Wikipedia

Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 2

< Talk:Joan of Arc
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Rei in topic Additions to clothing
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Veneration?

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints suggests creating a veneration section in biographies about saints. This would contain information of special interest to Roman Catholics, such as Joan of Arc's areas of patronage. Mostly this would consolidate information already in the Legacy section. It seems like a pretty good idea to me. Comments? Durova 15:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a place to put POV content. Perhaps, a seperate location will work. — Dzonatas 16:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you mean. Do you support this suggestion or oppose it? Durova 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I think we should be very careful not to mix the historical figure and the religious figure. Perhaps there should be a separate article about the Saint Joan of Arc, with facts about how she was worshipped and patronage etc. This article should be about historical facts only. — Switisweti 11:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd leave the article the way it is before attempting that. I can't really see my way to branching off a separate page for sainthood. What I had in mind would only add a sentence or two to existing information. We've already got a paragraph that deals with her canonization. Basically I was thinking of making that its own section and adding a note that the Roman Catholic Church recognizes her as patron of France and soldiers. It's NPOV to report official church policy. But if neither of you like the idea, the current article is fine with me. Durova 00:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
If a special section is created for Saints then other religions worldwide will also need to have special sections for their persons of note. Not a good idea frankly. Wjbean 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

First of all, I greatly appreciate Durova's patience and kindness. Before looking to change much else in the article, I'll phrase my questions here. My primary concern is that the article is skewed towards unquestioned praise, magnification, and defense of Joan rather than simply reporting the known facts (which are extraordinary enough on their own). Some examples:

1. When reporting her wound at Orleans, the article notes that she removed the arrow herself and leapt back into battle, when Pasquerel commenting at the time only notes that she wept, that her wound was treated by others, and that she 'made her confession to me, weeping and lamenting' (cf his comments in Joan of Arc - By Herself and her Witnesses, Pernoud, p. 90)

I extend my apologies for not noticing your questions sooner. The following summarizes my replies. I welcome sourced edits to the contrary. Switisweti's browser won't let him edit when the article reaches 32k, so please cut as necessary to accommodate your changes. The condemnation trial description is a good candidate for shortening.
Pasquerel's testimony is not the best account. Several rehabilitation trial witnesses describe the event in their depositions. The source you cite, although generally excellent, includes little of the documetary evidence regarding military events. Durova 14:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

2. When reporting about the great victory at Patay, no one mentions that the battle was orchestrated by others and nearly over when she arrived. The abbreviated text suggests by omission that it was her victory. If the article is supposed to be about her achievements, isn't that relevant?

DeVries and Ritchie argue that her swift and vigorous Loire campaign prevented English forces from converging. Joan's co-commander the Duke of Alencon testifies, especially with regard to Jargeau, that her decisions were instrumental to the pace of these victories. (If it needs to be said, Alencon yielded to Joan on nearly every decision during their shared command). The timing proved very close: Fastolf's relief army arrived in the Loire valley hours after the surrender of Beaugency. Military history customarily credits the general for a victorious strategy.
Regarding tactics at Patay, little was "orchestrated." A French vanguard succeeded in surprising the unprepared English army and routed them with the first assault. The primary tactic - if any could be said to exist - was to locate the enemy before its longbowmen could establish defensive positions. La Hire and Poton de Xaintrailles were the nearest commanders when a scout reported, but I know of no source that attributes the scouting missions to their orchestration. In the absence of conflicting evidence one credits the ranking commander's decision.
I realize this aligns me with a particular scholarly camp. I attempt to play down this bias in the article. Having visited the important sites and read the major primary sources, I do find the military revisionists persuasive. The article would benefit from a good editor who challenges this perspective. Durova 14:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

3. When mentioning her leap from a 70 foot height onto bare ground, the author of that section states as a fact that it was an escape attempt. Isn't it at least open to question whether someone could reasonably expect to survive such a fall much less walk away from it? I would expect such a voluntary jump to be judged a likely suicide attempt or at least insane by a neutral panel, regardless of what the person said after the fact.

Regine Pernoud infers that Joan made this leap when she learned that the Burgundians were preparing to sell her to the English. If this is correct then the choice was between risky escape and certain execution - a sane decision given the circumstances. Her injuries suggest that she minimized the impact. She had a mild concussion and no broken bones.
Consider this in the context of her other actions. Joan of Arc made two other serious escape attempts but no known suicide attempts. On one occassion she tried to escape between two pieces of wood. In another plot a servant was caught attempting to smuggle a file to her cell. She was famous for remaining on the front lines in combat despite serious injury. Veteran soldiers survive by being shrewd at distinguishing a hero from a fool. The men who followed her into battle were unanimous in their esteem. Durova 14:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Though reputable visions of saints pushing direct political and military actions are otherwise extremely rare if not unknown, the short section on visions is presented as if questioning the source of Joan's visions is at best problematical. A neutral report of a person having visions would not have to contend with arguments about who did or did not believe her at one time or another. It is clear that those who identified with her goal (i.e. kicking out the English and putting the crown on Charles) supported her, but those who disagreed with her goal attacked her. That proves nothing about her sanity.

Check Mohammed for a somewhat analogous biography. This was the last section I rewrote. Frankly I was hoping - and still hope - that someone else could give it a better treatment. I can think of many ways to improve it, all of which would be like peeling an onion. I know enough about the subject to approach this with great trepidation.
My statement about the people who trusted her leadership seems prone to misinterpretation. The point is that she exhibited outward signs of sanity. Durova 14:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the full and careful replies. I think it best, given the importance of reputable (often necessarily conservative) sources for an online article like this, that I leave well enough alone and just keep my own counsel about some of these issues. The alternate views, especially in loaded religious questions like this, are almost guaranteed to be outside the mainstream. Questioning Joan's leadership begs that question of how many other leaders may owe their victories to others or to circumstances. Questioning whether or not she expected to die from her 70' fall will remain a subjective question. --Dfc 12:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Passive Voice & First Person

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

There are still some passive voice issues. It's not as awkward as it was before. Durova, you have improved the article in that way.

I'm concerned about the first person perspective. The article skips between third person and first person. For example, the use of "Joan stated blah blah in the testimony" is third person. "Joan believes in Jack-o-Latern" is first person. The perspective is tricky because it is where the idea comes from. Even though "I" or pronouns are not used, the perspective is significant. To write, "Joan believes" is to say that "as I read this, I must hold true that Joan believes in such in such because this articles states it." Wikipedia rules are not to make primary sources out of the article, so this perspective can be avoided. Simply change the sentence to how that belief is established. For example, "Her testimony states she believes in Jack-o-Latern." This will greatly improve the article. — Dzonatas 16:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please post a reference that defines "first person" in that way. This interpretation is new to me. Durova 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Re: "Wikipedia rules are not to make primary sources out of the article," see Wikipedia:No original research Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Durova 20:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Ballard. I think I understand what you mean: you want stated in every sentence that no fact is 100% certain. I don't agree with you: sentences like "Her testimony states that ... etc." on every little fact make the article unreadable. It is still NPOV to make sentences like "Joan of Arc believed in God". She did. No need the give the source on every little fact. Just refrain from sentences like "Joan of Arc was a true saint". That's an opinion. Regarding 1st person perspective: that's only the case if it should read "I" or "we" and it doesn't. — Switisweti 11:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
With a bit a common sense, the sentences can still be made more third person. It doesn't have to be redundant, but it shouldn't be so one-way. "Joan believed..." is grounds for POV, since it doesn't allow a neutral point of view. She may not have believed in god at all, and, as she says, did a show just for her acquitances. There are many people today that go to church more so because they do it to be with a group rather than to believe in god. All this means is just the emphasize the npov possibility. Some documents may make a point she believed in such and such, but there is much to question about the documents. "Some researchers believe that she believes in god" is even more appropriate. Of course, not every sentence is going to be worded that way. Some may simple state beliefs like "Joan believed...," but in what context is significant. — Dzonatas 14:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
About six sentences remain in passive voice. The entire article is in third person. While I agree about using great caution before attributing beliefs to anyone, our subject is a martyred saint. To the best of my knowledge this opinion is unanimous. To state otherwise implies controversy where none exists. Please supply citations if you believe this mistaken. Durova 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. (but... oh well, um) The famous quoted line both of you (and Noisy and others) have tried to pin on me:

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify)

When I read the article, I kind-of feel that I would be able to verify some points that seem certain. I know those points, which I haven't specifically pointed out, can not be verified. Their sources can be verified but not the way they are opinionated here, as if by unpublished knowledge. Now, I'm sure I was wrongfully mistaken about my previous comments above. I have no intention to go through and edit every so called point. Perhaps, sometime in the future I'll do some edits to update passive voice and reword any kind of forward-looking phrases. You see, I do think the article is a great improvement. There are exceptions to NOR, and as a wikipedian -- I vote here, given the nature of lost documents as one exception, to let the article stand in its attempts to be factual. — Dzonatas 12:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

St. Catherine

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Removed an unverifiable attribution of Joan of Arc's visions to St. Catherine of Alexandria. Joan of Arc never specified which of three St. Catherines she meant: St. Catherine of Alexandria, St. Catherine of Siena, or St. Catherine of Sweden. Also (although the article's reference to this fact got deleted today), the only document that names her visions is the condemnation trial transcript. Joan of Arc had adamantly refused to swear to tell the truth to the court regarding her visions.

