This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2022. |
Snapdragonfly altered Henry II to Henry IV. Incorrect. It seems that the longer explanation is needed. "She thus lost France. But her descent returned to the throne of France when Henry II of France inherited the crown two centuries later, in 1549, and from that onwards, all Kings of France have been carrying also Joan's blood. (Henry II was Joan's issue in 8th generation, through for example his maternal great-grandmother Margaret of Foix-Navarre, duchess consort of Brittany, and through Margaret's husband's great-grandmother Joan of Navarre, queen of England and also duchess consort of Brittany, who herself was Joan's granddaughter.)"
@ Borsoka: Could you enlighten the rest of us by elaborating a bit on your edit summary for this edit, which reads simply "POV"? Eric talk 03:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the ahnentafel has been in the article unchallenged since 2009. This is how the article looked in 2009, and it went on to look like that until Borsoka revamped it in 2016. I then chimmed in, added bits here and there, including the family tree, which rendered the ahnentafel superfluous. The next logical step in improving the article was removing the collapsed, superseded and hardly useful chart. Yes, the article should have a chart because, as Place Clichy says, ancestry and heritage are important in biographies such as this one. But we do not need two charts, especially when one of those charts lists obscure and irrelevant people instead of those who actually had an impact on the subject's life. I would appreciate it if Place Clichy could explain why Maria of Swabia should be mentioned in the article, or why Alice of Forez is relevant, or Andrew II of Hungary, or Hugh of Vergy, or Eleanor of Saint-Valery, etc. No biographer of Joan ever mentioned her relation to any of them. The ahnentafel is thus trivia, if not (as Borsoka said) outright original research. Surtsicna ( talk) 02:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)" so it perfectly fits
Wikipedia:Verifiability. Therefore, this is all very much a matter of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.I have removed 30 of the least relevant chart entries, but that did not include all the people I cited as irrelevant to this biography. Eleanor of Saint-Valery is still there, for example, but I'd say that virtually none of her great-great-grandparents is relevant here. Why is Ramon Berenguer IV of Provence relevant? Which biographer of Joan (or any historian, for that matter) mentions her descent from Ramon Berenguer IV of Provence? Or from James I of Aragon? Why should Violant of Hungary, Alice of Vergy and Matilda of Brabant be mentioned? The issue of verifiability here is not proving their existence or their genealogical relation to Joan, but their relevance to this biography. We can find information about Barack Obama's height, but it is still not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article about him.
Some people not mentioned in the article have to be in the tree because they are links to relevant people. We cannot illustrate Joan's relation to her husband if we omit his father; we can, however, omit his mother. The relatives mentioned in the family tree are definitely not hand-picked. I kindly ask you to read the article; people mentioned in the tree are those mentioned in the text and in the sources, which is obviously in compliance with WP:V and not biased in any way. Joan's maternal grandfather, though not mentioned in the text, was added to appease the pro-ahnentafel faction. He is mentioned in the sources but "negotiable", for what that is worth :) Place Clichy, can you please tell me how you can claim that filling the tree with relatives mentioned in the text results in an undue weight issue, while filling an ahnentafel with obscure and irrelevant relatives does not?
We are currently trying to improve this specific article. What brings no benefit here may be useful elsewhere and vice versa. The article about Beethoven has an infobox; the one about Mozart does not, per talk page consensus. Besides, when was the addition of the ahnentafel discussed at the wikiproject talk page or this talk page or any other?
Whaleyland, what you gather from the ahnentafel is all nice and dandy, but does any biographer or a general historian say that about Joan? We could include a letter written by her for readers to interpret, but if Joan's biographers do not cite this letter, should we? I am honestly not convinced. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Whaleyland, how can you tell what I intended when I added the family tree? How can you tell what purpose I had in mind and what I meant for it to show? Whatever the answer, no, that was not the purpose of the chart I added. Did you add Henry I of Navarre to the family tree of Philip III of Navarre in order to illustrate the 1328 French succession?
The chart does not seem wide to me at all. Far wider charts can be found in FA-ranked royalty articles (such as Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I of England).
Edward and Isabella were placed to the left in order to have all the relevant grandchildren of Philip IV in the same row. The drawback was giving the impression that Isabella was older than her brothers. You fixed that, didn't you, Place Clichy? The children and grandchildren of Joan's uncles do not appear in the family tree because they are not prominent in the article or generally given much attention in biographies of Joan (unlike Edward, with whom she shared a claim to France and with whom she interacted as Queen of Navarre during the Hundred Years' War). If someone can show that they are relevant to this biography, including them too is quite easy.
