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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Joan of Arc never had visions!!!! She only heard voices! PLEASE correct this error!
After a careful look I agreed with several of the criticisms posted above: some changes crept into the text after FA approval that implied a false dichotomy between faith-based and medical interpretations. The scholarship also needed improvement and other concerns deserved attention. I've drafted a new version which (I hope) strikes the right balance with sufficient documentation. It's hard to please everyone on so delicate a matter - I've attempted my best. Regards, Durova 23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be renominated for front page status. Too bad May is over seven months away. Wjbean
"King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France...pay your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France." [1] |
Joan of Arc, Letter to the English, March - April 1429 |
I borrowed the quote box idea from Pericles where it seems to work well. The translation is my own effort, although a source reference for the French original would be appropriate. I could do perhaps three or four from Joan of Arc's letters and distribute them through the article. Do people like this? Durova 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That might be a good addition to the article. You would need to cite which letter each quote is from, the date, and perhaps a little of the context in order to give people an idea of what each quote refers to, or who the letter was written to. Could all of that be fit into one of these boxes? CF18000 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"...the Maiden lets you know that here, in eight days, she has chased the English out of all the places they held on the river Loire by attack or other means: they are dead or prisoners or discouraged in battle. Believe what you have heard about the earl of Suffolk, the lord la Pole and his brother, the lord Talbot, the lord Scales, and Sir Fastolf; many more knights and captains than these are defeated." |
Joan of Arc, Letter to the citizens of Tournai, 25 June 1429 |
"Prince of Burgundy, I pray of you - I beg and humbly supplicate - that you make no more war with the holy kingdom of France. Withdraw your people swiftly from certain places and fortresses of this holy kingdom, and on behalf of the gentle king of France I say he is ready to make peace with you, by his honor." |
Joan of Arc, Letter to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, 17 July 1429 |
"It is true that the king has made a truce with the duke of Burgundy for fifteen days and that the duke is to turn over the city of Paris at the end of fifteen days. Yet you should not marvel if I do not enter that city so quickly. I am not content with these truces and do not know if I will keep them, but if I hold them it will only be to guard the king's honor: no matter how much they abuse the royal blood, I will keep and maintain the royal army in case they make no peace at the end of those fifteen days." |
Joan of Arc, Letter to the citizens of Reims, 5 August 1429 |
I'm still figuring out how to footnote athese excerpts. Here are my other translations. Durova 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The boxes and footnotes look good.
CF18000
23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Posting the results of my Google search:
Since the third entry is dwarfed by the other two and the matter is already footnoted, I'm cutting the third version. Durova 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the background section deserves one more paragraph to explain some details that could confuse a typical reader:
I'd like to keep this brief because the Background is already rather long. Durova 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm submitting this for featured article review to seek additional opinions about fairness and NPOV balance. Please join the discussion at the link above. Durova 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
CC80 removed the following with a claim that the site plagiarized other websites:
So far as I am aware, this is the only website that reproduces the entire T. Douglas Murray 1903 translation of the nullification trial record. The Virginia Frohlick site reprints selected excerpts (and unfortunately does not disclose the translator or translation date). Currently the article references Ms. Frohlick's excerpts at http://www.stjoan-center.com and if I interpret the site descriptions correctly, this matter is the crux of the dispute. Right now it seems best to leave both sites in the links section. Ultimately it would be preferable to switch the citations to the more complete version.
The reference change would need to be made thoroughly: actually checking each citation for quotes and exact wording, then updating the access date on each associated footnote. I specify this because some editor tried to change over the condemnation trial links in April but didn't follow through appropriately. The article wound up referencing two different versions of the same document and the altered footnotes still provided no-longer-relevant page citations and access dates. Direct quotes in the article text were no longer accurate either. I had spent a good deal of time last winter consolidating citations from different editors onto one consistent translation. To do this right is a tedious task, but attention to detail is essential if this article is to have any real value as a reference tool.
