This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
While there is evidence of a connection between intellectual deficiency and schizophrenia in the general population, the apparent absence of such a deficiency in any given individual is not evidence that that individual was or is free of mental illness. That is, if a psychiatrist were presented with a patient showing normal to high intelligence, the psychiatrist would not interpret this intelligence level as counting AGAINST a diagnosis of schizophrenia or any "major mental illness." Conversely, if a patient showed a below-average level of intelligence, this would not be interpreted as counting FOR a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Put simply, level of intelligence is not a diagnostic criterion for mental illness, unless you consider mental retardation and other developmental disorders to be mental illnesses, which is not generally done and does not seem to relate to the case at hand.
As relates to this article, Jehanne d'Arc may not have been mentally ill at all, or her ideas may have been pathological in origin; however, her intelligence level as recorded (unempirically) in the trial records does not support either case. The only reason to include the paragraph I deleted is unverifiable in nature, namely to create the subjective impression that Jehanne was "too smart to be sick." Wikipedia should not reflect unverifiable viewpoints or arguments, as the guideline I am looking at right now cleary states.
Furthermore, the section titled "Visions" contains several POV statements, such as the assertion that the people who have been interested in Jehanne d'Arc's visions "all agree that her faith was sincere." I don't, for one; it seems more likely to me that she framed her accounts of her ideas in religious terms because these would be the terms most readily understood by her society and peers. However, I would not put my POV into any Wikipedia article, and I do not expect any Wikipedia article to promote anyone else's POV, especially on an issue as ridiculously subjective as "whether or not Joan of Arc believed sincerely in her religious ideas."
"Visions" needs a complete overhaul to be appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia, but I'm not going to do it because this is a topic of religious significance and I don't want to participate in a chest-thumping contest. 68.35.223.245 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Although as of April 16th 2005 the Joan of Arc article is now a well detailed, correctly updated piece, i feel there is still a concern in the opening paragraph with the word use 'liberation'. This is rather an over emotive, one sided word for a war that saw French support on both sides of the conflict. No one was essentially liberated as that would mean that upon liberation, a section of the populous in support of the losing side suddenely found themselves in need of liberation from the new lords?!?! surely?!?!? Liberation never truly happened if people were still not at liberty. The word merely serves to suggest that the fashionable, less-educated view that the English were the all domineering aggressors, and furthermore completely undermines the fact that it was as much a French Civil War as it was a war between English and French.
Someone put thought to this and if agreement, or at least a better way of explaining my point, be found please edit the article appropriatly.
fantmax-- 71.232.13.49 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It's my understandable that she's particularly notable for having achieved so much as a woman, and at such an early age. Yet neither of these points are really mentioned in the intro. The opening paragraph really needs to state the bleeding obvious. Stevage 12:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That her fame/importance is due to being young and a woman rather than (or more than) because she is a saint and a national hero, is wrong, even if it is your 'understanding.' Also, noting that she's particularly famous because she's a woman is redundant. Squanderdalfast 08:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but if a sexual assault in prison is not a rape, what is? Bcameron54 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
to you guys who like to change it back to whatever: the issue is not whether she was raped in prison, it is what you are going to call it. alleged attempted rape by an allegedly english possibly lord? please.