Now, I honestly do not follow Place Clichy's point. How is listing Joan's maternal grandparents in her family tree weirder than listing them, and the great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents, in the ahnentafel? And why should the tree mention the Burgundies connection of people who are part of neither this article nor the tree? I agree, picking some and leaving out others does carry a meaning. But I believe that all content should be meaningful, and that meaningless craft should not be part of an encyclopedia.
And again, I am not convinced by the argument that the presence of ahnentafel in "every royalty article" is grounds for its inclusion in a specific article if it cannot be shown to contribute useful information. It is not even true that ahnentafels can be found in "every royalty article"; plenty of FA-ranked royalty articles do just fine without them. Stephen I of Hungary, for example, contains only the family tree, which lists everyone relevant. You made no effort to explain why the names of Joan's great-great-grandparents are useful information. Does any biographer of Joan present this ahnentafel? Any historian? Does any of them mention these 30 people as her great-great-grandparents? Stopping at great-grandparents would be a reasonable step, for what that's worth. (And as it happens, great-grandparents can easily fit into the family tree chart, but hey, we can also keep them tucked away and hidden from view.) Surtsicna ( talk) 20:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The IP142.183.21.97 has added(at least for the moment):
This information already appears in the article, albeit in the perspective of Joan II of Navarre(the subject of the article). The IP's addition is written in a broken perspective that fails to even mention Joan(the subject of the article)...at all! The previous versions added by the IP were even more illegible and this addition is unneeded and clearly not an improvement.
The other issue is the references:
Is unauthored and is dated from 1760. Clearly should not be considered or used as a source.
I am guessing this was published in 1328 which makes it a primary source and also outdated.
Some obscure website, that appears you simply translated then shoved into the article.
No clue what this means. Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
SOURCES: Bibl.: J. Y anguas y Miranda, “Medrano, Juan Martín de”, en Diccionario de Antigüedades del Reino de Navarra, Pamplona, Imprenta de José Imaz y Gadea, 1940; J. M. Lacarra, El juramento de los reyes de Navarra (1234-1329), Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, 1972, págs. 84-92; “Las Cortes de Olite de 1329 y la sucesión al reino de Navarra”, en Cuadernos de Historia de España, 65-66 (1972), pág. 309; Historia política del Reino de Navarra desde sus orígenes hasta su incorporación a Castilla, vol. III, Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra, 1973, págs. 17, 21 y 28; J. Zabalo Zabalegui, La administración del reino de Navarra en el siglo XIV, Pamplona, Universidad de Navarra, 1973, págs. 37, 53, 55-56, 210 y 323; “Juan Martínez de Medrano ‘el Mayor’”, en Gran Enciclopedia Navarra, vol. VII, Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra, 1990, pág. 310; A. J. Martín Duque y E. Ramírez Vaquero, “El reino de Navarra (1217-1350)”, en Historia de España Menéndez Pidal, vol. 13-2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1990, pág. 76; B. Leroy, “Les débuts de la dynastie d’Evreux en Navarre: des expériences mutuelles, de novuelles situations”, en En la España Medieval, 17 (1994), págs. 20-22; J. J. Martinena Ruiz, Castillos reales de Navarra (siglos XIII al XVI), Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 1994, pág. 725; F. Miranda García, Felipe III y Juana II de Evreux, Pamplona, Mintzoa, 1994, págs. 56, 62, 145, 148, 156, 164, 180, 243 y 246; R. Ciganda Elizondo, “El honor de las armas y el servicio del rey: la carrera política de Fernando de Ayanz (c. 1353-1393)”, en Grupos Sociales en la Historia de Navara: relaciones y derechos. Quinto Congreso de Historia de Navarra, vol. I, Pamplona, Eunate, 2002, págs. 55 y 66; F. Segura Urra, ‘Fazer justicia’. Fuero, poder público y delito en Navarra (siglos XIII-XIV), Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2005, págs. 39, 173, 313, 321 y 388; I. Mugueta Moreno, El dinero de los Evreux. Hacienda y fiscalidad en el reino de Navarra. 1328-1349, Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2007, págs. 28, 116, 223, 319, 323, 333, 334, 373, 485-488, 583 y 600.