Please post a follow-up below if I've overlooked some relevant issue. Durova 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed offense and defense to offence and defence respectively. My edit summary said: It was 15th century France at war with England, so US spelling is inappropriate. Akhilleus has described this justification as "ridiculous". I find myself in disagreement. WP prefers localised spelling variants be used in relevant contexts. Where the context is general, the spelling used by the original author should prevail. My point remains: Joan was put to death by the English, during their war with France. Surely English spelling is appropriate here, of all places, and US spelling is out of place. JackofOz 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guideline for national spellings doesn't extend beyond places where English is spoken as a first language, nor is there any precedent for using archaic idioms editorially in history articles. Durova 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy no move. Duja 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Joan of Arc → Jeanne d'Arc — Joan of Arc is only common in the anglosphere, but Jeanne d'Arc is more common overall, and is the more original word → Aza Toth 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments:
It seems to me important that Joan's date of birth be included in the section under "Childhood". The "when" seems to be an important, basic piece of information that belongs here. When I tried to add it initially it was deleted because there is no firm evidence to support a particular date of birth. When I added it again with a reference to this uncertainty and a citation, it was deleted because the citation was already in the article. I still maintain information on her date of birth belongs in this section, and that a citation should be included because of the uncertainty involved. Just because we don't know with certainty the year she was born is not a good argument to leave it out entirely, in my opinion. Tbilb 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to express her birthdate, even as an estimate, in the section about her childhood. The article already states it twice: in the opening line and in the saint box.
One thing I do wonder is whether it would be better to change her birthdate from 1412 to c. 1412. Given the quality of the evidence about her age, an estimated birth year seems more appropriate. Durova 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(moved from original location) Sorry to interrupt this, i was wondering about how scientists where looking at the remains of supposed her body, is there any latest news on that whether or not it would likely be hers? thanks
The discussion no longer exists in the current version but here's an archive that contains some interesting cricicisms of the current article. [2] Some of the inferences drawn there are mistaken. For instance, one editor speculates that the facts in this article were written by committee (actually about 85% of the citations were added by one editor). The comments about the Background section, however, are interesting and I'm curious what other editors have to say. Compare to the online Columbia Encyclopedia [3] and (for those who have access) the Britannica article. [4] Most short biographies of Joan of Arc provide so little context that they appear to make the contradictory assertions that Joan of Arc fought for, was captured by, and was killed by "the French." When I prepared this article for WP:FA consideration I did my best to highlight the most relevant facts the geopolitics of her era that a modern nonspecialist would be unlikely to already know (or to find with suitable ease at related Wikipedia articles). Welcoming comments in light of the discussion at the other site. Durova Charg e! 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Im doing a project on joan of arc for my french class. I need some new information for my project. Anyone with any information plz help. I will delete this.
Voln (Talk | contribs) chose to revert my category entry that Joan of Arc, for the purposes of joining the military forces of France, dressed as a man. There was also evidence at her trial that she dressed as a man, it is thought to protect herself from her jailers. There is a category of women in a similar situation. It is called "Category:Female wartime crossdressers". Is Voln exercising a NPOV? Has Voln read the caution for people who think they own an article, to be found at WP:OWN. So I'm going to put it back, and if reverted again, will have to bring in somebody to settle this nonsense. Joan of Arc belongs to the world. JohnClarknew 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
About her Armor;
Sorry to add this, i'm very new onto wikipedia I'm just wondering what ever happened to her suit of armor? If i remember, during 1 of the battles which she lost, she hung up her fully equipped armor in the alter of a church, anyone know what ever happened to her armor suit/s she wore? There's been false claims of founding of it but I'm not sure, thanks for anyone's help here. And keep up the good work here, Joan of Arc is my favourite historical figure.
Voln chose to revert my previous edits on the opening of the trial and the lack of diffamtio during the preparatory trial stage of the Rouen trial 1431. This information is both relevant and cited by reputable sources and verifiable, there is absolutely no need to delete this information. Likewise, there is no citation for the assertion that Joan of Arc was denied legal representation and this is acknowledged by many academics studying Joan of Arc's trial as a fallacy. I have left this in for the time being (as I do not want to get into an editing and revert war) but I would appreciate a comment on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.138.222 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
However, back on the issue of reverting edits on primary documents, are you suggesting that my claim that it was not simply JUST the reversion to male clothing that resulted in Joan's execution is false? (note, I'm not saying this was not part of it) Bearing in mind that the documents produced by the judges responsible for such a decision marked out the fact that she admitting to speaking once again to voices as "the fatal reply." How can this be contended? This was obviously part of the reason why Joan was executed, or it wouldn't have been noted as such in the primary document. The fact that the judges highlighted this in the trial record as their reasons, whether this was actually true or machiavellian or whatever, is significant and useful to know. Now that I have expounded on my edits and hopefully made you realize they are merely factual commentary on what appears in the documentation, you can stop reverting my edits. Awareness of what happens in both trial records is necessary to understand and make up your own mind on Joan of Arc, and therefore it is relevant. 80.47.138.222 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(My comment below was addressed to 80.47....etc )
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the rationale for saying that Taylor is not a recognized expert in this subject. His page at the University of York notes that he is a "Lecturer in Medieval History, and a Fellow of both the Société de l'Histoire de France and the Royal Historical Society." Like most academics, he has several areas of specialization, including the Hundred Years' War. His page lists two articles that he's written specifically on Joan, and one is titled "Violence at the Rouen Trial of Joan of Arc." Taylor sounds like exactly the sort of scholar this article should use as a source, and I'm a bit disturbed by Voln's high-handed dismissal of Taylor's credentials.