Regarding the other change, you seem to think that "apparent paradox" means "impossibility." This is not so. [1]

Please cite sources when inserting assertions. Durova 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A paradox , as indicated in the first definition at the footnoted link is a contradiction. In this context, the use of the term implies that her acceptance in that credulous age apparently contradicts the possiblility of mental illness. That is not the case. It may be unlikely or incongruous that a mentally ill person would be accepted as sane in that era, but it is not contradictory.

As for St. Catherine being St. Catherine of Alexandria, the importance of the sword in the testimony and her own assertions at that time about her love for that specific St. Catherine (cf. St. Catherine de Fierbois) are not seriously in dispute.[2][3]--Dfc 19:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The willingness of that era to believe in certain religious matters does not imply a general willingness to hand over the government and army to a lunatic. See Pernoud and Clin, p. 183 for a skeptical caution from the Archbishop of Embrun to Charles VII about following the advice of an ignorant country girl. The same archbishop became an enthusiastic supporter once she had proven herself. I present "paradox" not in the context you cite of strict logical constructions, but in its more general use as the juxtaposition of two things that seem to contradict each other yet might resolve upon closer examination. I qualify it further by calling it an "apparent paradox." Let's be reasonable.
Your citations regarding the association of Joan of Arc's St. Catherine to St. Catherine of Alexandria are not very convincing. If one reads the condemnation trial transcript literally, she had already heard voices for four years before she visited the church of Ste. Catherine-de-Fierbois. Even then it was not a pilgrimage but one of many church visits along her route to Chinon. Pernoud and Clin refer to lively academic debates as to which of several saints Joan meant (p. 113). I'll agree that quite a few scholars do associate this saint, but your argument is shaky. First one must accept Joan of Arc's testimony on this point as true. Second one must suppose the court record reports it faithfully. By the time one finishes making the necessary NPOV disclaimers this becomes a longwinded and rather weak claim. Durova 20:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "apparent" was not in dispute. I was being entirely reasonable in noting that a paradox involves two things that cannot both be true and mental illness does not exclude acceptance by some authorities. Another example would be to say that it is incongruous (i.e. does not match up with what you would expect) that Joan actually had heavenly visitors who were instructing her in the choice of political favorites, but it is not a paradox or contradictory of anything that such a thing might happen.

It is entirely unreasonable to insist that Joan had to be a clear lunatic if she was mentally ill. Her time of acceptance was extremely short and she was still a teenager when she died. Initially, she was treated as in need of a good slap and her personal imperative was ignored. She had only about a month of success in the field (she arrived at Patay after the battle had been won) before things began to go sour. Isn't it less than NPOV to make a big deal about the romanticization of a child who died young?

Since you acknowledge that many scholars agree that Joan's St. Catherine was St. Catherine of Alexandria, what exactly (footnotes and a quote please) do you know that contradicts their assertions? Does Pernoud offer evidence against her St. Catherine being the mythical saint from Alexandria? I've offered the focus on the sword in the trial as something highly relevant. What can you offer that suggests Joan did not mean that Catherine? Simply dismissing my comments as weak arguments with nothing to show why they should be in doubt is far from neutral or fair.--Dfc 21:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You are attempting to include something the article did not have before. Therefore it is your responsibility to cite your attribution appropriately. I have already explained why John Nash did not gain professional success while a schizophrenic, why Joan of Arc's sword is irrelevant to your attribution of her St. Catherine to St. Catherine of Alexandria, and named two major historians who find the attribution inconclusive. I have provided citations for all my statements. Yours have been only tangentially related to your claims. It is not the responsibility of other editors to muster lengthy arguments against dubious assertions. Defend them yourself or they will be deleted per WP:NOR. Durova 22:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You are using my unfamiliarity with protocols and general newness at operating in this environment rather than facts to attack my submissions. The fact that both her accusers (the original trial) and supporters (the modern Catholic Church that made her a saint) agree on the St. Catherine Joan meant is no small or dubious claim and you have offered nothing but a vague reference to unnamed disputed saints and a page number in textual evidence here. In fact, on p. 113 of Pernoud's and Clin's work, they assert the following opinion: "it is probable that her St. Catherine was St. Catherine of Alexandria."

You have also not dismissed with Nash, except in your own mind, because he was ill and working for over a year before he was hospitalized and he earned his Nobel prize later. Nonetheless, whether you use your leverage as an experienced contributor now to avoid dealing with the issues I have raised, I will indeed return wtih cited references and rebuild it all. The choice is yours. Your methods suggest truth is not your object in this.--Dfc 23:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

John Nash was hospitalized in 1958. The publications that led to his Nobel Prize appeared during 1950-1953. It's safe to say he was a healthy man at that time.
The argument you seem to be trying to make amounts to this, if I understand correctly: St. Catherine of Alexandria probably did not exist. Therefore Joan of Arc's visions cannot be accepted at face value. An assertion like that one has to overcome several obstacles.
1. The only record that names her visions as connected to specific saints is the condemnation trial transcript. This is a problematic document whose verdict did not stand the test of time. See the main article for an outline of how unreliable this document is.
2. Joan of Arc emphatically refused to swear to tell the truth regarding her visions.
3. The reports she did give came late in the trial after she had been threatened with torture. Therefore all surviving statements she made about them might have been deliberate nonsense intended to baffle her enemies, even if the court reported the statements faithfully (which it might very well not have).
4. If one does accept the trial testimony at face value, St. Catherine of Siena and St. Catherine of Sweden are viable alternatives.
5. It remains possible that St. Catherine of Alexandria existed in a somewhat different form than her early medieval hagiographers recorded.
The basic point here is to show that no one is trying to be unfair to you. There's simply a lack of reliable evidence on this subject. Objections 1, 2 and 3 could apply to nearly any hypothesis about Joan of Arc's visions. The statement in my former draft about the lost Poitiers inquiry is not facetious. Most of the primary documents about Joan of Arc's life were lost for more than four centuries. Durova 01:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We agree about the question, now can we agree about the standards of evidence? The problem is that both the level of trust accorded to her and the source of her visions are in doubt and we are forced to deal in probabilities.

1. Pernoud, Clin, her accusers, and the modern Catholic Church agree about Joan meaning St. Catherine of Alexandria. Please reread your own efforts to discredit this claim for standards of evidence. You want to throw out Joan's testimony as unreliable, her association with shrines dedicated to that St. Catherine, as well as claims in her trial while she was alive and the Catholic Church's understanding of their own saint.

2. The extent to which Joan was trusted and the extent to which she was merely used are very much in question. Is not it equally absurd to assert, in defense of her sanity, that she was trusted by high level officials when it was only the French who did so and then only as long as it served their needs? We have the recent political circus about John Kerry's war record as an example. It suited Bush supporters to declare it false and both sides to bring up supporters for their position. If you hedged your statement about the trust accorded her in the same way you want to hedge questions about her sanity, you would not baldly assert trust as if it was a given fact.

3. The problem with Saint Catherine of Alexandria is that there is no historical record to link the story to. The monks in the monastery on Mt. Sinai knew nothing about her before the monastery was renamed St. Catherine's in the eighth century. There was no historical record of her in Alexandria either. In order to accept the story as true, one would have to believe that even though no religious official ever mentioned her and no historical record existed for her, the record created for her centuries later was based on fact rather than fiction.