Félix Segura Urra 142.183.21.97 ( talk) 04:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2022. |
Snapdragonfly altered Henry II to Henry IV. Incorrect. It seems that the longer explanation is needed. "She thus lost France. But her descent returned to the throne of France when Henry II of France inherited the crown two centuries later, in 1549, and from that onwards, all Kings of France have been carrying also Joan's blood. (Henry II was Joan's issue in 8th generation, through for example his maternal great-grandmother Margaret of Foix-Navarre, duchess consort of Brittany, and through Margaret's husband's great-grandmother Joan of Navarre, queen of England and also duchess consort of Brittany, who herself was Joan's granddaughter.)"
@ Borsoka: Could you enlighten the rest of us by elaborating a bit on your edit summary for this edit, which reads simply "POV"? Eric talk 03:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the ahnentafel has been in the article unchallenged since 2009. This is how the article looked in 2009, and it went on to look like that until Borsoka revamped it in 2016. I then chimmed in, added bits here and there, including the family tree, which rendered the ahnentafel superfluous. The next logical step in improving the article was removing the collapsed, superseded and hardly useful chart. Yes, the article should have a chart because, as Place Clichy says, ancestry and heritage are important in biographies such as this one. But we do not need two charts, especially when one of those charts lists obscure and irrelevant people instead of those who actually had an impact on the subject's life. I would appreciate it if Place Clichy could explain why Maria of Swabia should be mentioned in the article, or why Alice of Forez is relevant, or Andrew II of Hungary, or Hugh of Vergy, or Eleanor of Saint-Valery, etc. No biographer of Joan ever mentioned her relation to any of them. The ahnentafel is thus trivia, if not (as Borsoka said) outright original research. Surtsicna ( talk) 02:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)" so it perfectly fits
Wikipedia:Verifiability. Therefore, this is all very much a matter of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.I have removed 30 of the least relevant chart entries, but that did not include all the people I cited as irrelevant to this biography. Eleanor of Saint-Valery is still there, for example, but I'd say that virtually none of her great-great-grandparents is relevant here. Why is Ramon Berenguer IV of Provence relevant? Which biographer of Joan (or any historian, for that matter) mentions her descent from Ramon Berenguer IV of Provence? Or from James I of Aragon? Why should Violant of Hungary, Alice of Vergy and Matilda of Brabant be mentioned? The issue of verifiability here is not proving their existence or their genealogical relation to Joan, but their relevance to this biography. We can find information about Barack Obama's height, but it is still not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article about him.
Some people not mentioned in the article have to be in the tree because they are links to relevant people. We cannot illustrate Joan's relation to her husband if we omit his father; we can, however, omit his mother. The relatives mentioned in the family tree are definitely not hand-picked. I kindly ask you to read the article; people mentioned in the tree are those mentioned in the text and in the sources, which is obviously in compliance with WP:V and not biased in any way. Joan's maternal grandfather, though not mentioned in the text, was added to appease the pro-ahnentafel faction. He is mentioned in the sources but "negotiable", for what that is worth :) Place Clichy, can you please tell me how you can claim that filling the tree with relatives mentioned in the text results in an undue weight issue, while filling an ahnentafel with obscure and irrelevant relatives does not?
We are currently trying to improve this specific article. What brings no benefit here may be useful elsewhere and vice versa. The article about Beethoven has an infobox; the one about Mozart does not, per talk page consensus. Besides, when was the addition of the ahnentafel discussed at the wikiproject talk page or this talk page or any other?
Whaleyland, what you gather from the ahnentafel is all nice and dandy, but does any biographer or a general historian say that about Joan? We could include a letter written by her for readers to interpret, but if Joan's biographers do not cite this letter, should we? I am honestly not convinced. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Whaleyland, how can you tell what I intended when I added the family tree? How can you tell what purpose I had in mind and what I meant for it to show? Whatever the answer, no, that was not the purpose of the chart I added. Did you add Henry I of Navarre to the family tree of Philip III of Navarre in order to illustrate the 1328 French succession?
The chart does not seem wide to me at all. Far wider charts can be found in FA-ranked royalty articles (such as Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I of England).
Edward and Isabella were placed to the left in order to have all the relevant grandchildren of Philip IV in the same row. The drawback was giving the impression that Isabella was older than her brothers. You fixed that, didn't you, Place Clichy? The children and grandchildren of Joan's uncles do not appear in the family tree because they are not prominent in the article or generally given much attention in biographies of Joan (unlike Edward, with whom she shared a claim to France and with whom she interacted as Queen of Navarre during the Hundred Years' War). If someone can show that they are relevant to this biography, including them too is quite easy.