Obviously, any work of Taylor's that is cited must be published. A search of WorldCat shows that 6 university libraries own the book, including Oxford. The low number of results indicates that the book was very recently published--either libraries haven't yet catalogued it or haven't purchased it, but given the popularity of the subject I'm sure that more libraries will have the work in the future.
None of this indicates that Taylor is necessarily correct, but the book meets WP:RS. I'm no expert in this subject, but so far the stated reasons for leaving Taylor out--which more or less seems to be that his views are different from those of Pernoud--don't seem compelling to me. On the other hand, if his views are in the minority, one or two sentences ought to be enough. And if he's raising arguments that have been raised and refuted before, in an encylopedia intended for non-experts, it is valuable to point out that certain ideas have been long regarded as erroneous. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My inclusion of Joan of Arc in the category of Female wartime crossdressers in time of war today seems to have ignited a firestorm in User talk:Voln and others, and has been twice reverted. There are 43 women in the category, which clearly states This is a category for women who have cross-dressed as men for the purpose of serving in the military. Some retained their male identities after the war, others returned to female identities. No one is suggesting that Joan was a tomboy or a lesbian, nor that the inclusion means anything beyond what it says. Did she fight in a war? (Yes). Was the war fought by women as some were in ancient Greece? (No). Did she fight alongside men? (Yes). Did she wear armor? (Yes). Case closed, she should be included in the category!
However, the term " cross-dressing" (read this link, which cites Joan of Arc) has today taken on the taint of sexual perversion, and it might be wise to either change the word which is a mischievous word, or delete the category altogether as not being significant, because it is causing conniptions in people who appear to feel personally responsible for Joan's femininity and saintly purity. From that category, I researched further and expanded a piece on Pauline Cushman, whom someone had already written up as a "transvestite spy", despite the fact that there was no evidence for that assertion whatsoever - she'd been widowed twice, and given birth to 2 children! I hope a decision can soon be made about this hot topic, and how problems of WP:OWN and NPOV information can be properly dealt with. JohnClarknew 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Voln's edit history [5] includes a distinctive nexus of interests (Joan of Arc, Roman Catholicism, and homosexuality) as well as familiar patterns of edit warring and particular sensitivity on the subject of cross-dressing. As with the earlier disruptive editor, Voln mentions the names of scholarly authors without actually providing direct quotes or page numbers - my previous research revealed that the vandal's claims about the content at issue often amounted to gross distortion - and even repeats the vandal's peculiar claim that the specific construction of Joan of Arc's clothing provided defense against rape. See this source, which mimics the format of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but whose "peer reviewers" are amateur Joan of Arc enthusiasts and whose author has no publication record in recognized journals. The vandal, who is probably this study's author, inserted that source as a reference into the article earlier this year. That has been nearly the only citation this editor ever provided in a disruptive career that may have persisted for two years. See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for a fuller description.
Subsequent to the previous disruption spates I have become a Wikipedia administrator. Voln's edits of 3 December are one revert shy of WP:3RR, but talk page participation here and at Talk:Joan of Arc bibliography arguably crosses the WP:POINT line and may violate WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Thus far I have not tagged this editor's user page with a suspected sockpuppet template or requested a suspected sockpuppet investigation, but I am rather close to doing so, and if the investigation comes back positive I will seek a community ban. Then, through Wikipedia:Checkuser, I will pursue bans against all other active sockpuppets of this vandal: I suspect he remained active on religion and homosexuality topics while largely avoiding Joan of Arc except when I go on Wikibreak. I will also seek consensus for removing the link to this website - which is probably owned by the same person - per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and petition America Online to terminate service for longsanding user contract violations.
If these allegations are mistakenly leveled I apologize in advance, yet the similarities are too striking to ignore. If these allegations are accurate then the appropriate response is to cease disruption. Durova Charg e! 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A few points that I feel could improve this article slightly that need to be discussed:
1. Change the name of the re-trial section and all mentions of the 1455-1456 re-trial from 'rehabilitation' to 'nullification' trial. Rehabilitation in this context has pro-catholic overtones and hints that the aim of this trial was to make some comment on Joan of Arc's spirituality, or sainthood. This is not the case, the trial was started to effectively investigate the procedural concerns of the 1431 Rouen trial, and that was all. It makes sense to use 'nullification trial' as this was the terminology used by those involved with the trial at the time, and the aims of the trial fit this title more adequately.