4. Because of the religious nature of this dispute, we are forced to pry concessions out of believers that we would not have to contest in a secular question. If George Bush started reporting that Reagan and Nixon appear to him and tell him to beat the democrats into pulp, would you fight so hard to defend that as you do to defend the likelihood that G-d wanted the Dauphin to be King? How do we separate strongly held belief from science and secular probabilities based on the historical record?--Dfc 09:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

We are not engaged in original research here at Wikipedia. The above list notes reasonable NPOV disclaimers that would go along with a citation which you have yet to produce of a reputable historian that makes the argument you attempted to insert in this article. Due to space constraints and the weakness of the statement after qualifications, I doubt we have room for it here in this article. This isn't the place for modern American politics. I recently archived this talk page. Durova 14:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you looking for a citation about? The wikipedia article on St. Catherine of Alexandria itself notes that she was probably a fictional character. I can easily find other references about that fact. Pernoud and Clin would seem to be reputable sources agreeing that Joan's St. Catherine was the one from Alexandria, if the Catholic Church is deemed ignorant about this matter.

I also have articles by physicians I can quote, but their modern opinion that she was hallucinating is no more final than the insistence that her visions were true. We can't examine Joan, rely on her interrogators assigned by the Dauphin, or her judges assigned by the English because they all have a vested interest in the truth or falsity of her mission.

In terms of her visions and this article, the most helpful analysis might be to list all of Joan's prophecies (e.g. the towns she cursed, her claim that the French troops lost because of their failures to live right) and to see if there is solid evidence that people in authority followed her dictates (a clear sign of trust in her and her visions) or whether they treated her differently before she had been sent on to the French court and after Charles received his crown. If their willingness to support with troops/restore/redeem/ransom was intermittent or nonexistent at times, it might suggest that they did not trust in her at all or fear heavenly retribution.--Dfc 15:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cite sources
Scholarly method
Find a mainstream secondary source and cite that author. Durova 03:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Front National

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've left a message on the user talk page for the person who edited the last paragraph today. Had to revert for NPOV reasons. Would welcome productive changes. Durova 00:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Notes

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the help with the footnotes, User:Dzonatas. That sort of work makes my eyes bleed. Our peer review feedback is asking for more footnoting. I've added some but frankly I'm pooped. Taking a bit of a break. Do you agree the mediation is complete? I'm hoping to move toward featured article status. Durova 17:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that "The first biography of Joan of Arc" was not used as a source. If you like, here is a free PDF version: http://www.smu.edu/ijas/texts/joan.pdf. I checked and found that Britannica mentions it. It may have content worthwhile for notes.

Here is a link to some art: http://194.165.231.32/hemma/mathias/jeannedarc.html.

I respond more in a little while. — Dzonatas 20:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add those to the Joan of Arc bibliography. I had to cut a couple of things today because the article crossed the 32kb mark. At that point some browsers fail to load or edit the page. Durova 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Clothing, gender identity, and sexuality

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

82.127.99.246, a rollback of a large amount of factual information without discussion is simply unacceptable. Please discuss the reasons for your rollback here. I thought I did a good job of discussing the controversy (which *does* exist, and needs to be mentioned) in terms fair to both sides of it, and without omitting any evidence to either point of view. If you disagree, please present your reasoning here.

Thanks! Rei 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's about size? Well, I refer you to Wikipedia:Article size:

"Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32K. There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them."

I'm restoring my version until we can discuss how to split the article off. Rei 00:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You posted while I was writing the following:

Hi, I did the second rollback but not the first. The second was for space reasons. Your additions brought the article above 31k. At that point some browsers fail. One of our regular contributors gets locked out editing from this article. I don't know who did the first rollback.
If you need to make space I suggest cutting from the trial of condemnation. Please cite your sources.
A few of your alterations don't appear consistent with the record. The clothing issue did not become a significant legal factor until the trial was well underway. Apparently she had received clerical permission for that practice at Poitiers. The archbishop of Rouen, who was certainly no fan of hers within the Armagnac party, never raised an objection to her apparel even though she had attended the coronation in his cathedral. When judges challenged her about wearing men's clothes to religious services she requested a dress for that purpose. The court refused to provide her one.
Likewise, the change from camp follower to prostitute raises a problem. Although popular perception regards these as nearly synonymous, camp followers were often the legal wives of soldiers and performed useful functions such as cooking and laundry. The original sources did not identify the women that Joan of Arc expelled from the army as prostitutes.Durova 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Two new articles have already branched off for space reasons: Joan of Arc in art and Joan of Arc bibliography. Can you suggest other branches? I can't. Given that nearly any section of this article can (and has) resulted in book length academic discussions, it seems best to present a well sourced summary that any browser can access. Durova 00:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Yes, the rv without comment after all the work made me feel quite unwelcome; I'm glad to see that this wasn't the intent.  :) Lets go into the issues one by one.
References: Yes, I actually planned to put some more in when I had the time - I'll take care of that as soon as I'm done posting here.  :)
As to your comment about the clothing not being an issue until the trial was well underway, this is not correct. It occurred in the second public examination[4], and remained a major issue throughout the trial. That is, in the transcript [5], it is the third "page" of over twenty. There was more stress on witchcraft earlier on, but that line of persecution really went nowhere.
The wearing a dress during religious services issue while in captivity was not what I was referring to. A major issue in her trial was the fact that she had attended services back in France dressed as a man - i.e., under her own free will [6]. If you read over the transcripts, she continually refers to the fact that she is content with her dress as a man, and that it pleases God.
As for the "camp followers" vs "prostitutes" issue: They really were prostitutes that she had a gripe with, as far as I can find [7] [8], and was reported to have broken her sword on (the concept of her striking one of her soldier's wives hard enough to break her sword is kind of unreasonable anyways, don't you agree?). She had no gripe with women in general (and regularly slept in the same bed as other women). If you have a reference that states otherwise, I would be interested in seing it.
Now for the tough issue: how to branch. It really appears that we have two parts: the history, and "everything else". The history takes up almost exactly half of the article. Perhaps we should sum up the history and have the detailed history in a separate article? I'll wait for your comment on the subject.
Thanks for your explanation of what was going on - it makes me feel a lot better.  :) I'll go ahead and add in refs, and let me know what you think of how to split. Rei 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

One point at a time in semi-random order:

  • "Camp followers" is an inclusive term (some were prostitutes, some weren't). Since Joan of Arc ordered all women to leave the army except herself, the inclusive term is more appropriate. There are two conflicting accounts of the particular confrontation you mention. The other witness said there was no broken sword or violent action.
  • "Clothing and the trial" yes, there was a brief mention early in the proceeding. It became an issue late in the trial after other avenues of prosecution had been exhausted. The conviction and execution were foregone conclusions. See the citations from the retrial testimony for why she resisted the court on this subject.
  • "Cross dressing and religious services" do you have a specific historian to cite for your interpretation on this point? A religious court overturned the original conviction. Except for avowed political enemies, the clerical community accepted her.
  • "References" please conform to the same format as the rest of the article.
  • "Sexual orientation" I suspected you were heading for Sackville-West. I'll attempt to summarize her argument from memory. Tell me if I've neglected anything. The two facts Sackville-West cites look persuasive by modern standards: Joan of Arc wore men's clothing and slept in the same bed with several young women her age.
The trouble with the latter point is that this was a widespread and customary practice among heterosexuals until the mid-nineteenth century. See Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre (boarding school scenes) and Samuel Richardson's Pamela (re: Mrs. Jervis and Mrs. Jewkes) for two Gutenberg.org - friendly examples. Often this resulted out of practical necessity due to a shortage of beds. It could also be a defense against male sexual assault or a way of providing a witness to affirm a woman's chastity.
Joan of Arc's assumption of male clothing conforms to a broader historical pattern of female soldiers and sailors crossdressing. See Crossdressing_During_Wartime. It looks like one of our Russian editors added the image of my Wikipedia username namesake. Nadezhda Durova wore men's clothes for decades after she retired from army service. Cross dressing in this context is not an indicator of sexual orientation.
This is why, although Sackville-West has a few adherents, most of the historical community does not take the argument seriously. If you consider this notable enough we can mention it as a minority view. The space you've devoted grants it undue weight.
(Disclaimer) I have no personal POV issues about the subject of sexual orientation. Check my edit history on Wikipedia.