Bcameron54
21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This article implies that there had been a united France occupying a territory similar to modern day France, but that the English had invaded and split the country. Can someone point out when this former united France existed and who led it? Alan Pascoe 11:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see the next section -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"which inspired French troops to win the liberation of her homeland from English dominance". France as a nation was probably forged as a concept during the 100 years war. But the "English" nobility came from families which had been had been lords in areas, which are now part of France, for at least as long, or longer, than they had been Lords in England. One can equally argue that the 100 years war was a civil war, in which one side had a power base in England, so to use the term "liberation of her homeland" is a patriotic French POV. Also "A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy" but no mention of politics in "Pope Callixtus III reopened Joan's case; a new finding overturned the original conviction" can equally be seen as a French POV. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not have to provide sources because I am not suggesting putting anything into the article. I am suggesting that the words be altered to take out the French POV. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This article gives the impression that Joan of Arc fought and died for the cause of Catholicism against a non-Catholic foe. This is a false impression because the English were also Catholics. Alan Pascoe 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they were, for over a century after Joan's death. Henry VIII didn't come to the English throne until 1509. Fsotrain09 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
So the heresy trial was political but the rehabilitation was just finding the "truth"? Note that the rehabilitation was ordered by the first of the Borgias, a notorius nepotist and well versed in the politics of the day. It would not have happed if Henry VI had won. -- 213.122.37.62 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-Look at the procedures used in both trials. The rehabilitation trial involved the testimony of dozens of witnesses from throughout Joan's life. It also followed the established legal procedures for the court. The trial of condemnation ignored and violated the ecclesiastical rules of the Church. The defense was not allowed to present witnesses, nor allowed counsel, nor allowed appeal. That is what makes it more political than the rehabilitation. -Rob 16:01 26 April 2006
-I think I go along with the hopeless-POV POV. I don't dispute the basic fact that her trial by the English was 'politically motivated'. I bet they hated her guts. 'kangaroo court' would probably be le mot just. However, I rather suspect that was pretty much the norm in them days. It's the tone I object to and the lack of context. The article affects moral outrage that the judge was a partisan appointment. Of course he was: all offices of state were filled by royal appointees. The above statement argues that the absence of defence witnesses or counsel was unfair. Likely so but business as usual at the time. A very quick search of the interweb throws up two interesting facts: (1) English law permitted no defence witness testimony in felony/treason crimes until the 16th century and, (2) No defence counsel for felonies until the Prisoner's Councel Act of 1836. 100 years after Joan's execution the Tudors were gaily chopping English heads off left right and centre after some highly dubious legal procedings. I appreciate that the trial may not have followed the letter of ecclesiastical trials of the time (I wouldn't know) but in terms of realpolitik, so what? And finally, if the condemnation was flawed because of the lack of a defense, who prosecuted in the rehabilitation? Condemnation: all prosecution and no defense; Rehabilitation: all defense and no prosecution. Conclusion: both flawed. 217.154.66.11 12:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember this article being the AOTD some time ago.Maybe I'm wrong but why repeat it when there are many great choices to have on the front page.
Are the people who run Wikipedia all religious evangelists? Seriously. I need to know.
(OK, I have no idea if this is the correct place to post this, but I can't find any other place. I do not know how the arcane and not-very-user-friendly Wikipedia interface works - there are endless links to locked pages and nowhere else to post discussions. I hope this is it.)
Perhaps someone can clear this up for me so I can stop wasting my time. Here are the facts:
1. This Joan of Arc article appears regularly on the front page of Wikipedia. 2. It is barely disguised religious propaganda.
Since whoever runs this site (I don't know who that is and don't have time to wade through the endless pages in this site) keeps putting it on the front page, I can only assume: (a) that person wishes to perpetuate the religious propaganda, thereby abandoning any pretense of Wiki being an actual science and fact-based encyclopeida, (b) someone keeps altering the article to include the religious dogma as fact (which it isn't) and no one stops them. It's an ongoing thing like Scientologists writing letters-to-the-editor and suing anyone who writes articles on their religion, perhaps?
Please tell me if this is the case. I have tried several times to correct this drivel in the article, but to no avail.
If I need to site references, I refer you to the dictionary definition of the word "logic."
I am referring specifically to the sublimely ridiculous section on the hearing of voices by JoA. Anyone with a working sense of reason knows that she either (a) made it up and didn't hear anything. This is called "lying". Or (b) she really heard voices, in which case she had a mental illness. There is no other rational explanation. There is not now nor has there every been any scientific proof of anything supernatural such as deities, and certainly not of the deities doing anything concrete, such as speaking in someone's head.
So, if the powers that run this site continue to allow this JoA article to say such patently illogical things such as: "Those who argue the opposite position consider the visions themselves to be proof of mental illness, by assuming that they were hallucinations (a symptom of mental illness), which therefore proves that she was mentally ill. The medical community does not consider this type of argument to be valid grounds for a diagnosis, however, as it is an example of circular reasoning."
Uh, hellllooooo? So apparently this article was written by "the medical community?" How can this go unchallenged? This is like saying "the medical community does not consider committing suicide as a symptom of suicidal tendencies..." If someone says they hear voice, they are either lying for some reason, or they are mentally ill.