2. Acknowledge some of the flaws of using evidence from the condemnation trial records and also the nullification trial records, the problem being that many do not recognize the problems of the latter. There appears to be a pro-Joan bias in historical study of the subject that means that many scholarly works, including numerous ones cited in this article often criticize heavily (and often justly) the evidence of the condemnation trial records, yet completely ignore the debate over the nullification records and use those records as evidence without acknowledging the obvious flaws within them. The problem is that the nullification records portray a Joan that most people, especially Catholics, are happy to see and therefore even practiced and celebrated academics are sometimes drawn into the trap of taking the evidence on Joan they see therein at face value without even acknowledging the obvious motives and biases of opinions mentioned in them. Whereas, the same academics are very keen to question the validity of opinions expressed in the Rouen condemnation trial records, quite rightly, yet completely ignore this process for the other trial. It truly is mind boggling that such historians could ignore this process of source criticism. This is to the extent that at certain conferences on Joan of Arc, academics being booed for presenting papers that provide evidence of corruption, contradictions and ulterior motives involved in the nullification trial of 1455-1456. As a result, few successful writers are keen to write material on the subject of the flaws of the nullification trial, and the 'different' less pro-Joan view that comes from not taking every shred of evidence from the nullification trial as fact. I'll put it this way, how many academic historians of value do not at least question the validity and accuracy of the sources they are using as basis of their work, especially the records of a trial that was conducted 25 years after the original trial? I would be happy to add more specific examples of the flaws of the records at a later time if necessary. But until this problem is addressed I feel that this article does little but mirror the conclusions on Joan of Arc that is essentially biased history, despite the good academic reputations of the authors in question. While I fully expect certain editors of wikipedia to jump on my back because of this (it is a bit of a taboo, hence why many historians haven’t challenged ‘the accepted view’) but I feel it is worth discussion and perhaps a separate article on the various trials themselves.
I think these points are worth discussing, especially by people who have read books that actually criticize, or acknowledge the bias in the sources in question, and aren't biased by their faith on the matter. Even if people are still happy on having an article that is based upon writers that do not acknowledge fully the flaws in the evidence (because that IS unfortunately the consensus view in print, partly due to the immense stigma of criticizing Joan in published works, or bizarrely even questioning the pro-Joan evidence seen in the nullification trial). This process of ‘breaking the cycle’ is made even harder because many of the ‘famous’ historians that base their biographies of Joan of Arc use the evidence from the nullification trial extensively to make their assertions on Joan, as I’m sure certain wikipedia users will be keen to remind me. Basically I would be happy to even add a tertiary article on the known problems and history of BOTH trial records, and the preliminary investigations as the materials are available to me. To me there seems to be a need to acknowledge this. 80.47.161.190 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well It is certainly a substantial debate. I'll get some articles for review and present them here. In regards to the 'rehabilitation' label of the trial, that is quite an old fashioned label and is surely worth changing for the reasons outlined in my comment above, as it is misleading and a somewhat christian POV term vested in the later inclusion of Joan as a saint. I understand the need for verifiable and credible sources however, as Joan of Arc is certainly a subject that brings out the 'nut jobs.' Over the next week I'll try and compile a few sources from journals. 80.41.79.204 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to add this, i'm very new onto wikipedia I'm just wondering what ever happened to her suit of armor? If i remember, during 1 of the battles which she lost, she hung up her fully equipped armor in the alter of a church, anyone know what ever happened to her armor suit/s she wore? There's been false claims of founding of it but I'm not sure, thanks for anyone's help here. And keep up the good work here, Joan of Arc is my favourite historical figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mazzie1 ( talk • contribs).
This may sound stupid but for prisoners like her during that time, do they let prisoners take showers or clean themselves i.e baths, toilets? i'm researching on medieval prisons/prisoners and was interested in her living conditions.
Thanks for the description, i am wondering about what you said 'someone slipped a file whilst in prison, what was the file or anything about it? thanks for helping out.
The rib bone and piece of cloth purported to have been from Joan of Arc's pyre site are unlikely to have been actual relics: the linen was not charred and the bone shows signs of embalming. [6] Durova Charg e! 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there an article on this? or source link? thanks
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Joan of Arc never had visions!!!! She only heard voices! PLEASE correct this error!