The editors of this article reached a consensus about branching recently. The article went through a reorganization and rewrite this fall. That represented some very hard work and compromise (including mediation). Unless there's a new consensus to reopen the discussion, the appropriate solution is to edit new contributions within the existing framework. Durova 07:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A couple of responses.  :)
*"Camp followers" is an inclusive term (some were prostitutes, some weren't). Since Joan of Arc ordered all women to leave the army except herself, the inclusive term is more appropriate.. This is seems to be not the case, for several reasons. One, as I already discussed, the concept of her breaking a sword on one of her soldier's wives is pretty unreasonable, and yet she is reported to have struck several women as such. I presented two references, which I would like your response to on the subject. Women were clearly not driven away in entirity, as Joan often slept with other women in her bed. But, if you have a source that suggests otherwise, I would indeed be interested in seing it.
*"Clothing and the trial" yes, there was a brief mention early in the proceeding.. No, there wasn't "a" brief mention - there were many mentions. About two in three early proceedings bring up the subject. The focus is indeed on witchcraft (which would have made for an easier and more solid conviction), but her attire continually comes up. I can get you sections and paragraph numbers for each mention if you need them - I mirrored the transcripts locally to make searching easier.  :)
*"Cross dressing and religious services" do you have a specific historian to cite for your interpretation on this point? That she did it? It's right there in the transcripts. Here's the first mention (the issue comes up several times, with more focus on it later):
"Did you receive the said Sacraments in man's dress?"
"Yes; but I do not remember ever to have received them armed."
She furthermore cross-dressed even in captivity at Beaurevoir where she was treated kindly, and in many other cases where the "necessity" clause clearly doesn't hold. She herself rarely makes the necessity defense, preferring instead the "God ordered it" defense, all throughout the transcripts. In fact, she almost never dressed as a woman in her adult life. I was actually relatively mild with the things I listed - I could easily have gone on. What was the proposed justification for having "hair clipped 'en ronde' in the style of a man", for example? Even in captivity, she kept it cropped. She lived as a man of her times lived, whether in danger or safety, and even when at risk to herself. Now, I did my best not to assign motive to this; she very well may not have wanted to dress as such, but felt an obligation to God to do it. But the fact remains that she very obviously took on the attire, outfit, and even hairstyle of a man in all circumstances, clearly not conforming to St. Thomas Acquinas's guidelines.
Or are you instead asking whether it's permitted? I can't find a single theological reference that supports anything close to allowing that. St. Thomas Acquinas, often cited to her defense, certainly doesn't approach anything like that - he grants:
Reply to Objection 3. As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (Dt. 22) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some necessity, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive.[9].
Her rehabilitation trial offers plenty of evidence to support her right to wear of male clothes in captivity and on the battlefield, but deliberately sidesteps the thornier issues described above. In fact, they don't even mention her hair (the word "hair" only comes up when reading a quote, on which it is not the purpose of the quote being read).
*"References" please conform to the same format as the rest of the article.. Will do.  :)
The trouble with the latter point is that this was a widespread and customary practice among heterosexuals until the mid-nineteenth century.. This is precisely why I wrote, "However, at the time, this latter fact states little about her sexuality, as this was a relatively common practice at the time, and offered her a way to defend her chastity.". Please understand that I did not come into this trying to support the claims that Joan was a lesbian or transsexual. The fact remains, however, that this is an issue that is widely discussed in relation to Joan of Arc. She's somewhat of a heroine among the GLBT community, who often regard her as such, and to not have mention of that at all in this article seemed quite unreasonable. It is certainly worth a few paragraphs discussing the merits of the claims.
Joan of Arc's assumption of male clothing conforms to a broader historical pattern of female soldiers and sailors crossdressing. See Crossdressing_During_Wartime. Interestingly enough, it was this very topic that got me to check out the Joan of Arc article on Wikipedia in the first place. I've read quite a bit about the subject before, and someone asked me for examples of it. I wanted to provide references, so started going to different sites and linking for them.
Yet, even in the subject of cross-dressing in wartime, the sexuality and gender identity ratios are quite skewed from the normal population. Many cases - at least half - are clearly straight women with no gender identity issues. Many were married and wanted to be with their husbands. Others wanted to fight for their countries. But a surprising number are clearly lesbians or transsexuals - people who live as men even when not required (before and after service), who date women, etc. One even killed another officer in a duel over a woman. So, saying that Joan conforms to this pattern doesn't say much about her.
This is why, although Sackville-West has a few adherents, most of the historical community does not take the argument seriously. If you consider this notable enough we can mention it as a minority view. The space you've devoted grants it undue weight. One paragraph, half of which criticizes this view, is undue support? Howso? And if you don't believe me that there are a lot of people out there who believe that Joan was a lesbian or transsexual, I suggest that you ask some members of the GLBT community what they think of her. It's a widely held belief. Leslie Feinberg's book listing her as a "transgender warrior" certainly didn't hurt that viewpoint among the community, either.
If you want my personal opinion, it would be that she was not a lesbian, but more likely somewhat asexual. There's relatively little evidence that she showed sexual interest in anyone at all. There's always the possibility that she did and suppressed it out of a sense of religious duty, of course. Even if she was attracted to women, the concept that someone as deeply religious as her in that environment would have acted on it is rather unreasonable. The gender identity issue is a lot harder, though - she really does fit the pattern of a F2M transsexual, seeming to *want* to look like a man, even when it is clearly adverse to her own well-being. But then again, it could just be religious devotion, feeling that she had been ordered to by God and could not violate it. However, I did my best not to try and present my personal opinion, and simply present it as a controversy that does exist (which it does).
As for the split, you asked for suggestions, and I gave one. If you don't like the suggestion that I came up with, what would you propose that we do about the size? You've been on this article longer, so I'll defer to your judgement.
Thanks! -- Rei 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

urging quality

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

A few times now, I found consitent revert: "French forces began aggressive actions against siege fortifications at Joan's urging." Durova, you made the last one, but there was no syntax error in the previous version as you stated for your reason to revert. We need to up the quality of the article, and to take a little extra time to state what really is intended will help. Use of the word "urging" in that sentence and in that syntax leaves questions. Without the exact knowledge of what was intended by "urging," I made the change to offer the use of "urgence" in that context, which is still correct use, but it doesn't have that illogical tense factor that makes it a "forward-looking" phrase. "Urging" alone totally lacks the nature of such urgency. Far as we know, they could have waited for her to releive herself from a potty break. With the tense, it illogicals implies that they still wait. It's a complex word that could imply many thoughts. I figured it was her request. Let's examine this further by example.

French forces began aggressive actions against siege fortifications at Joan's urging.
Ugh-ga-ga-ooh-ah ugh-ga-ga-ooh-ah... this "sounds like" and old french translation with a forward-looking phrase (naturally illogical). We're not Yoda from Star Wars: "Change the sentence; we must."
French forces began aggressive actions against siege fortifications at Joan's urgence.
"Urgence" is not commonly found in Enlish dictionaries, but it is a the combination of "urge" and "-ence." Compare "the urgent need" to "the urgence of all the needs." It is correct syntax but with the same vagueness of the "urging" version.
French forces began aggressive actions against siege fortifications upon the urgency of Joan's request.'
This one emphasizes the "urgency," and it asserts it was from a request. It is correct syntax, but...
Joan urged the French forces, and they began aggressive actions against the siege fortifications.
This completely keeps the tense in the past and emphasizes actions of the urgency before the agressive actions.
Joan urged the French forces to act, and they acted aggressively against the siege fortifications.
This one further changes the adjective emphasis to an adverbial.
Joan urged the French forces to act against the siege fortifications, and they acted aggressively.
This one clarifies the urged act, and gives a more pure cause and effect syntax. Was this the intention?

I'm concerned about the extra revert upon this sentence. At least, I tried to discuss this before another edit. — Dzonatas 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell me the source of your objection to "at Joan's urging." The construction appears routinely in major English language periodicals. Durova 16:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Lots of work, but it only proves how tolerable the constructs have become.

