arc under the pen-name of Sieur Louis de Conte, forgoing his usual pen name of Mark Twain.

Somewhow, I don't think "autobiography" is the word that's wanted here.

- - - - -

Some years ago, an article (sorry, no reference) appeared in the popular press, claiming that documentation had been found to show that a peasant woman was burned in Joan's place. Records of the execution are said to mention that the prisoner was shrouded and therefore not identifiable to the crowd. Joan was claimed to have been taken to The Netherlands, IIRC, where she lived a long life with no further involvement in politics. Evidently she was convinced to shut up and drop out, in return for which she was allowed to live. This claim seems to have sunk without a trace. I cannot recall the credentials of the people behind the story. Anyone?? TIA --LBlake

Trial question

I have heard that during her trial, Joan faced a question on heresy designed to trip her up, and I would like confirmation or refutation of the story. She was asked by the inquisitors whether she was in a state of grace. Answering "no" would mean she was a heretic and worthy of death. Answering "yes" would be presuming to know the mind of God, in itself a heresy also worthy of death. Joan neatly evaded death by replying, "if I am in a state of grace, I have only God to thank for it, and if I am not, I pray to God that he help me achieve it." I always thought this story a good example of her intelligence, which she must have also exhibitted in her battle tactics (if she in fact led the battles, of which I am also uncertain). Can anyone confirm this tale? --zandperl 01:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm the question and answer. From an English translation of the transcript of her third public examination:

"Do you know if you are in the grace of God?"

"If I am not, may God place me there; if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest in all the world if I knew that I were not in the grace of God. But if I were in a state of sin, do you think the Voice would come to me? I would that every one could hear the Voice as I hear it. I think I was about thirteen when it came to me for the first time."

-- Paul Murray, 6 Sep 2004

In French :
— Êtes-vous en état de grâce ?
— Si je n'y suis pas, que Dieu m'y mette ; si j'y suis, que Dieu m'y garde.
Quite intelligent for a so-called "peasant". Inspired by the Holy Spirit, this answer leads the Church to think she was in the grace of God. Gwalarn 12:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Picture thumb

I put that in as an easy way to get a caption. The picture does not currently show what it is of. Mark Richards 16:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Hello everyone. Switisweti and AWilliamson have been having an edit dispute over an external link to a controversial reconstructed painting. I'd like to propose that the link be left in the article. It does say that it is a reconstruction, and as such that automatically means to me that it is likely not to be 100% historically accurate. I see it as a harmless enough inclusion for people interested in such things. For example, in the T'ai Chi Ch'uan article there are several external links to schools that I know personally to be run by fraudulent, incompetent hacks, yet I suffer their presence because they are relatively well known fraudulent, incompetent hacks with hundreds and thousands of incompetent students and therefore notable. The reconstructed painting may or may not be fraudulent, but it is well known to Joan's aficionados, apparently. I will put in that it is a controversial reconstruction, will that do? A discriminating person should be able to make up their own mind on the issue if they have sufficient information. Regards, Fire Star 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Fire Star, I totally agree with you. This is a good solution. As I already proposed to AWilliamson, a few critical comments concerning this link shouldn't do any harm. Something like "the views displayed on this site are on debate", but just "controversial" will do too. And indeed it's a controversial painting, as is the text. But still, all relevant links should be included, devotive ones as well as critical or even controversial ones. Again: this is alright. Switisweti 00:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

----
First of all: the problem isn't with the portrait so much, but with the falsification of another historical issue in the accompanying text. I already covered this point when it was brought up on my talk page.

Why don't you just put a more elaborate comment next to the link to explain why that certain detail is a falsification in your opinion? Maybe others could respond to that and something like a consensus could grow from that. That's more worthwile than just ignoring and deleting.

Please see my comments on this farther below.

Secondly: the painting is not "well-known": it's something that was just recently made and put online by the site's owner. If you're implying that it has a historical value in its own right, then that certainly isn't the case.

But that's just your personal opinion as a self-proclaimed historian. Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this farther below.

Finally: If we need to include links to fraudulent information of this sort, then it would also be necessary to add links to sites claiming (for example) that Joan was English (which is an actual theory, believe it or not), or that she allegedly never played any role in the Hundred Years War, etc. Applying this principle to other subjects, the Napoleon article would need to be revised to reflect Charles Philipon's theory that Napoleon never existed, and so forth. The end result would be an "encyclopedia" which is merely a list of every conceivable absurd idea, with little or no educational value.

If all these so-called "absurt" ideas and theories were included — (naturally) well commented, that would be nice. That would in fact enrichen this encyclopedia! Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Given that 99% of the many thousands of sites on Joan of Arc are already being excluded from the "External Links" section, I have to ask why this specific site needs to be listed, especially given that it's one of the least accurate?

Please ad those 99%. The current list is one I too worked on, and I couldn't find any other sites (except for exact doublures). Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

----------
To respond to Switisweti's comments:
Firstly, In answer to your edit comments on the article itself: The version promoted by the website in question was rejected by not only myself, but also Quicherat, Champion, Pernoud, DuParc, etc (... break by Switisweti, continues below)

I seriously thought Quicherat lived during the nineteenth century, but maybe I was wrong. Obviously Quicherat himself visited that particular link and he must have told you his findings. Maybe he still tells you his opinions from the afterlife. I guess you mean that Quicherat (as well as Champion and Pernoud, etc.) share your vision on your beloved Joan of Arc. Or even better: you agree with them, when you read their writings. You can't be serious about exactly knowing what these people would have thought about a particular web site. Anyway, your point is clear. You feel supported by these "friends" of yours. It's very funny and sweet in a certain way. I rest my case. I respect your persistence. Switisweti 23:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Why not include articles about those historians, BTW? I already made links: just click and write!)