After a careful look I agreed with several of the criticisms posted above: some changes crept into the text after FA approval that implied a false dichotomy between faith-based and medical interpretations. The scholarship also needed improvement and other concerns deserved attention. I've drafted a new version which (I hope) strikes the right balance with sufficient documentation. It's hard to please everyone on so delicate a matter - I've attempted my best. Regards, Durova 23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this article needs to be renominated for front page status. Too bad May is over seven months away. Wjbean
"King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France...pay your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France." [1] |
Joan of Arc, Letter to the English, March - April 1429 |
I borrowed the quote box idea from Pericles where it seems to work well. The translation is my own effort, although a source reference for the French original would be appropriate. I could do perhaps three or four from Joan of Arc's letters and distribute them through the article. Do people like this? Durova 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That might be a good addition to the article. You would need to cite which letter each quote is from, the date, and perhaps a little of the context in order to give people an idea of what each quote refers to, or who the letter was written to. Could all of that be fit into one of these boxes? CF18000 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
"...the Maiden lets you know that here, in eight days, she has chased the English out of all the places they held on the river Loire by attack or other means: they are dead or prisoners or discouraged in battle. Believe what you have heard about the earl of Suffolk, the lord la Pole and his brother, the lord Talbot, the lord Scales, and Sir Fastolf; many more knights and captains than these are defeated." |
Joan of Arc, Letter to the citizens of Tournai, 25 June 1429 |
"Prince of Burgundy, I pray of you - I beg and humbly supplicate - that you make no more war with the holy kingdom of France. Withdraw your people swiftly from certain places and fortresses of this holy kingdom, and on behalf of the gentle king of France I say he is ready to make peace with you, by his honor." |
Joan of Arc, Letter to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, 17 July 1429 |
"It is true that the king has made a truce with the duke of Burgundy for fifteen days and that the duke is to turn over the city of Paris at the end of fifteen days. Yet you should not marvel if I do not enter that city so quickly. I am not content with these truces and do not know if I will keep them, but if I hold them it will only be to guard the king's honor: no matter how much they abuse the royal blood, I will keep and maintain the royal army in case they make no peace at the end of those fifteen days." |
Joan of Arc, Letter to the citizens of Reims, 5 August 1429 |
I'm still figuring out how to footnote athese excerpts. Here are my other translations. Durova 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The boxes and footnotes look good.
CF18000
23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Posting the results of my Google search:
Since the third entry is dwarfed by the other two and the matter is already footnoted, I'm cutting the third version. Durova 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the background section deserves one more paragraph to explain some details that could confuse a typical reader:
I'd like to keep this brief because the Background is already rather long. Durova 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm submitting this for featured article review to seek additional opinions about fairness and NPOV balance. Please join the discussion at the link above. Durova 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
CC80 removed the following with a claim that the site plagiarized other websites:
So far as I am aware, this is the only website that reproduces the entire T. Douglas Murray 1903 translation of the nullification trial record. The Virginia Frohlick site reprints selected excerpts (and unfortunately does not disclose the translator or translation date). Currently the article references Ms. Frohlick's excerpts at http://www.stjoan-center.com and if I interpret the site descriptions correctly, this matter is the crux of the dispute. Right now it seems best to leave both sites in the links section. Ultimately it would be preferable to switch the citations to the more complete version.
The reference change would need to be made thoroughly: actually checking each citation for quotes and exact wording, then updating the access date on each associated footnote. I specify this because some editor tried to change over the condemnation trial links in April but didn't follow through appropriately. The article wound up referencing two different versions of the same document and the altered footnotes still provided no-longer-relevant page citations and access dates. Direct quotes in the article text were no longer accurate either. I had spent a good deal of time last winter consolidating citations from different editors onto one consistent translation. To do this right is a tedious task, but attention to detail is essential if this article is to have any real value as a reference tool.