As for the objection, it's considered a "forward-looking" phrase. "Forward-looking" statements are not definite. By far, anything not based on historical fact is a forward-looking statement. However, expectations as contemplated under section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and section 21E of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are provisional to specific SEC-related businesses. Words like "estimate", "project", "believe", "anticipate", "intend", "expect", "plan", "predict", "may", "should", "will", the negative of these words or such other variations thereon or comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Any SEC-related business that publishes such statements can not guarantee such stated future performance and must state a related disclaimer. In conclusion, if an article about some history is not in its historic tense paradigm, it is not fact. Money talks more than those example news articles you gave about "Bush's urging." — Dzonatas 00:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

A "forward-looking statement" attempts to forecast the future. No statement in this article meets that definition. The Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 is not a usage manual for editing medieval history. Durova 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You asked for a source, Durova. It is a much more common practice in business more so than the few magazines you provided. Most businesses just post the disclaimer and not worry about technical details. I'm sure you'll find such a disclaimer with the magazines besides "freedom of speech." Even a publicly traded encyclopedia business has to make a disclaimer about the contents of its product, or they would be sued for the content if not found true.
I've already fixed many statements that "forecast the future." There is still much to fix. Words that use present-future tense to describe events of the past confuses truth. The quality is improveable. — Dzonatas 09:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Either you're joking or you're very confused. Legal terminology associated with United States New Deal financial legislation has no bearing whatsoever on this article. Durova 17:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, you asked for a source. I provided you an active source. It appears you have disliked the source because it also has a theme concurrent with financial legislation, but that is not the point. Perhaps, conversly, you should provide a source for your objection. Mine is a matter of historical fact. — Dzonatas 19:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary: the burden is on you to demonstrate that United States New Deal financial legislation has any relevance to an article about Joan of Arc. I can hardly believe we're even discussing this. Durova 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations

Latest comment: 18 years ago32 comments4 people in discussion

The citations in this article have become incoherent. The numbering within the text is out of order. Clicking on a citation pulls up unrelated information: a statement about Joan of Arc sleeping with women pulls up Thomas Aquinas's legal reasoning on biblical clothing law. Long sections of unsubstantiated material have been inserted. This is unacceptable.

Peer review criticized this article for inadequate citations when we had twenty-five accurate footnotes. What we have now is nonsense. This needs fixing before we can discuss content. Durova 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's wrong with the citation links; I corrected the style of citation links that I used, so perhaps I messed it up in some way? If so, I apologize, although I don't see offhand what is wrong.
As for the number of citations, one thing to note is that it varies throughout the article. For a breakdown (not all are unique):
Introduction: 2
Early Life: 0
Career: 2
Capture, trial, and execution: 10
Retrial: 0
Clothing: 11
Visions: 1
Legacy: 1
Note how very imbalanced this is. I'll add more refs to the section that I worked on if you want, but it's already the most referenced section of the article. If you'd like, I can work elsewhere in the article instead. As for the broken reference links, however, I don't know what's wrong with that (and apologize in advance if it's my fault). -- Rei 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
A week and a half ago this article had 25 footnotes. Now we're down to 21 for a longer article. The numbers are out of order. The links often direct to the wrong footnote. Where they direct to the correct footnote the text and footnote numbers may not agree. Several newly created citations in clothing direct to old and unrelated footnotes.
I'm sure everyone acted in good faith. Still it's got to be fixed. If I do the fix I'll revert to the last correctly cited version and invite other editors to reinsert later information. I'll give it a little time first because I don't want this to be misconstrued as a pretext for some other motive. Regards, Durova 21:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I fixed it - try it out. My changes are extremely trivial (moving the ref from before the period to after it and always leaving one space after it), but it seems to have done the trick. Something about having it before the period must have confused the wiki.
As for the number of references, what is your preference? Do you agree with me that the long, little-referenced sections need references the most, or do you think I should add more to the clothing section (which is already the most referenced section in the article)? -- Rei 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The peer review feedback pointed me to a page that had around three times as many notes as this article. You joined us while I was taking a break - I created nearly all of this article's footnotes. By all means add citations throughout the article wherever they seem appropriate. Durova 23:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I should have a chance tomorrow - I'll try and make sure that there's on average one per paragraph (that seems reasonable - it's not like any of this is relatively obscure, and most could just be grepped for in her trial transcripts, so it shouldn't be too hard). I wonder why someone would take out the references in the first place, though. All I know is that it happened before I got here. -- Rei 23:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the footnotes. I don't see any improvement. Please double check your work. Durova 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I just double-checked; the footnotes worked correctly. Specifically, I just tried your example of clicking on the ref to where she shared her bed with women, and it took me straight to the trial link in which this is mentioned, not to St. Thomas Aquinas's discussion of biblical clothing law like it used to. -- Rei 06:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

____

I've double checked too. Here are my findings:
  1. Text note 3 led to unrelated footnote 9.
  2. Text note 4 led to unrelated footnote 11.
  3. Text note 5 led to footnote 17.
  4. Text note 6 led to footnote 3.
  5. Text note 7 led to footnote 4.
  6. A second instance of text note 3 followed text note 7. This one led to unrelated footnote 5.
  7. Text note 8 led to footnote 5.
  8. Text note 9 led to footnote 6.
  9. Text note 10 led to footnote 7.
  10. Text note 11 led to footnote 8.
  11. Text note 12 led to footnote 19.
  12. Text note 13 led to footnote 20.
  13. A second instance of footnote 8 followed footnote 13. At least it led to the correctly numbered footnote.
  14. A second instance of footnote 9 followed (footnote 8a?). Led to unrelated footnote 19.
  15. A third instance of footnote 9 followed (footnote 9a). Led to the same footnote 19, still for no coherent purpose.
  16. A fourth instance of footnote 9 followed (footnote 9b). Led to footnote 19 again, complete bollocks again.
  17. Text note 14 leads to footnote 16.
  18. Text note 15 leads to footnote 21.
  19. Text note 16 leads to footnote 22.
  20. Text note 17 leads to footnote 12.
  21. A third instance of footnote 8 followed footnote 17. This leads to footnote 8.
  22. A fifth instance of footnote 9 followed (footnote 8b). Once again it makes a nonsensical direction to footnote 19.
  23. Text note 18 leads to footnote 23.
  24. Text note 19 leads to footnote 10. The interpretations asserted with footnotes 17 and 19 are too strong for attribution to a primary document. Cite a historian, please.
  25. Text note 22 leads to footnote 13 and should be citing Vita Sackville-West per the text mention. Instead it cites the court records.
  26. Text note 23 leads to footnote 18. The article text correctly attributes Joan of Arc's confessor. However, hymen examinations are invalid tests of virginity.
Summary: only four footnotes in the entire article are correct. I could understand if someone posted I'm having trouble. Please lend a hand. It just isn't honest to claim that everything is double checked and accurate when a quick look reveals that the notes still aren't even in numerical order. While I try to assume good faith, this is an insult to my intelligence. Rolling back. Durova 00:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Note 3 does *not* lead to note 9. Do you need a series of screenshots of me clicking on it and being taken to note 3? Same with all of the others. I don't know what's wrong with your browser, but mine works just fine. I'm dead serious - I *will* take screenshots for you if you don't believe me. Don't accuse me of lying about something I'm seing right before my eyes; it's not appreciated.
Now, if you want to discuss footnote *Content*, I'd be glad to. Why do you need a historian for #19? It's right there in the transcript - she wore men's clothes to her hearings, period. They mention it several times. A historian would be a *less* authoritative source. Same with Aquinas's guidelines - they very clearly state only necessity, of which going to church in safe locations most distinctly is *not*. And it's not up for debate as to whether or not her nullification trial sidestepped numerous issues, such as her male haircut - "grep -R hair ." proves that fact in a tenth of a second. How much more authoritative can you get than the trial transcripts on non-vague issues?
Text note 22 cites the court records to prove that she slept frequently with other women in her bed. Again, I consider the court records to be the ultimate authoritative source; why shouldn't I? Perhaps an *additional* reference to Sackville-West would be nice, but I didn't think it necessary.
Hymen tests are an invalid test of virginity in that they provide false positives. It's very difficult, however, for them to produce false negatives, and is thus very strong evidence in her favor. -- Rei 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've surprised Durova; that you didn't even revert to a later version of where the footnotes worked. As stated on Wikipedia:footnotes:

Editors must make sure to keep the numbered list at the bottom of the page in the same order as the references in the article text, or else the numbers may not match up. (Though this is better than relying on manual numbering at both ends.) — Dzonatas 09:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

These reverts deleted much text not related to the citations without any attempt to incorporate such developments.