Other dogmatic religious nonsense (I mean that word literally) in the article include: "Psychiatric explanations encounter some difficulties." Do I REALLY have to explain how unsuitable this sentence is for inclusion in a supposed encyclopedia? If so, then Wikipedia is hopelessly mired in the religious right and I will stop wasting my time trying to correct it.
The fact that I even have to point out the illogic of this article and its Sunday School delivery is a danger sign that the Wiki system has failed.
Am I missing something? How can such poorly written articles continue to appear? And on the front page? And with such obvious logic flaws? And with such an obvious religious agenda?
Or am I laboring under an illusion when I think that this is supposed to be a fact-based site? Please tell me if it isn't, so I can give up and let the religious apologists and fanatics continue with their fun.
Or is Wikipedia simply a place where people consantly change articles back and forth in a never-ending war?
What's next - an article called "Creationism and the Science to Support It" on the front page?
Oh, and there are many, many other similar problems with the JoA page, too many to list. Why? Especially since a casual reading reveals so many... I am confused and frustrated.
Joan had hallucinations/delusions or really did hear voices from God; therefore she had schizophrenia or really did hear voices from God; she didn't have all of the modern DSM-IV criteria to justify a diagnosis of schizophrenia and surely everyone can tell a schizo when they see one; therefore she wasn't schizophrenic and really did hear voices from God. It is possible to have hallucinations and/or delusions and still function socially and intellectually. Cwiki 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
", usually by .... circular reasoning".
The main point has already been made: If you do not think the visions themselves are sign of mental illness there is no evidence that JoA was mentally ill. The section was to long to make the point. For instance: information about the percentage of scientists that believe in God should not be in this article. Pukkie 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Do look into the history of this sectionl. Most of it was kept because their are significant points. One point is that there is obviously questions of mental illness. There is enough evidence to such that such does not exists. That does not mean she had visions from God. It is not one or the other. There are many more reasons to explain such visions. She could have just lied completely about them. She could have had eaten some form of drug from an advanced civilizations that made her receive visions. Doubt them all is what I do. The bottom line of amazement is her leadership at the age of 19. — Dzonatas 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In the "visions" section, someone is talking about circular reasoning. It has been removed and then reverted back in. I would like to remove it again and explain why it does not belong here.
I completely agree. Also: even if the argument was sound it still should not be here. The section is too long to make a point that does not need to be made in the article about JoA. Pukkie 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I see 213.197.202.209 has reverted the text back. He states any argument based on an unproven assumption is, by definition, a circular argument. Sorry, but that's not true. An argument based on a false assumption is called a false premise. Cwiki 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And I deleted it again. If you really want to make this argument about visions do it somewhere else. For instance in the "Visions" article but NOT in the article about Joan of Arc. Pukkie 10:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see 213.197.202.209 has changed his wording a bit. He has misrepresented the view of people he disagrees with, to give them the appearance of suffering from circular reasoning. His logic will take a little longer to pick apart now but bear with me.
213.197.202.209's last revert ditched the reference to circular reasoning. However he still accuses his opponents of having circular reasoning using other words. He states if one wishes to include these visions themselves as two symptoms of mental illness (i.e., "hallucinations" and "delusions"), then one would need to prove that these were in fact hallucinations and delusions rather than merely assuming them to be such and then using that assumption as evidence proving the assumption itself. No-one is trying to prove anything. The argument is if you do not believe in divine communication, and consider that Joan's visions were hallucinations and delusions, then you could make an argument for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. No-one has ever stated, to my knowledge, that they have proved Joan had schizophrenia. Cwiki 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The DSM-IV-TR, for those who are unfamiliar, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. It is the manual used to try to classify mental illness. For those who don't believe God really spoke to Joan, Joan satisfies the neccessary 2 out of 5 criteria listed in criteria A for schizophenia; that is, delusions and hallucinations. Criteria B for schizophrenia involves social and or occupational dysfuntion. Joan does not appear to satisfy criteria B. But people who for various reasons argue against a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on her failing to satisfy critera B are a little premature. There is a condition in the DSM-IV called "delusional disorder". This is a category for people who meet criteria A but essentially do not meet criteria B. You often here people familiar with the absence of criteria B symptoms in Joan, diagnosing her as having "delusional disorder"; but they are wrong as well. To satisfy the criteria for delusional disorder hallucinations may be present, but auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent. Scratch that; let's go back and look closer at schizophrenia.