Please post a follow-up below if I've overlooked some relevant issue. Durova 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I changed offense and defense to offence and defence respectively. My edit summary said: It was 15th century France at war with England, so US spelling is inappropriate. Akhilleus has described this justification as "ridiculous". I find myself in disagreement. WP prefers localised spelling variants be used in relevant contexts. Where the context is general, the spelling used by the original author should prevail. My point remains: Joan was put to death by the English, during their war with France. Surely English spelling is appropriate here, of all places, and US spelling is out of place. JackofOz 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guideline for national spellings doesn't extend beyond places where English is spoken as a first language, nor is there any precedent for using archaic idioms editorially in history articles. Durova 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Speedy no move. Duja 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Joan of Arc → Jeanne d'Arc — Joan of Arc is only common in the anglosphere, but Jeanne d'Arc is more common overall, and is the more original word → Aza Toth 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments:
It seems to me important that Joan's date of birth be included in the section under "Childhood". The "when" seems to be an important, basic piece of information that belongs here. When I tried to add it initially it was deleted because there is no firm evidence to support a particular date of birth. When I added it again with a reference to this uncertainty and a citation, it was deleted because the citation was already in the article. I still maintain information on her date of birth belongs in this section, and that a citation should be included because of the uncertainty involved. Just because we don't know with certainty the year she was born is not a good argument to leave it out entirely, in my opinion. Tbilb 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to express her birthdate, even as an estimate, in the section about her childhood. The article already states it twice: in the opening line and in the saint box.
One thing I do wonder is whether it would be better to change her birthdate from 1412 to c. 1412. Given the quality of the evidence about her age, an estimated birth year seems more appropriate. Durova 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(moved from original location) Sorry to interrupt this, i was wondering about how scientists where looking at the remains of supposed her body, is there any latest news on that whether or not it would likely be hers? thanks
The discussion no longer exists in the current version but here's an archive that contains some interesting cricicisms of the current article. [2] Some of the inferences drawn there are mistaken. For instance, one editor speculates that the facts in this article were written by committee (actually about 85% of the citations were added by one editor). The comments about the Background section, however, are interesting and I'm curious what other editors have to say. Compare to the online Columbia Encyclopedia [3] and (for those who have access) the Britannica article. [4] Most short biographies of Joan of Arc provide so little context that they appear to make the contradictory assertions that Joan of Arc fought for, was captured by, and was killed by "the French." When I prepared this article for WP:FA consideration I did my best to highlight the most relevant facts the geopolitics of her era that a modern nonspecialist would be unlikely to already know (or to find with suitable ease at related Wikipedia articles). Welcoming comments in light of the discussion at the other site. Durova Charg e! 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Im doing a project on joan of arc for my french class. I need some new information for my project. Anyone with any information plz help. I will delete this.
Voln (Talk | contribs) chose to revert my category entry that Joan of Arc, for the purposes of joining the military forces of France, dressed as a man. There was also evidence at her trial that she dressed as a man, it is thought to protect herself from her jailers. There is a category of women in a similar situation. It is called "Category:Female wartime crossdressers". Is Voln exercising a NPOV? Has Voln read the caution for people who think they own an article, to be found at WP:OWN. So I'm going to put it back, and if reverted again, will have to bring in somebody to settle this nonsense. Joan of Arc belongs to the world. JohnClarknew 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
About her Armor;
Sorry to add this, i'm very new onto wikipedia I'm just wondering what ever happened to her suit of armor? If i remember, during 1 of the battles which she lost, she hung up her fully equipped armor in the alter of a church, anyone know what ever happened to her armor suit/s she wore? There's been false claims of founding of it but I'm not sure, thanks for anyone's help here. And keep up the good work here, Joan of Arc is my favourite historical figure.
Voln chose to revert my previous edits on the opening of the trial and the lack of diffamtio during the preparatory trial stage of the Rouen trial 1431. This information is both relevant and cited by reputable sources and verifiable, there is absolutely no need to delete this information. Likewise, there is no citation for the assertion that Joan of Arc was denied legal representation and this is acknowledged by many academics studying Joan of Arc's trial as a fallacy. I have left this in for the time being (as I do not want to get into an editing and revert war) but I would appreciate a comment on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.138.222 ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
However, back on the issue of reverting edits on primary documents, are you suggesting that my claim that it was not simply JUST the reversion to male clothing that resulted in Joan's execution is false? (note, I'm not saying this was not part of it) Bearing in mind that the documents produced by the judges responsible for such a decision marked out the fact that she admitting to speaking once again to voices as "the fatal reply." How can this be contended? This was obviously part of the reason why Joan was executed, or it wouldn't have been noted as such in the primary document. The fact that the judges highlighted this in the trial record as their reasons, whether this was actually true or machiavellian or whatever, is significant and useful to know. Now that I have expounded on my edits and hopefully made you realize they are merely factual commentary on what appears in the documentation, you can stop reverting my edits. Awareness of what happens in both trial records is necessary to understand and make up your own mind on Joan of Arc, and therefore it is relevant. 80.47.138.222 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(My comment below was addressed to 80.47....etc )
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the rationale for saying that Taylor is not a recognized expert in this subject. His page at the University of York notes that he is a "Lecturer in Medieval History, and a Fellow of both the Société de l'Histoire de France and the Royal Historical Society." Like most academics, he has several areas of specialization, including the Hundred Years' War. His page lists two articles that he's written specifically on Joan, and one is titled "Violence at the Rouen Trial of Joan of Arc." Taylor sounds like exactly the sort of scholar this article should use as a source, and I'm a bit disturbed by Voln's high-handed dismissal of Taylor's credentials.