Comment: none of my changes violate the three revert rule. A quick review of the history page reveals Dzonatas's four reverts in under 24 hours. Durova 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you'll see that I only made one revert based on the previous edit summary. All those above are clearly reverts, and the 7th is within 24 hours of the 6th and pretty darn close to the 2nd over a 24 hour timeframe. That 3 reverts, and you don't need to revert more than 3 times to trigger an alertness about the problem as the WP:3RR states: "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others." — Dzonatas 14:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware the revert changed other text. This is why I posted to the talk page and waited two days before implementing the fix. It is far simpler to reinsert specific changes than to reverify and repair an entire article's footnotes. Durova 17:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You stated your only intention was to implement a fix to the footnotes, and I have personally fixed the version that existed before your revert. It was easier to repair. I'm surprised you did not revert to a December 12th version before the additional footnotes or to the December 16th version after I updated the notes, which both worked fine. — Dzonatas 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Two days ago I stated If I do the fix I'll revert to the last correctly cited version and invite other editors to reinsert later information. I'm not going to check every one of the last week's edits for footnote accuracy. The editors who implemented the changes should have done that themselves. You were active on the page while this was under discussion yet you declined to fix the problem or suggest another solution. Durova 20:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The footnotes work functionally correct. That is enough evidence that the article does not need to be entirely reverted to some previous version. If there is a dispute over content of a single footnote, that is not justification to revert the entire article, which has also affected other text involved besides the footnote in question. — Dzonatas 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Among various residual problems I found five different text citations that carried the number 12. All but one of these were meaningless (although the original versions had meaning). At this point I'm not going to trust any attempt to resurrect a newer footnote version. The editors who created this massive problem have claimed to have fixed it six times; none of those six fixes passed even cursory testing. Cut and paste your content changes within the text and leave the footnotes alone. Durova 21:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I have checked on both ends of every footnote (footnote3 style), and they work completely fine. — Dzonatas 00:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
You corrected a couple of layers of problems while failing to check for others. The editors who created this situation have proven incapable of fixing it. The only way to continue using a newer version of the citations would be to recheck every line against the original source. I did that once when I wrote these footnotes and I'm not doing it again. Durova 00:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Because you don't want to recheck them, that is not a reason to revert them. Perhaps, someone has done the check. — Dzonatas 01:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm supporting Dzontas on this. See my note above. -- Rei 01:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree that the ultimate goal we all share is to present a useful and informative article to Wikipedia's readers?

In my view, this trumps any differences of opinion we may have over content. If a student can't use the article to research a term paper then the value of all our work is compromised.

I've acted with transparency: I posted to the talk page in advance and waited two days while both of you were active. After receiving two assurances that everything was fixed I checked every line and found the overwhelming majority were compromised. Four more fixes didn't correct the problem. I declared my solution in advance and neither of you objected until after it was implemented.

I refuse to accept the unreasonable burden that Dzonatas attempts to place on my shoulders. The people who introduced these errors are the ones who should rectify them. There are two ways of accomplishing that. We've given one method a fair try. Neither one of you ever said, I implemented some fixes. How does this look? Instead you offered assurances that the problem was completely solved when it was nowhere near solved. I'll remember that in the future whenever either of you ask me to trust you at your word.

There's another equally effective way to solve this problem and I urge you both to consider it. I haven't heard any specific objection to the alternative that you cut and paste your new content into the rollback version. Everything you care about will still be part of the article. And if you'd like my assistance composing new footnotes I'll lend it in good faith...if people act with consideration, honesty, and courtesy.

I've been criticized for not reinserting later text changes myself. I haven't done that for two reasons: first, I'm not taking responsibility for correcting this type of error; second, I would surely be accused of bad faith if any omission crept into the text. It's better if we each take responsibility for our own words. That way we have no one else to reproach if one of us make some honest mistake. Durova 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the goal is to present useful information. And there was a large chunk of controversy about Joan's life that was strangely absent from the article. I added it, being as NPOV as I felt physically possible while just discussing the issue and the merits of the claims (fairly, I think - for example, criticizing the claim that the fact that Joan shared her bed with young women has anything to do with sexuality). So I added it. You complained about footnotes, so I made it the most footnoted part of the article, with refs to the original trial text (you can't get closer to the horses' mouth than that).
Then you complain about the footnotes being broken. I check, and they do appear to be broken. I fix them. They work in my browser. They work in Dzonatas's browser. But for some reason, they don't work in your browser. I don't have your browser - I can't say why they're not working in your browser. I have no way to fix them in your browser. If we accepted your rollback, I'd have to add my content back in - and then I'd have to refootnote - and then it would break in your browser again, getting us nowhere.
There's one solution, and it's very obvious: using your browser, you figure out what works, and then either you *fix* it, or you *tell* us so that we can fix it. I can't start making random changes and hope that it works in your web browser; do you understand? And please, no more accusing us of lying about it working in our browsers: it honestly and truly does. I respect that you're acting in good faith; please accept that of us. Lastly, I now have two threads with you that you have left off in the middle of. Do you plan to resume your complaints raised, or accept my reasoning on them?
All I care about - and my sole reason for coming to this article - was that there was a glaring gap on a widely discussed issue about the Maid. I want that gap filled, fairly, accurately, balanced, and I've done everything I could to try and achieve that goal. On technical issues, I've started a discussion on them, twice, but you've dropped out both times. Total reversion of the article (and thus omitting the sexuality/gender identity controversy about her) is unacceptable to me. I'll do anything I can to help with references (in the already-most-referenced-part-of-the-article), and anything I can do to make them work on your browser. However, I'm not at your computer, so I can't debug your problem for you. I hope you understand that fact. -- Rei 05:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Content is a different matter. We can discuss that later.

Go back to the article and count. The text citations appear in this order:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 11, 12, 12, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.
Now follow some of those citations. Among them you'll find:
"The court substituted a different abjuration in the official record.[12]"
Which leads to:
"George Bernard Shaw made his own translation of the exchange and inserted it into the script for his play Saint Joan. Penguin Classics; Reissue edition (May 1, 2001), p. 138. ISBN 0140437916"
Complete bollocks. - Durova
I tested the footnote in the version you reverted to and it does the exact same thing. The article has a superscript 12, which leads to footnote 12, which states "see note 9", which states the same footnote above about Shaw. — Dzonatas 11:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"The executioner, Geoffroy Therage, confessed to having "...a great fear of being damned, [as] he had burned a saint." [12]
Which again leads to:
"George Bernard Shaw made his own translation of the exchange and inserted it into the script for his play Saint Joan. Penguin Classics; Reissue edition (May 1, 2001), p. 138. ISBN 0140437916"
Complete bollocks. - Durova
This one I tested in the verion you reverted to. The text in the article has a superscript 14, which leads to footnote 14, which states "ibid", which previous footnote 13 states "ibid", which previous footnote 12 states "see note 9," which states the same footnote above above Shaw. — Dzonatas 11:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
This happens again and again. Yet you tell me in all apparent seriousness that you think I'm having browser problems? Don't be absurd. Durova 07:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is not browser problems. — Dzonatas 11:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
If there's any slight problem with earlier version I can correct that myself. Far too many layers of difficulties attended the later changes. As you can see from my detailed list before the rollback, many other notes pointed to the wrong citation even after two attempts at fixing. Durova 12:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
That list was made was before I put them in order yet after the newer notes were made. Any slight question of content with the notes that carried over can be remedied with the version with the updated notes. The notes functionally work. You can explain any other difficulties here, so we can work on them together. — Dzonatas 14:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a heads up - because of xmas travel, my access will be sporadic for a bit. However, I'll still be coming here and taking part. And apparently when I get to my destination, I need to take screenshots of it working in my browser, because I suppose that's the only thing that will prove it to you. -- 70.57.222.103 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As promised, here are the snapshots:

http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/images/joan1.jpg http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/images/joan2.jpg http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/images/joan3.jpg

Note: I click on link 3. It doesn't take me to ref nine, but to ref 3, just as it should. I click on it again, and it takes me back. In short, I can't debug a problem that I myself am not experiencing. And you reverting my content for something that I'm not experiencing as a bug is simply unacceptable. -- Rei 04:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

RefLabel

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:82.127.99.246, now I have seen by the differences what it is that you wanted to accomplish with the footnotes. You only wanted a unique number for every footnote. However, the new footnotes allow multiple references to the same footnote number. It is a feature. Mutliple references are resolved with the superscript a, b, c, etc on the footnote, while the number stays the same in the text. In a plain-old book, the unique sequences makes sense, but this is a hypertext environment, and they multiple references make it easier. — Dzonatas 21:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Additions to clothing

Latest comment: 18 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion

I've waited a week for Rei to tweak the expanded clothing section. Seeing no progress, I'll raise a few points:

  1. Unsupported assertions
"On the other hand, she chose to wear men's attire even to places where it was extremely detrimental to her fate, such as to her initial hearings."
What is the meaning of "extremely detrimental" and on whose authority does this statement depend? The citation is to the original record, not to any subsequent historian. Since the execution was a foregone conclusion, it's hard to construe any action of the defendant's as detrimental. None of her actions prevented vindication by the appeals court.
"Novelist Vita Sackville-West implied in her book, "Saint Joan of Arc", that Joan was a lesbian..."
This should have a citation to Sackville-West's book. Instead it cites the original transcript.
"Historians such as Regine Pernoud rejected this idea..."
Another unsourced attribution. Regine Pernoud wrote many books about Joan of Arc. Exactly where does Pernoud refute Sackville-West?