As you know, the point was that since this site merely repeats an old and long-discredited version which was rejected by past as well as present historians, these experts debunked the old piece of fiction that the site's information is based on. This shouldn't need to be explained. AWilliamson 04:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(..)- the latter group being the chief historians who did the seminal groundwork on the subject, or who otherwise made important contributions. This wouldn't need to be explained to anyone who had researched the subject in any depth, since the above persons are recognized as among the most important scholars in this area, and their view is in fact the dominant view among reputable historians - a consensus has already been reached by experts. This website's version, on the other hand, is a variation of a fictional idea that was popularized by people such as the playwright George Bernard Shaw.
Secondly: A full explanation of the site's errors would be far too long for an external link entry. I already posted a summary of the evidence when this came up on my talk page.
Thirdly: the painting in question was, according to the site's own information, made by the site owner himself, rather than being a painting with a long and illustrious history in its own right. This isn't my "opinion", but rather the author's own description.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 04:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Epilepsy theory

User Jehannette Why are my changes being deleted regarding Jehanne's epilepsy? I have documented why this may be so! Please stop deleting my edits! Joan of Arc COULD have had epilepsy. I have documented PUBLISHED RESEARCH on this!

Greetings, and welcome.

Aside from the reason already given by Switisweti, it is also the case that - as I believe other historians have pointed out before myself - the epilepsy theory is based on an erroneous or incomplete conception of how Joan's visions are described in the documents, thereby resulting in an erroneous theory. I'm currently writing up letters to send to the sites you listed (plus the academic journal which had a similar article) in order to correct their information: once given accurate information about Joan's case, I'm sure they will agree that epilepsy is not a feasible explanation, and will hopefully change their pages accordingly.

If necessary, I can also expand Misplaced Pages's article so that it gives a fuller accounting of what the evidence is on this point (without citing any specific explanation or personal interpretation of this evidence).

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 05:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC))

User Jehannette This is just nuts! The journal Epilepsia is a PEER-REVIEWED journal and the article that I list in the "links" section was written by two prominent neuroscientists from one of the most prominent research academic institutions in the world. Since I have cited published research for my claims, the edits should stand until you can provide evidence from the neuroscience community to the contrary. Again, I use the word “possibly”. Can you provide evidence that Jehanne’s experiences were NOT the result of epilepsy?? Sounds like a POV to me!

It can, and has, been proven that she did not have epilepsy - among others, Judy Grundy wrote a piece rejecting the notion, and (more importantly), the people you cited were basing their theory on entirely erroneous historical information about the person they were analyzing - they certainly may be experts on epilepsy, but they are not historians and their conception of the historical facts concerning their "patient" was based on misconceptions, resulting in a flawed diagnosis. I'll be sending the websites you mentioned the correct information, as well as sending a letter or short article submission to the academic journal in question. If any doubt remains after they see the valid evidence, I will discuss it with these people, not here at Misplaced Pages.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Removed debate between Mr.Williamson and me below, since it became quite illegible -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, Jehanette, do sign your entries properly, that is with -- ~~~~ , and two BR tags are completely unnecessary, too. And if you answer to something, use the appropriate number of colons in front of your answer. You are more likely to be taken seriously by others if you stick to established conventions. And those are not that difficult to learn, either :-) --AlexR 16:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well lets not get too testy here. As someone who enacted one of the reverts, in my defense, let me say that they really do look like vandalism (initially anonymous edits, overwriting seemingly valid parts of the article, etc.) However, at this point I will leave it up to people more knowledgeable than myself to decide whether or not to include this information --Cvaneg 18:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Write a seperate chapter about this epilepsy-theory with a lot of "may" and "could" etc. and incorporation of the information is fine. Not just a short remark between brackets in a section that covers a completely different subject. That's just to easy and looks like vandalism, especially when the edits are anon. Switisweti 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, fine, but why did you delete the entries that I added in the "external links" section? I will write a seperate chapter and submit it in a week or two. --Jehannette 21:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A debate about "evidence" and "style"

I removed this debate from above, because it rips the epilepy debate apart. Also, I move parts of the debate to the left again, because it has become quite illegible. No other changes are being made. -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The talk of this subject can be found on Talk:Joan_Of_Arc/Evidence_and_Style

The "Clothing" section

Needless to say, I do consider Rebroads's addition, in view of the debate that has been going on for a month now, and the mediation currently going going on, as highly problematic. (His edits on Talk:Transsexual and other things also make me wonder about his motive, but that seems a pointless route to pursue here and now.) I will refrain from editing the article unilaterally, though, since that would only hinder mediation as it would most certianly spur a heated reaction from Mr. Williamson. This of course only applies as long as mediation takes place. -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trivia

Historical representation

Expanded description and title of Mark Twain's fictionalized history of Joan of Arc. Reworded paragraph concerning the naming of French ships.--Wjbean 18:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

descension summary

I saw some question about my ancestry being related to Joan of Arc. Here is a brief sequence of ancestry descent: Jacques D'Arc de Lys -> Pierre D'Arc de Lys -> Jeanne de Lys -> Marie le Fournier -> Nicolas de Marguerie -> Madelaine Marie de Maigen de Bretteville -> Nicholas de Launay -> Machael de Launay -> Louis Gervais deLaunay -> Louis Michael Antoine deLaunay -> Louis Jacques deLaunay -> Francis Van Bartel desIsles -> Adeline L. DesIsles -> Anna Emery Haynes -> Edna Haynes Goudey -> Lorraine Des Isles Mayer -> my mother -> me, Jhballard 07:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current formatting

The formatting of the first paragraph did not fit with all other biographical articles. I have implemented standard Misplaced Pages formatting style. All commentary should be on the talk page, and not in the text of the article. Noisy | Talk 16:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Peer review requests not specifying archive