Now, I honestly do not follow Place Clichy's point. How is listing Joan's maternal grandparents in her family tree weirder than listing them, and the great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents, in the ahnentafel? And why should the tree mention the Burgundies connection of people who are part of neither this article nor the tree? I agree, picking some and leaving out others does carry a meaning. But I believe that all content should be meaningful, and that meaningless craft should not be part of an encyclopedia.
And again, I am not convinced by the argument that the presence of ahnentafel in "every royalty article" is grounds for its inclusion in a specific article if it cannot be shown to contribute useful information. It is not even true that ahnentafels can be found in "every royalty article"; plenty of FA-ranked royalty articles do just fine without them. Stephen I of Hungary, for example, contains only the family tree, which lists everyone relevant. You made no effort to explain why the names of Joan's great-great-grandparents are useful information. Does any biographer of Joan present this ahnentafel? Any historian? Does any of them mention these 30 people as her great-great-grandparents? Stopping at great-grandparents would be a reasonable step, for what that's worth. (And as it happens, great-grandparents can easily fit into the family tree chart, but hey, we can also keep them tucked away and hidden from view.) Surtsicna ( talk) 20:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The IP142.183.21.97 has added(at least for the moment):
This information already appears in the article, albeit in the perspective of Joan II of Navarre(the subject of the article). The IP's addition is written in a broken perspective that fails to even mention Joan(the subject of the article)...at all! The previous versions added by the IP were even more illegible and this addition is unneeded and clearly not an improvement.
The other issue is the references:
Is unauthored and is dated from 1760. Clearly should not be considered or used as a source.
I am guessing this was published in 1328 which makes it a primary source and also outdated.
Some obscure website, that appears you simply translated then shoved into the article.
No clue what this means. Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
SOURCES: Bibl.: J. Y anguas y Miranda, “Medrano, Juan Martín de”, en Diccionario de Antigüedades del Reino de Navarra, Pamplona, Imprenta de José Imaz y Gadea, 1940; J. M. Lacarra, El juramento de los reyes de Navarra (1234-1329), Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, 1972, págs. 84-92; “Las Cortes de Olite de 1329 y la sucesión al reino de Navarra”, en Cuadernos de Historia de España, 65-66 (1972), pág. 309; Historia política del Reino de Navarra desde sus orígenes hasta su incorporación a Castilla, vol. III, Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra, 1973, págs. 17, 21 y 28; J. Zabalo Zabalegui, La administración del reino de Navarra en el siglo XIV, Pamplona, Universidad de Navarra, 1973, págs. 37, 53, 55-56, 210 y 323; “Juan Martínez de Medrano ‘el Mayor’”, en Gran Enciclopedia Navarra, vol. VII, Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra, 1990, pág. 310; A. J. Martín Duque y E. Ramírez Vaquero, “El reino de Navarra (1217-1350)”, en Historia de España Menéndez Pidal, vol. 13-2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1990, pág. 76; B. Leroy, “Les débuts de la dynastie d’Evreux en Navarre: des expériences mutuelles, de novuelles situations”, en En la España Medieval, 17 (1994), págs. 20-22; J. J. Martinena Ruiz, Castillos reales de Navarra (siglos XIII al XVI), Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 1994, pág. 725; F. Miranda García, Felipe III y Juana II de Evreux, Pamplona, Mintzoa, 1994, págs. 56, 62, 145, 148, 156, 164, 180, 243 y 246; R. Ciganda Elizondo, “El honor de las armas y el servicio del rey: la carrera política de Fernando de Ayanz (c. 1353-1393)”, en Grupos Sociales en la Historia de Navara: relaciones y derechos. Quinto Congreso de Historia de Navarra, vol. I, Pamplona, Eunate, 2002, págs. 55 y 66; F. Segura Urra, ‘Fazer justicia’. Fuero, poder público y delito en Navarra (siglos XIII-XIV), Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2005, págs. 39, 173, 313, 321 y 388; I. Mugueta Moreno, El dinero de los Evreux. Hacienda y fiscalidad en el reino de Navarra. 1328-1349, Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2007, págs. 28, 116, 223, 319, 323, 333, 334, 373, 485-488, 583 y 600.
Félix Segura Urra 142.183.21.97 ( talk) 04:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)