2.Undue weight The expanded clothing section presents a minority opinion as if it had equal weight with a majority opinion. Vita Sackville-West's hypothesis is eighty years old. Except for a few advocates among the LGBT community, the academic consensus has rejected it. No new evidence has come to light that would merit a reexamination. Sackville-West bases her argument on a mistaken interpretation of fifteenth century cultural norms. That is why I had formerly omitted this topic as sub-notable.

Part of this expanded section is redundant. It repeats information already in the main article. Rather than adding new research, all this amounts to is unsubstantiated assertions that cunningly rehash the article's existing scholarship while presenting the disingenuous implication the new citations reflect the authors and opinions mentioned in the text.

I would propose to edit this for space and NPOV if it had appropriate references. Apparently the editor who expanded the text has no intention of generating the appropriate supporting scholarship. I'll wait a few days out of good faith (and with the comment that the majority of citations in this section are my own creations) before proceeding. Durova 07:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please read the history of this page - there are now three discussions in which I had the last word, and which you left dangling in the middle after I countered your arguments. Don't pretend like *I* was the one leaving arguments dangling.
I've worked with you in the spirit of good faith, specifically inviting you to stay and expand after another editor reverted your first contributions without explanation. So the confrontational and aggresive tone of your comments is baffling. The more urgent issue of footnote degredation took precedence. I stated that other discussions would resume after that was resolved. Having given the article a few days' cool down period I posted my intentions and waited for a response. I edited only after you failed to respond for several days. Durova 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The confrontational tone is due to your repeated assertions that I have not been responding to you, when the record clearly shows that it is you who have not responding to me. -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Unsupported assertions/references: This section of the article is, mostly thanks to my work alone, the most heavily referenced portion of the entire article. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; until other parts of the article are better referenced, I'll have none of your "not enough references, so I'm doing rollbacks" nonsense. It's obviously not about references - it's about your personal viewpoints. Otherwise you'd be rolling back the entire article, if this was your reason.
It is hard to conduct a productive dialoge with someone who acts as if my straightforward comments were a pretext for some other motive. The concern here is not the sheer quantity of citations but their appropriateness in support of the text and the manner of introducing the information. If your academic background is different from mine - and I suspect it is - then these important points would be easy to miss:
Then please explain the fact that you're not rolling back 90% of the article on citation grounds, as much of the article is completely *uncited*. If you cannot explain this, I have more than ample reason to suspect your motives. -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. In the context of Wikipedia articles, primary sources can support factual information but not interpretive information.
I agree.
  1. When the article text names a prominent figure such as Thomas Aquinas, it is necessary to refer to him in an unambiguous manner by presenting his full name at least once in the text and avoiding potential confusion. The article should make it clear to readers that he was a respected authority on ecclesiastical law but not a judge at either of Joan of Arc's trials.
I would support such clarification.
  1. When the article text names an author and offers a reference at the end of the sentence, the reference needs to refer to that author. To name a secondary source in the text and support that with a primary source is verges on academic dishonesty. It would certainly lead to informal counseling. Undergraduates would probably have to resubmit an amended paper. Graduate students could lose out on fellowships and teaching assistantships. People don't become professors if they do this. Durova 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
As stated several times, the reference was not to Sacville-West; the reference was soley due to whether or not she slept with other women, to which I referred to the ultimate authority on the subject. A reference to Sacville-West could be added *additionally*, if that would make you happy. -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
That stated, lets go into your initial points. Just reading the transcript makes it obvious that it was extremely detrimental to her fate, as the court continues to bring up her attire critically. Arguing that you need a historian cited for that is like arging that you need a historian cited to indicate that the Marianas Turkey Shoot was a major loss for the Japanese when you're looking at a list of planes shot down on both sides. In fact, with many of your complaints, I have to wonder if you've ever read the transcripts at all. Even if there was a problem with this single sentence, that hardly justifies hacking out half of the section, now does it?
Likewise, I wonder how much of the retrial transcripts you have read and how much of the related documents or modern scholarship. An letter even survives from the English government to the Rouen judges that guaranteed her execution regardless of the trial's outcome. What you seem to be doing is privileging the condemnation trial transcript. In any court - ecclesiastical or otherwise - the appeals verdict takes precedence. This holds especially true where the original conviction concerns a political prisoner.
Yours is exactly the sort of statement that deserves citation. Some historians do read the condemnation trial transcript uncritically. Many more do not. One could present a rather stronger analogy to Stalin's show trials, where the color of the defendant's suit made as little difference to the certainty of his execution as Joan of Arc's choice of apparel bore to her fate. The rest of the material I removed from that paragraph was essentially redundant with the article's trial section. Durova 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
If you want to remove that *one sentence* on that grounds, that would be acceptable to me. As for the "rest of the material", that depends on what you're calling the "rest of the material." -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Sacville-West: I see no ref from there in the last version that I'm looking at before you hacked away half the section. One could certainly be added. I believe that there originally was a ref not to Sacville-West, but later, in reference to her sleeping with women; it references a trial transcript where this is discussed. As I've mentioned several times, I consider the transcripts (both condemnation and nullification) to be the ultimate authority on the subject, as they were both widely witnessed and require no special interpretation (even though the first trial was run by her enemies and the latter by her supporters)
You've been the only one to name her in the article. The bibliography page has included her for months. We need proper citations. Also, per Wikipedia official policy, the amount of information that editors can draw from original sources is limited. Durova 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
And I've agreed that if we want an *additional* reference to her, that is acceptable to me. I was only pointing out that there was *no* reference to her before, and only a reference to back up the claim that she slept in the same bed with women. Also: do you have a ref for that policy? On a google search of site:wikipedia.org, I can't find anything about that, and it seems like an illogical concept (original sources are the least interpreted, and thus the most valuable; although to be fair, secondary sources are usually more subject to peer review. Here, we're only talking about the facts of the case). The wikipedia article on secondary sources states "A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done." -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Regine Pernoud: I did not add this mention in, so I don't know why you're addressing this to me. I cannot source a ref that I did not add. Well, I suppose I could look it up for you if it was really important, and try to figure out where the person who added this mention in got it from.
Has some other editor been modifying the clothing section? I've referred to her by volume and page number wherever I cite her. However, I've also noticed that someone altered another clothing text reference to imply that Adrien Harmand's analysis could be found in the retrial transcript. Maybe the same set of hands made both changes. Durova 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously there has been. Want me to go back and figure out who it was? -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
"The academic concensus has rejected it". Back to unsourced claims, if you have evidence of an "academic concensus", why don't you *cite that*? That would be a great addition to the article, and would provide ample justification for shortening the section. Of course, there are two issues at hand here, and you'd need to reference it for both of them: sexuality and gender identity. I'm having trouble finding many historians at all who claim that Joan didn't have gender identity issues, and most of the sexuality claims are simply that there is no positive evidence of her being a lesbian (which is good enough for me, but not for many people). If you have refs, and you think that the most heavily referenced portion of the article isn't heavily enough referenced, by all means add them.
If you offer a properly sourced and appropriately cogent argument for either issue, then I will. The burden of proof rests with the assertion. I invited you to join this page's editors because I thought that was what you intended to do. The result has been disappointing.
"The burden of proof rests with the assertion." Hold now, if you want more references from my side (to the most referenced portion of the article), that's fine - but don't pretend that you get a "get out of unsourced claims free" card. If you have evidence that "The academic concensus has rejected it", you would be doing a great disservice to the article by not citing that. Evidence your "academic concensus" that Joan had no gender identity issues, for example. Go on - I'm waiting.
But just to head you off. Joan starts to appear as a "gender rebel", the earliest I can find, in George Bernard Shaw's well researched play, "Saint Joan" (1923), for which he received the 1925 Nobel Prize for Literature. The concept of gender identity wasn't established in the American psyche at this time, but it comes about as close as times would allow. Joan of Arc's gender identity has been discussed by everyone from TS journalist and author Leslie Feinberg ("Transgender Warriors - Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman") to nuns like Sister Prudence Allen ("The Concept of Woman"). Susan Crane, professor of modern european history at the University of Ariuzona argues quite well in 1996 ("Clothing and Gender definition: Joan of Arc") that Joan's transvestitism cannot be read as merely military duty or necessity, and that it relates to her sexuality and gender identity. I can easily go on as long as you want, so tell me exactly how many references it will take to get you to accept that this is a majorly open issue. -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I have to wonder why I'm bothering to reply. You'll undoubtedly just leave this section dangling without a reply, then later do a revert, claiming that I didn't respond to you. Once again. I have acted in good faith this whole time, but frankly am getting sick of defending all of my points over and over, not having any response to my defenses, and simply getting rollback after rollback claiming that I never responded. Not to mention the whole thing of you accusing me of lying about the refs working on my computer, which they distinctly did. -- Rei 16:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
For both of my recent changes I posted detailed concerns days in advance. On the first occasion you offered no objection to the proposal of cutting and pasting your content changes until after the rollback was implemented. For the second proposal you gave no reply at all for four days. It's rather unfair to accuse me of bad faith in these situations. I've yet to see you post your planned changes before you implement them. Instead you insist that your version remain on the page during discussion, while any conflicting version come down immediately. You hold one standard for yourself and another for other people. Durova 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You're one to speak, as you've left entire threads dangling since they were posted. Forgive me if I'm dealing with both the flu and an affair right now. -- Rei 18:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Something odd has happened: a detailed response I wrote two days ago failed to save. The article text needs support from the sources you mention here. The article already cites Shaw with regard to esthetics. On the subject of historical interpretation a work of fiction - even a great work of fiction - would be an inappropriate reference. The other authors you name would be better.