Obviously, any work of Taylor's that is cited must be published. A search of WorldCat shows that 6 university libraries own the book, including Oxford. The low number of results indicates that the book was very recently published--either libraries haven't yet catalogued it or haven't purchased it, but given the popularity of the subject I'm sure that more libraries will have the work in the future.
None of this indicates that Taylor is necessarily correct, but the book meets WP:RS. I'm no expert in this subject, but so far the stated reasons for leaving Taylor out--which more or less seems to be that his views are different from those of Pernoud--don't seem compelling to me. On the other hand, if his views are in the minority, one or two sentences ought to be enough. And if he's raising arguments that have been raised and refuted before, in an encylopedia intended for non-experts, it is valuable to point out that certain ideas have been long regarded as erroneous. --Akhilleus ( talk) 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My inclusion of Joan of Arc in the category of Female wartime crossdressers in time of war today seems to have ignited a firestorm in User talk:Voln and others, and has been twice reverted. There are 43 women in the category, which clearly states This is a category for women who have cross-dressed as men for the purpose of serving in the military. Some retained their male identities after the war, others returned to female identities. No one is suggesting that Joan was a tomboy or a lesbian, nor that the inclusion means anything beyond what it says. Did she fight in a war? (Yes). Was the war fought by women as some were in ancient Greece? (No). Did she fight alongside men? (Yes). Did she wear armor? (Yes). Case closed, she should be included in the category!
However, the term " cross-dressing" (read this link, which cites Joan of Arc) has today taken on the taint of sexual perversion, and it might be wise to either change the word which is a mischievous word, or delete the category altogether as not being significant, because it is causing conniptions in people who appear to feel personally responsible for Joan's femininity and saintly purity. From that category, I researched further and expanded a piece on Pauline Cushman, whom someone had already written up as a "transvestite spy", despite the fact that there was no evidence for that assertion whatsoever - she'd been widowed twice, and given birth to 2 children! I hope a decision can soon be made about this hot topic, and how problems of WP:OWN and NPOV information can be properly dealt with. JohnClarknew 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Voln's edit history [5] includes a distinctive nexus of interests (Joan of Arc, Roman Catholicism, and homosexuality) as well as familiar patterns of edit warring and particular sensitivity on the subject of cross-dressing. As with the earlier disruptive editor, Voln mentions the names of scholarly authors without actually providing direct quotes or page numbers - my previous research revealed that the vandal's claims about the content at issue often amounted to gross distortion - and even repeats the vandal's peculiar claim that the specific construction of Joan of Arc's clothing provided defense against rape. See this source, which mimics the format of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but whose "peer reviewers" are amateur Joan of Arc enthusiasts and whose author has no publication record in recognized journals. The vandal, who is probably this study's author, inserted that source as a reference into the article earlier this year. That has been nearly the only citation this editor ever provided in a disruptive career that may have persisted for two years. See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for a fuller description.
Subsequent to the previous disruption spates I have become a Wikipedia administrator. Voln's edits of 3 December are one revert shy of WP:3RR, but talk page participation here and at Talk:Joan of Arc bibliography arguably crosses the WP:POINT line and may violate WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Thus far I have not tagged this editor's user page with a suspected sockpuppet template or requested a suspected sockpuppet investigation, but I am rather close to doing so, and if the investigation comes back positive I will seek a community ban. Then, through Wikipedia:Checkuser, I will pursue bans against all other active sockpuppets of this vandal: I suspect he remained active on religion and homosexuality topics while largely avoiding Joan of Arc except when I go on Wikibreak. I will also seek consensus for removing the link to this website - which is probably owned by the same person - per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and petition America Online to terminate service for longsanding user contract violations.
If these allegations are mistakenly leveled I apologize in advance, yet the similarities are too striking to ignore. If these allegations are accurate then the appropriate response is to cease disruption. Durova Charg e! 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A few points that I feel could improve this article slightly that need to be discussed:
1. Change the name of the re-trial section and all mentions of the 1455-1456 re-trial from 'rehabilitation' to 'nullification' trial. Rehabilitation in this context has pro-catholic overtones and hints that the aim of this trial was to make some comment on Joan of Arc's spirituality, or sainthood. This is not the case, the trial was started to effectively investigate the procedural concerns of the 1431 Rouen trial, and that was all. It makes sense to use 'nullification trial' as this was the terminology used by those involved with the trial at the time, and the aims of the trial fit this title more adequately.