213.197.202.209 keeps on reverting my work. He has not addressed my concerns in the above sections - getting rid of the circular reasoning bit and schizophrenia and the dsm-iv. I prefer discussing these things on the talk page to engaging in edit wars but 213.197.202.209 won't respond. I am a physician and I know something about the diagnosis of mental illness. 213.197.202.209 is obviously a christian fundamentalist and reverts anything I edit on the subject. Cwiki 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The nature of Joan's visions are controversial; I think that's a given. I would like to propose a set of guidelines for editors to refer to when they edit this section. It's not an attempt to commandeer this section, and I will modify it based on any feedback I receive on the subject. It is an attempt to list relevant issues that both sides can agree on, and limit unecessary waffling.
1. Whether Joan of Arc herself believed that her visions were from God is rarely disputed
2. it is understood without debate that many Catholics consider the visions to be a form of divine communication
3. many people are skeptical of this notion. even people who belive in God can be skeptical of this notion. (correct me if i'm wrong but i suspect) many Catholics are skeptical of this notion.
4. some people speculate that Joan's visions were hallucinations or delusions, and sufficiently bizarre, even in the context of the 15th century, to be considered evidence of a mental illness. Cite any scholars who make this point
4A. some people consider that Joan's visions were not bizarre enough, especially in the context of the 15th century, to be considered sufficient to consider her mentally ill. Cite any scholars who make this point
5. Joan is considered a saint by the Catholic church. Editors should bear this in mind and try to limit any offence they may cause, and try not to be too disrespectful.
6. people who have a knowledge of psychiatry, who believe that Joan's visions were hallucinations and delusions, consider that Joan had a mental illness and have tried to classify it. Medical professionals with an interest in history, have a long tradition of trying to diagnose historical figures. Sometimes there is a consensus (eg Abe Lincoln suffered from Marfan's syndrome), sometimes there is debate (eg Henry VIII had tertiary syphilis). Rarely is there any proof; but proof is not a necessary ingredient of speculation.
7. Joan was apparently intelligent, and did not suffer from any major social or occupational dysfunction. Both sides agree with this but it does not mean she did not have a mental illness. It is also quite consistent with paranoid schizophrenia. Many people today with schizophrenia (1% of the population) function quite well.
8. the best known classification sytems for mental illness are the DSM-IV and the ICD-10. The manuals have a lot of footnotes which tend to be overlooked by people unfamiliar with them. Disputes about the meaning of the DSM-IV criteria don't belong here unless they occur within scholarship on Joan
9. take care with the term mental illness. The term refers to conditions that cause prominent emotional, behavioral, and psychological symptoms. Depending on one's definition, the term can incorporate mental disorders caused by general medical conditions (such as temporal lobe epilepsy) or exclude these conditions. Some people make a distiction between the terms mental illness and mental disorder; others don't. Using phrases such as hearing voices is not necessarily a sign of mental illness, can therefore be ambiguous.
What doesn't need to be discussed at length
A. suggestions that skeptics suffer from circular reasoning and assume that Joan's visions are hallucinations, and then use this to prove that Joan's visions are hallucinations. (see 4 above) Retrospective diagnoses are speculative only, they are not considered proof of anything.
B. elaborate explanations of how intelligent etc Joan was, and arguing that this means she did not have a mental illness. (see 7 above)
C. deleted
D. discussions about what percentage of scientists believe in god (see 3 above)
I will wait a few days for discussion/feedback before I start applying these guidelines. Cwiki 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Akhilleus. I have modified the suggested guidelines to address your concerns. Cwiki 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for two separate articles. -- evrik 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that they should be kept separate as well. --
LouiseP
06:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the Chinese page ( zh:聖女貞德) says that Joan of Arc's name in French was "Jeanne d'Arc or Jeanne la Pucelle". Was she in fact called that? Otherwise I'm going to remove it from the page. -- Wzhao553 03:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Should this page call her that in the lead section then? -- Wzhao553 06:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The Visions section contains original research and has been tagged as such. The citations of Lucie-Smith, Hoffmann and Larson, far from disproving the claim of original research content, are in fact evidence of it. These authors are not historians, are not cited with regard to the subject, and are thus irrelevant and inadmissible. Any discussion of visions needs to be verifiable and based on reliable sources which are on point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
While there is evidence of a connection between intellectual deficiency and schizophrenia in the general population, the apparent absence of such a deficiency in any given individual is not evidence that that individual was or is free of mental illness. That is, if a psychiatrist were presented with a patient showing normal to high intelligence, the psychiatrist would not interpret this intelligence level as counting AGAINST a diagnosis of schizophrenia or any "major mental illness." Conversely, if a patient showed a below-average level of intelligence, this would not be interpreted as counting FOR a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Put simply, level of intelligence is not a diagnostic criterion for mental illness, unless you consider mental retardation and other developmental disorders to be mental illnesses, which is not generally done and does not seem to relate to the case at hand.
