Talk:Jacques le Gris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jacques Le Gris)
Good articleJacques le Gris has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 26, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
October 25, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
November 5, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

The only thing that needs a little tweaking is the prose. Once that is done then you may want to get a peer review to see how close this article is to becoming featured. Congratulations! T Rex | talk 07:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps (Pass)[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I realise the GA listing was recent, but for completeness have reassessed the article anyway and believe it still meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. An excellent companion article for Jean de Carrouges.

The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my FAC suggestions[edit]

It struck me, thinking about this again, that a better article to look at as a way of approaching this topic might be Battle of Svolder. The primary sources there are essentially unreliable, and vivid battle details are given; but a featured article was made out of the material by User:Haukur, who scrupulously framed the material he took from the chronicles. qp10qp 17:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, for example, is a framing device used at Battle of Svolder: It is unlikely that the saga writers had accurate information on details of the battle beyond the sparse accounts in the surviving poems. Nevertheless, starting with Oddr Snorrason, they present an elaborate literary account, depicting the main participants through their words and deeds.

And here is an example of using historical perspective and comparison to temper the narrative: At last, the Long Serpent is overpowered and Olaf Tryggvason defeated. The Danish sources report that when all was lost he committed suicide by throwing himself into the sea, "the end befitting his life", according to Adam of Bremen.[47] Saxo Grammaticus says that Olaf preferred suicide to death at the hands of the enemy and jumped overboard in full armour rather than see his foes victorious.[48] The Norwegian and Icelandic accounts are more complex and more favourable to Olaf. Hallfreðr's memorial poem for his lord had already alluded to rumours that Olaf escaped death at Svolder. qp10qp 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one really contentious section, the CNN-style coverage of the combat itself. My preference is to replace it with Froissart's description (he probably watched it, or had first-hand accounts of it) and that of the Monk of Saint-Denys. As Jackyd101 points out there is a good deal of extant French source material, including transcripts of judicial proceedings (as with Joan of Arc in fact), though this is untranslated. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the whole article is contentious. In my opinion, it should be framed round the sources, such as legal records (surely Jager specifically quotes some), Froissart, and the monk. The sources should be criticised. We are not even told who this monk was, when he wrote, whether he witnessed the event, or whatever (it seems to me that he wrote a long time after the event, because he says, "Afterwards everyone found out who had committed the foul rape, when someone else confessed while being condemned to death. The aforesaid lady took note of this, and thinking over the fault in her mind, after the death of her husband became a recluse and took an oath of perpetual continence." This all must have taken some time). By the way, the website where the monk's account is given is not a reliable source, since there are no publication details.
Froissart's description of the fight is given in a box in the article, and it is interesting, framed in quotes like that: I'm all in favour of that. But it is short, as is the monk's description; so where do all these blow-by-blow details of the fight come from? Jager's imagination (I hope not)? Did Froissart see the fight? It doesn't sound like it to me. He certainly says at the beginning that he has the causes of the case from hearsay, and he gets the name of the place wrong. For the fight he describes the statements of the combatants in unlikely detail, and even what the lady was thinking ("The lady remained seated, making fervent prayers to God and the Virgin, entreating humbly, that through her grace and intercession, she might gain the victory according to her right").
The fight is not the only contentious part of the article, in my opinion. The long description of the visit of Le Gris to the lady is not framed, apart from the comment that the truth will never be known. If this is a version of the evidence given at the trial, it should be put into the mouths of the witnesses who said it. Also, to be neutral, the two sides of the matter should be interwoven, so that we are not just privileging the narrative of Le Gris' guilt.qp10qp 12:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't in all honesty agree that the whole article is contentious: there is for instance considerably more material on this than on Wiglaf of Mercia. I agree with you entirely about balance and the need to separate fact from license. This is one of the things I wanted to mull after commenting the other day. I am curious to see what sources Jager relies on and how much of them he quotes, so I ordered his book. I'm also VERY interested to discover on what the account of the combat is based. The trial was a much talked about celebrity event at the time. The monk, by the way, is better known as the "Religieux de Saint-Denis" and his chronicles have been published a few times in French. I don't know if there's an English translation available other than the one online. We'll have to wait and see. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if nothing else, I think you will have a storming read (see below).
As far as a reliable reference for the monk is concerned, one really should include a website like that only for convenience. One should refer to the monk through Jager, giving Jager's page number and saying that "a translation" of the account is available on such and such a page. The reader is thereby given assistance but informed that they can take or leave the website because the actual reference is to something said or quoted by Jager. Hopefully, Jager gives his published source, and that could be provided after a phrase like "Jager quotes/refers to ....", followed by publication details for his source. This helpfully gives the original source, for those who are interested (like me), without pretending that the editor of our article has read it.qp10qp 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going over Jager's sources, but am finding the locations of his endnotes a little vague. Whilst the actual combat itself does (upon close examination) seem to be largely (although not entirely) based on six different chronicles, many of the details surrounding it (like the participant's dress and procedure) come from French sources ranging from the 15th to the 20th century. The origins of these sources are obviously indeterminate. As for the concern about the account of events surrounding the "rape", this seems to be on slightly stronger ground with several archive papers given amongst the sources (although again, the actual contents of these archives is unclear). I'm uncomfortable with dissecting this secondary work into sources I a) Have no feasible access to b) would not understand even if I did and c) cannot give as sources in the article in any case as to do so would be to breach OR. I'm thinking of several steps which could be taken here but have not come to a satisfactory conclusion as to what to do yet. In another note, Jager notes that Froissart was believed to have been in Paris at the time of the duel and may well have witnessed it and even if he hadn't, would have definately spoken to people who had. This of course does not make him a reliable source, but does perhaps lend a little more credence to his account.