Check this article's archives to see why a rollback would be counterproductive In mid-October it had no bibliography, almost no footnotes, a POV flag, and serious stylistic problems. The goal is to continue to raise the scholarship, not to abuse the imperfections of an improvement in progress as a pretext for weak additions. I have been a busy editor, also starting nine new Wikipedia articles on subjects related to Joan of Arc in the last few months. I have also made substantial contributions to a variety of existing articles, for example translating the long French article on Pierre Cauchon to replace a three line substub. In less time than I have spent reading your insults I have gotten three new articles onto Wikipedia's English main page section "Did you know?"

You undermine your case with readers by giving them no scholarly trail to follow. Despite aggressive claims, you have yet to add any new source to this article's scholarship. So far your footnotes have only recycled existing sources. In nearly four weeks you have yet to cite a page number for your claims regarding Vita Sackville-West. I gather that you haven't reread her since you began editing here. You misspell her name consistently. There is no need to rebut your thesis until you establish it. Please do so. Durova 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Note how I didn't go off on you for taking four days to respond, when you outright rv'ed me for it. I understand that things happen (although I still don't understand why you left two separate threads completely unanswered previously, and then pretended like I was the one not answering your questions - but, that's history now).
I only mentioned Shaw simply to show that it's not a new concept; I wasn't suggesting that he was the best of references. If you want just simple cites for the other two that I listed, I can do those today. If you want text excerpts, I'm going to need to run back to the library; it may take until this weekend before I have a chance. Let me know, also, if those two aren't enough.
"The goal is to continue to raise the scholarship, not to abuse the imperfections of an improvement in progress as a pretext for weak additions". Even if you considered *half* of the references in that section to be poor refs, it would *still* be far better referenced then most of the article. Your attack on this section is completely disproportional and unjustified.
Hooray for you and your boasting about what other things you've worked on. I don't care about what else you've worked on, just like you probably don't care what else I'm working on (which currently is mostly outside of Wikipedia; I was an uberactive Wikipedian back in the early days, but haven't been recently except on this article, which I check daily unless something else comes up). We're talking about *this* article. Until you're not standing in a glass house, you have no right to throw stones. 19 out of 20 claims in this article are unreferenced, and even if you disagree with some of my references, it is *still* one of the best referenced parts of the article.
"You undermine your case with readers by giving them no scholarly trail to follow." If you want secondary sources (I prefer primary, not only because they're the ultimate authority on the subject, but also because they're public domain and thus easy to access from anywhere on the net), tell me how many you want. I don't want to add them in one by one and have to tell me that it's still not good enough each time. Are the ones that I mentioned good enough, and if so, do you want simple cites or text quotes (which will take me longer, as I need to go to the library (and I hope that the one up here is as good as the one I went to over xmas break))? Note that this will make the article and this section *longer*, something which you seem to oppose; the more references to secondary source authors that go in there who support the notion that Joan was transsexual or a lesbian (and, if we want to keep balance, the more authors that oppose the concept), with text excerpts, we're looking at least one more paragraph, probably two. It might let us cut some out of the existing content, but overall the section is pretty much guaranteed to grow. To keep it short, I could always do something like "Other authors that have supported the claims about Joan's sexuality or gender identity include... ", with a ref by each name.
"You misspell her name consistently." I searched through this entire comment section, and it's always spelled correctly. The only time I ever wrote her name in the article, I write "For example, Vita Sackville-West wrote.." (Revision as of 05:01, 21 December 2005). So, where you're getting this latest notion from, I have no idea. In what manner did you think I was misspelling her name even once, let alone "consistently"?
*Ed: Looking over the comments again, I found the brief section where I misspelled her name a few times. My apologies. -- Rei 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'm still waiting for *you* to reference *your* claim that there's an "academic concensus" that Joan was neither lesbian or transsexual, just like I referenced my claim that it's a significantly open issue (and offered more refs if you need them). You should be aware that I'm going to bring this up in every conversation until you either admit that your claim is false, or provide a reference that we can debate.
So, in short, let me know what you want me to do with the references, I will, and then we can discuss any issues that remain. -- Rei 16:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Your awkward text, aggressive reverts, and inappropriate citations guarantee that no discerning reader will take your contribution seriously. Your citations are your own problem. I don't do favors for rude people. Nor do I refute assertions that have yet to be established. This project cannot proceed to featured article status while you edit here. I've accepted that and am being productive elsewhere. Regards, Durova 19:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Aggressive reverts? Oh, that's rich coming from you, who managed to get the page protected through repeated reverts. And I love how you're the veritable authority on "awkward text", given that just a month ago there was a huge debate in the forum about the way that you were wording things. Even better, here you are as judge of inappropriate citations, when you make sweeping claims about an academic concensus that you refuse to back up when I have backed up everything that I have claimed.
Where on earth do *you* get off criticizing me, leaving *yet another response dangling* (this time at least dignifiying it with a short paragraph of insults)? If you cannot respond to my comments, I better not see you touch anything I've written. If you want to make changes, you better *respond to my points* first, and believe me, I will be checking.
I am here, offering to do lots of work for you on this section - to enhance the references of the *most referenced portion of the article*, including on parts that I didn't add, to take my time to get exact text cites if need be, in whatever fashion you choose, and all you do is offer insults. Take them elsewhere. -- Rei 17:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to work

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Someone has copyedited the article who didn't read the sources. An alteration attributed the Adrien Harmand reference to the condemnation trial transcript. The text also needs to introduce its sources better. If an editor amends the text to refer to Thomas Aquinas twice, then it's necessary to introduce him by his full name in the main text and refer to him in an unambiguous manner. The text presented him in a way that could have misled a reader into believing that he was one of Joan of Arc's judges. Durova 21:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Having waited four days, I've adjusted the clothing section. Removed statements that are redundant with the condemnation trial. Consolidated two separate discussions of apparel during captivity, removing POV editorial commentary and giving the Aquinas reference some context.

As a gesture of good faith I'm leaving the highly POV final paragraph with some citation needed flags. I've changed one statement: Joan of Arc usually lodged in cities while she was on campaign. I know of no reference that has her bringing young girls into campaign tents for the night. I do know of a reference that has her sleeping in her armor while in the field. The paragraph still suffers from undue weight. This is not a matter of serious debate among historians. I hope someone returns to cite this properly and adjust the tone. Otherwise I'll delete as sub-notable. Durova 21:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Language?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does anybody know if the French that Joan spoke would be comprehensible to Modern French and vice versa? Stallions2010 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Durova 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_of_Arc/Archive_2&oldid=1136267012"