As relates to this article, Jehanne d'Arc may not have been mentally ill at all, or her ideas may have been pathological in origin; however, her intelligence level as recorded (unempirically) in the trial records does not support either case. The only reason to include the paragraph I deleted is unverifiable in nature, namely to create the subjective impression that Jehanne was "too smart to be sick." Wikipedia should not reflect unverifiable viewpoints or arguments, as the guideline I am looking at right now cleary states.
Furthermore, the section titled "Visions" contains several POV statements, such as the assertion that the people who have been interested in Jehanne d'Arc's visions "all agree that her faith was sincere." I don't, for one; it seems more likely to me that she framed her accounts of her ideas in religious terms because these would be the terms most readily understood by her society and peers. However, I would not put my POV into any Wikipedia article, and I do not expect any Wikipedia article to promote anyone else's POV, especially on an issue as ridiculously subjective as "whether or not Joan of Arc believed sincerely in her religious ideas."
"Visions" needs a complete overhaul to be appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia, but I'm not going to do it because this is a topic of religious significance and I don't want to participate in a chest-thumping contest. 68.35.223.245 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Although as of April 16th 2005 the Joan of Arc article is now a well detailed, correctly updated piece, i feel there is still a concern in the opening paragraph with the word use 'liberation'. This is rather an over emotive, one sided word for a war that saw French support on both sides of the conflict. No one was essentially liberated as that would mean that upon liberation, a section of the populous in support of the losing side suddenely found themselves in need of liberation from the new lords?!?! surely?!?!? Liberation never truly happened if people were still not at liberty. The word merely serves to suggest that the fashionable, less-educated view that the English were the all domineering aggressors, and furthermore completely undermines the fact that it was as much a French Civil War as it was a war between English and French.
Someone put thought to this and if agreement, or at least a better way of explaining my point, be found please edit the article appropriatly.
fantmax-- 71.232.13.49 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It's my understandable that she's particularly notable for having achieved so much as a woman, and at such an early age. Yet neither of these points are really mentioned in the intro. The opening paragraph really needs to state the bleeding obvious. Stevage 12:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
That her fame/importance is due to being young and a woman rather than (or more than) because she is a saint and a national hero, is wrong, even if it is your 'understanding.' Also, noting that she's particularly famous because she's a woman is redundant. Squanderdalfast 08:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but if a sexual assault in prison is not a rape, what is? Bcameron54 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
to you guys who like to change it back to whatever: the issue is not whether she was raped in prison, it is what you are going to call it. alleged attempted rape by an allegedly english possibly lord? please.