--Jackyd101 01:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have made an attempt to change the tone of the combat paragraph with a simple passage. Let me know if it improves things. I have been thinking on this problem for several days and I think that the most significant problem is the reliability of the sources used in the section on the combat. The "rape" by contrast seems well sourced. I have introduced a couple of sentances explaining that the combat is drawn largely from the chronicles. I am still considering other options and would appreciate further advice, but this is an effort to address the problem in a simple manner whilst I continue to think about it.--Jackyd101 23:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having now looked through Jager's book, which is basically a novelisation, I don't think this article is sustainable in its current form. Much of the source material is in the French national archive and has not been published. I'm sorry to have to say this because you've lavished care on this but it broadly needs reducing to a stub. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think your suggestion is a little extreme, you've just said yourself that the account is at least partly based on sources in the French National Archive. Yes, Jager's book now appears to be of questionable reliability in some respects, but to dismiss it entirely is something of an over reaction. The only part of the text which seems to have difficulties with sourcing are those based on the chronicles, which is fundamentally the section on the combat itself. If you check the sources on the rape section you will notice that they are based in the National Archive and that Jager's account is substantially different from that given by Froissart et al.
It sadly seems obvious that without major changes and probably the publication of further sources, this article will not make it to FA, but I do not see ground for reducing it to a stub because many of the sources are inaccessible.--Jackyd101 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a little confused by your comment above about the material in the French Naional Archive not being published. Jager's book, being a second hand source at least partly based on the archive material is an example of the archive's records making their way into print. According to all Wiki guidelines I have read, second hand sources are the best kind to use since their interpretation is the best way to avoid OR. Similarly there has to be grounds for a source to be dismissed and whilst the review below casts doubts on Jager's pedigree, it does not totally dismiss the books conclusions. I accept there are questions about this source which must be answered but I don't see grounds for its immediate dismissal.--Jackyd101 11:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that broadly (though there are exceptions) Jager provides general sources for composite sections, rather than sources for specific statements, making it difficult to determine which specific source said what and what bits are supported by the historical record, rather than - say - cherry-picked from legend. As the national archive source material is largely unpublished and Jager has largely not quoted verbatim, we cannot see what the source actually said and whether Jager's interpretation is coherent. That's the way I see it, I'm afraid. Others may disagree. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your interpretation, and I fully understand that there are serious sourcing problems which would preclude this article from becoming an FA at the present time. However, I don't think it is necessary to remove all trace of Jager's book from the article and reduce it to a stub. I see your point of view and I'm not taking it personally, I just think your original suggestion was a trifle extreme.--Jackyd101 12:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to remove all trace of Jager either but after taking out the unsourced stuff I'm not sure how much will be left.--ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the problem, Jager's sourcing is too vague to dermine what is and what isn't sourced, leaving us unable to properly differentiate and thus (in the absense of corroborating sources) leaving us with the choice of removing him entirely (in which case there will be no article left effectively) or keeping him in until further sources become avaliable (and they probably will soon, thanks to Martin Scorsese). Both options would however end the FAC.--Jackyd101 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it seems you have a pretty good grip on the problems so I'll leave it entirely to you what to do next. I must honestly say I didn't imagine it would be quite like this before I saw the book. I am sorry the FAC has ended this way. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Jager's book[edit]

I've just read the following review of Jager's book. I sincerely hope it is not correct in its criticisms. The suggestion that "Jager admits to using his own invention to fill gaps in the sources" is particularly troubling. Review here. qp10qp 13:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very interesting. (I've removed the full text for copyright reasons.) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting and if accurate (and I can't really see why it shouldn't be) does undermine the article. I still think that Jager's book is an important source (as well as being effectively the only English source of any substance), but this concern about its reliability raises problems. I have been thinking about ways to deal with this issue but this review indicates the problems go deeper than I was anticipating. I shall have to think on this further.--Jackyd101 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication[edit]

@Dbachmann: The 'duplication' tag was added more than seven years ago now, but I don't suppose you recall what the section was meant to duplicate? Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jacques Le Gris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacques Le Gris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacques Le Gris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor change to the title[edit]

I think that the title of the article should be changed from "Jacques Le Gris" to "Jacques le Gris", which is more proper. --Obversa (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacques_le_Gris&oldid=1208117776"