2. Acknowledge some of the flaws of using evidence from the condemnation trial records and also the nullification trial records, the problem being that many do not recognize the problems of the latter. There appears to be a pro-Joan bias in historical study of the subject that means that many scholarly works, including numerous ones cited in this article often criticize heavily (and often justly) the evidence of the condemnation trial records, yet completely ignore the debate over the nullification records and use those records as evidence without acknowledging the obvious flaws within them. The problem is that the nullification records portray a Joan that most people, especially Catholics, are happy to see and therefore even practiced and celebrated academics are sometimes drawn into the trap of taking the evidence on Joan they see therein at face value without even acknowledging the obvious motives and biases of opinions mentioned in them. Whereas, the same academics are very keen to question the validity of opinions expressed in the Rouen condemnation trial records, quite rightly, yet completely ignore this process for the other trial. It truly is mind boggling that such historians could ignore this process of source criticism. This is to the extent that at certain conferences on Joan of Arc, academics being booed for presenting papers that provide evidence of corruption, contradictions and ulterior motives involved in the nullification trial of 1455-1456. As a result, few successful writers are keen to write material on the subject of the flaws of the nullification trial, and the 'different' less pro-Joan view that comes from not taking every shred of evidence from the nullification trial as fact. I'll put it this way, how many academic historians of value do not at least question the validity and accuracy of the sources they are using as basis of their work, especially the records of a trial that was conducted 25 years after the original trial? I would be happy to add more specific examples of the flaws of the records at a later time if necessary. But until this problem is addressed I feel that this article does little but mirror the conclusions on Joan of Arc that is essentially biased history, despite the good academic reputations of the authors in question. While I fully expect certain editors of wikipedia to jump on my back because of this (it is a bit of a taboo, hence why many historians haven’t challenged ‘the accepted view’) but I feel it is worth discussion and perhaps a separate article on the various trials themselves.
I think these points are worth discussing, especially by people who have read books that actually criticize, or acknowledge the bias in the sources in question, and aren't biased by their faith on the matter. Even if people are still happy on having an article that is based upon writers that do not acknowledge fully the flaws in the evidence (because that IS unfortunately the consensus view in print, partly due to the immense stigma of criticizing Joan in published works, or bizarrely even questioning the pro-Joan evidence seen in the nullification trial). This process of ‘breaking the cycle’ is made even harder because many of the ‘famous’ historians that base their biographies of Joan of Arc use the evidence from the nullification trial extensively to make their assertions on Joan, as I’m sure certain wikipedia users will be keen to remind me. Basically I would be happy to even add a tertiary article on the known problems and history of BOTH trial records, and the preliminary investigations as the materials are available to me. To me there seems to be a need to acknowledge this. 80.47.161.190 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well It is certainly a substantial debate. I'll get some articles for review and present them here. In regards to the 'rehabilitation' label of the trial, that is quite an old fashioned label and is surely worth changing for the reasons outlined in my comment above, as it is misleading and a somewhat christian POV term vested in the later inclusion of Joan as a saint. I understand the need for verifiable and credible sources however, as Joan of Arc is certainly a subject that brings out the 'nut jobs.' Over the next week I'll try and compile a few sources from journals. 80.41.79.204 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to add this, i'm very new onto wikipedia I'm just wondering what ever happened to her suit of armor? If i remember, during 1 of the battles which she lost, she hung up her fully equipped armor in the alter of a church, anyone know what ever happened to her armor suit/s she wore? There's been false claims of founding of it but I'm not sure, thanks for anyone's help here. And keep up the good work here, Joan of Arc is my favourite historical figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mazzie1 ( talk • contribs).
This may sound stupid but for prisoners like her during that time, do they let prisoners take showers or clean themselves i.e baths, toilets? i'm researching on medieval prisons/prisoners and was interested in her living conditions.
Thanks for the description, i am wondering about what you said 'someone slipped a file whilst in prison, what was the file or anything about it? thanks for helping out.
The rib bone and piece of cloth purported to have been from Joan of Arc's pyre site are unlikely to have been actual relics: the linen was not charred and the bone shows signs of embalming. [6] Durova Charg e! 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there an article on this? or source link? thanks