Bcameron54
21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
This article implies that there had been a united France occupying a territory similar to modern day France, but that the English had invaded and split the country. Can someone point out when this former united France existed and who led it? Alan Pascoe 11:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Please see the next section -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
"which inspired French troops to win the liberation of her homeland from English dominance". France as a nation was probably forged as a concept during the 100 years war. But the "English" nobility came from families which had been had been lords in areas, which are now part of France, for at least as long, or longer, than they had been Lords in England. One can equally argue that the 100 years war was a civil war, in which one side had a power base in England, so to use the term "liberation of her homeland" is a patriotic French POV. Also "A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy" but no mention of politics in "Pope Callixtus III reopened Joan's case; a new finding overturned the original conviction" can equally be seen as a French POV. -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not have to provide sources because I am not suggesting putting anything into the article. I am suggesting that the words be altered to take out the French POV. -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
This article gives the impression that Joan of Arc fought and died for the cause of Catholicism against a non-Catholic foe. This is a false impression because the English were also Catholics. Alan Pascoe 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they were, for over a century after Joan's death. Henry VIII didn't come to the English throne until 1509. Fsotrain09 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
So the heresy trial was political but the rehabilitation was just finding the "truth"? Note that the rehabilitation was ordered by the first of the Borgias, a notorius nepotist and well versed in the politics of the day. It would not have happed if Henry VI had won. -- 213.122.37.62 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
-Look at the procedures used in both trials. The rehabilitation trial involved the testimony of dozens of witnesses from throughout Joan's life. It also followed the established legal procedures for the court. The trial of condemnation ignored and violated the ecclesiastical rules of the Church. The defense was not allowed to present witnesses, nor allowed counsel, nor allowed appeal. That is what makes it more political than the rehabilitation. -Rob 16:01 26 April 2006
-I think I go along with the hopeless-POV POV. I don't dispute the basic fact that her trial by the English was 'politically motivated'. I bet they hated her guts. 'kangaroo court' would probably be le mot just. However, I rather suspect that was pretty much the norm in them days. It's the tone I object to and the lack of context. The article affects moral outrage that the judge was a partisan appointment. Of course he was: all offices of state were filled by royal appointees. The above statement argues that the absence of defence witnesses or counsel was unfair. Likely so but business as usual at the time. A very quick search of the interweb throws up two interesting facts: (1) English law permitted no defence witness testimony in felony/treason crimes until the 16th century and, (2) No defence counsel for felonies until the Prisoner's Councel Act of 1836. 100 years after Joan's execution the Tudors were gaily chopping English heads off left right and centre after some highly dubious legal procedings. I appreciate that the trial may not have followed the letter of ecclesiastical trials of the time (I wouldn't know) but in terms of realpolitik, so what? And finally, if the condemnation was flawed because of the lack of a defense, who prosecuted in the rehabilitation? Condemnation: all prosecution and no defense; Rehabilitation: all defense and no prosecution. Conclusion: both flawed. 217.154.66.11 12:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember this article being the AOTD some time ago.Maybe I'm wrong but why repeat it when there are many great choices to have on the front page.
Are the people who run Wikipedia all religious evangelists? Seriously. I need to know.
(OK, I have no idea if this is the correct place to post this, but I can't find any other place. I do not know how the arcane and not-very-user-friendly Wikipedia interface works - there are endless links to locked pages and nowhere else to post discussions. I hope this is it.)
Perhaps someone can clear this up for me so I can stop wasting my time. Here are the facts:
1. This Joan of Arc article appears regularly on the front page of Wikipedia. 2. It is barely disguised religious propaganda.
Since whoever runs this site (I don't know who that is and don't have time to wade through the endless pages in this site) keeps putting it on the front page, I can only assume: (a) that person wishes to perpetuate the religious propaganda, thereby abandoning any pretense of Wiki being an actual science and fact-based encyclopeida, (b) someone keeps altering the article to include the religious dogma as fact (which it isn't) and no one stops them. It's an ongoing thing like Scientologists writing letters-to-the-editor and suing anyone who writes articles on their religion, perhaps?
Please tell me if this is the case. I have tried several times to correct this drivel in the article, but to no avail.
If I need to site references, I refer you to the dictionary definition of the word "logic."
I am referring specifically to the sublimely ridiculous section on the hearing of voices by JoA. Anyone with a working sense of reason knows that she either (a) made it up and didn't hear anything. This is called "lying". Or (b) she really heard voices, in which case she had a mental illness. There is no other rational explanation. There is not now nor has there every been any scientific proof of anything supernatural such as deities, and certainly not of the deities doing anything concrete, such as speaking in someone's head.
So, if the powers that run this site continue to allow this JoA article to say such patently illogical things such as: "Those who argue the opposite position consider the visions themselves to be proof of mental illness, by assuming that they were hallucinations (a symptom of mental illness), which therefore proves that she was mentally ill. The medical community does not consider this type of argument to be valid grounds for a diagnosis, however, as it is an example of circular reasoning."
Uh, hellllooooo? So apparently this article was written by "the medical community?" How can this go unchallenged? This is like saying "the medical community does not consider committing suicide as a symptom of suicidal tendencies..." If someone says they hear voice, they are either lying for some reason, or they are mentally ill.
Other dogmatic religious nonsense (I mean that word literally) in the article include: "Psychiatric explanations encounter some difficulties." Do I REALLY have to explain how unsuitable this sentence is for inclusion in a supposed encyclopedia? If so, then Wikipedia is hopelessly mired in the religious right and I will stop wasting my time trying to correct it.
The fact that I even have to point out the illogic of this article and its Sunday School delivery is a danger sign that the Wiki system has failed.
Am I missing something? How can such poorly written articles continue to appear? And on the front page? And with such obvious logic flaws? And with such an obvious religious agenda?
Or am I laboring under an illusion when I think that this is supposed to be a fact-based site? Please tell me if it isn't, so I can give up and let the religious apologists and fanatics continue with their fun.
Or is Wikipedia simply a place where people consantly change articles back and forth in a never-ending war?
What's next - an article called "Creationism and the Science to Support It" on the front page?
Oh, and there are many, many other similar problems with the JoA page, too many to list. Why? Especially since a casual reading reveals so many... I am confused and frustrated.
Joan had hallucinations/delusions or really did hear voices from God; therefore she had schizophrenia or really did hear voices from God; she didn't have all of the modern DSM-IV criteria to justify a diagnosis of schizophrenia and surely everyone can tell a schizo when they see one; therefore she wasn't schizophrenic and really did hear voices from God. It is possible to have hallucinations and/or delusions and still function socially and intellectually. Cwiki 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
", usually by .... circular reasoning".
The main point has already been made: If you do not think the visions themselves are sign of mental illness there is no evidence that JoA was mentally ill. The section was to long to make the point. For instance: information about the percentage of scientists that believe in God should not be in this article. Pukkie 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Do look into the history of this sectionl. Most of it was kept because their are significant points. One point is that there is obviously questions of mental illness. There is enough evidence to such that such does not exists. That does not mean she had visions from God. It is not one or the other. There are many more reasons to explain such visions. She could have just lied completely about them. She could have had eaten some form of drug from an advanced civilizations that made her receive visions. Doubt them all is what I do. The bottom line of amazement is her leadership at the age of 19. — Dzonatas 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In the "visions" section, someone is talking about circular reasoning. It has been removed and then reverted back in. I would like to remove it again and explain why it does not belong here.
I completely agree. Also: even if the argument was sound it still should not be here. The section is too long to make a point that does not need to be made in the article about JoA. Pukkie 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I see 213.197.202.209 has reverted the text back. He states any argument based on an unproven assumption is, by definition, a circular argument. Sorry, but that's not true. An argument based on a false assumption is called a false premise. Cwiki 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
And I deleted it again. If you really want to make this argument about visions do it somewhere else. For instance in the "Visions" article but NOT in the article about Joan of Arc. Pukkie 10:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see 213.197.202.209 has changed his wording a bit. He has misrepresented the view of people he disagrees with, to give them the appearance of suffering from circular reasoning. His logic will take a little longer to pick apart now but bear with me.
213.197.202.209's last revert ditched the reference to circular reasoning. However he still accuses his opponents of having circular reasoning using other words. He states if one wishes to include these visions themselves as two symptoms of mental illness (i.e., "hallucinations" and "delusions"), then one would need to prove that these were in fact hallucinations and delusions rather than merely assuming them to be such and then using that assumption as evidence proving the assumption itself. No-one is trying to prove anything. The argument is if you do not believe in divine communication, and consider that Joan's visions were hallucinations and delusions, then you could make an argument for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. No-one has ever stated, to my knowledge, that they have proved Joan had schizophrenia. Cwiki 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The DSM-IV-TR, for those who are unfamiliar, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. It is the manual used to try to classify mental illness. For those who don't believe God really spoke to Joan, Joan satisfies the neccessary 2 out of 5 criteria listed in criteria A for schizophenia; that is, delusions and hallucinations. Criteria B for schizophrenia involves social and or occupational dysfuntion. Joan does not appear to satisfy criteria B. But people who for various reasons argue against a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on her failing to satisfy critera B are a little premature. There is a condition in the DSM-IV called "delusional disorder". This is a category for people who meet criteria A but essentially do not meet criteria B. You often here people familiar with the absence of criteria B symptoms in Joan, diagnosing her as having "delusional disorder"; but they are wrong as well. To satisfy the criteria for delusional disorder hallucinations may be present, but auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent. Scratch that; let's go back and look closer at schizophrenia.
213.197.202.209 keeps on reverting my work. He has not addressed my concerns in the above sections - getting rid of the circular reasoning bit and schizophrenia and the dsm-iv. I prefer discussing these things on the talk page to engaging in edit wars but 213.197.202.209 won't respond. I am a physician and I know something about the diagnosis of mental illness. 213.197.202.209 is obviously a christian fundamentalist and reverts anything I edit on the subject. Cwiki 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
The nature of Joan's visions are controversial; I think that's a given. I would like to propose a set of guidelines for editors to refer to when they edit this section. It's not an attempt to commandeer this section, and I will modify it based on any feedback I receive on the subject. It is an attempt to list relevant issues that both sides can agree on, and limit unecessary waffling.
1. Whether Joan of Arc herself believed that her visions were from God is rarely disputed
2. it is understood without debate that many Catholics consider the visions to be a form of divine communication
3. many people are skeptical of this notion. even people who belive in God can be skeptical of this notion. (correct me if i'm wrong but i suspect) many Catholics are skeptical of this notion.
4. some people speculate that Joan's visions were hallucinations or delusions, and sufficiently bizarre, even in the context of the 15th century, to be considered evidence of a mental illness. Cite any scholars who make this point
4A. some people consider that Joan's visions were not bizarre enough, especially in the context of the 15th century, to be considered sufficient to consider her mentally ill. Cite any scholars who make this point
5. Joan is considered a saint by the Catholic church. Editors should bear this in mind and try to limit any offence they may cause, and try not to be too disrespectful.
6. people who have a knowledge of psychiatry, who believe that Joan's visions were hallucinations and delusions, consider that Joan had a mental illness and have tried to classify it. Medical professionals with an interest in history, have a long tradition of trying to diagnose historical figures. Sometimes there is a consensus (eg Abe Lincoln suffered from Marfan's syndrome), sometimes there is debate (eg Henry VIII had tertiary syphilis). Rarely is there any proof; but proof is not a necessary ingredient of speculation.
7. Joan was apparently intelligent, and did not suffer from any major social or occupational dysfunction. Both sides agree with this but it does not mean she did not have a mental illness. It is also quite consistent with paranoid schizophrenia. Many people today with schizophrenia (1% of the population) function quite well.
8. the best known classification sytems for mental illness are the DSM-IV and the ICD-10. The manuals have a lot of footnotes which tend to be overlooked by people unfamiliar with them. Disputes about the meaning of the DSM-IV criteria don't belong here unless they occur within scholarship on Joan
9. take care with the term mental illness. The term refers to conditions that cause prominent emotional, behavioral, and psychological symptoms. Depending on one's definition, the term can incorporate mental disorders caused by general medical conditions (such as temporal lobe epilepsy) or exclude these conditions. Some people make a distiction between the terms mental illness and mental disorder; others don't. Using phrases such as hearing voices is not necessarily a sign of mental illness, can therefore be ambiguous.
What doesn't need to be discussed at length
A. suggestions that skeptics suffer from circular reasoning and assume that Joan's visions are hallucinations, and then use this to prove that Joan's visions are hallucinations. (see 4 above) Retrospective diagnoses are speculative only, they are not considered proof of anything.
B. elaborate explanations of how intelligent etc Joan was, and arguing that this means she did not have a mental illness. (see 7 above)
C. deleted
D. discussions about what percentage of scientists believe in god (see 3 above)
I will wait a few days for discussion/feedback before I start applying these guidelines. Cwiki 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Akhilleus. I have modified the suggested guidelines to address your concerns. Cwiki 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for two separate articles. -- evrik 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that they should be kept separate as well. --
LouiseP
06:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the Chinese page ( zh:聖女貞德) says that Joan of Arc's name in French was "Jeanne d'Arc or Jeanne la Pucelle". Was she in fact called that? Otherwise I'm going to remove it from the page. -- Wzhao553 03:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Should this page call her that in the lead section then? -- Wzhao553 06:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The Visions section contains original research and has been tagged as such. The citations of Lucie-Smith, Hoffmann and Larson, far from disproving the claim of original research content, are in fact evidence of it. These authors are not historians, are not cited with regard to the subject, and are thus irrelevant and inadmissible. Any discussion of visions needs to be verifiable and based on reliable sources which are on point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)