Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 1

message: I simply want to learn why anybody else thinks certain sentences are pov, like the thesis statement.  Please, discuss here.  I want to improve the sentences and not just result to a revert war.  I see there are many sentences that need to be improved.
:Joan of Arc became the empathic messenger that she so dreamed; undoubtedly, her legacy continues to have a message of courage, strength and passion to give to us as a symbol, as a written part of history, or from heaven.
What is so pov?  Where am I wrong?
::POV is...
::* "the empathic messenger that she so dreamed" (how could you know what she dreamed?)
:::- Perhaps, I don't know what she dreamed while she was asleep. The article, at least from the scribes pov, states that she heard voices, and based on those vioces she "dreamed" to become the one to lead the army. JhB
::::- As Joan is not here to reflect on the matter, we (i.e. Wikipedia editors with NPOV in mind) should refrain from making statements on her personal goals being achieved... Sw
:::::- Then, you agree that the article reflects her personal views when it should not? "that she so dreamed" can be dropped, but "empathic messenger" must be true based on so many written docs about her leadership and her awareness to provoke the coronation.
::*"undoubtedly" (everything on Joan of Arc is doubtedly: nothing is 100% sure)
:::- It didn't imply the entire article. It implied the present and the conjunctive emphasis, "her legacy continues...." JhB
::::- People want her legacy to continue. I have no doubt about that. Sw
:::::- "Her legacy continues, undoubtedly, ..." is that clearer? jhb
::*"her legacy continues" (how can you be sure it does? maybe you want it to be?)
:::- I'm sure there are stories written about her and stories have continued to be written. Jdz's use of "legacy" helped clarify that. JhB
::::- Her story still inspires people. That's as far as I like to go. Sw
:::::- "Her legacy continues, undoubtedly, to inpsire people ..." better? Even if they like her or not... the trivia section has lots of actions about her. jhb
::*"a message" (maybe you think she has a message, many people will not think so)
:::- Can she herself convey a message right now? I doubt it. Does her stories convey a message? Yes. JhB
::::- To some her story may have a message. It's not clear to everyone though. Sw
:::::- Ok. I'm not some biased idiot here (as others edit sums say), as I intend to make it clearer and npov. jhb
::*"courage", "strength" (ask the English if they agree!)
:::- Even if they don't, does that mean we can't relate what others think? JhB
::::- Than state that some people think she showed great courage. To others she was just hostile and violent (many were killed due to her actions). Sw
:::::- I agree, but we got to be more distinct than just "some people." Eventually, we'll find the right word. "Some people believe she was born on the 6th..." jhb
::*"passion" (seems a religious, conservative opinion to me)
:::- Religious means not intended. The stories, even from scribes, written about her more than suggest how dire her actions were. JhB
::::- "Passion" or "insanity"?: the debate goes on... Sw
:::::- Ok. Those are like details that can be included in the article, but we can find something neutral to say about her efforts before the debate over passion/insanity, courage/hostile, etc. jhb
::*"us" (speak for yourself! I'm just an observer)
:::- An observer, as intended, is just a reader... JhB
::::- But not necessarily part of her personal audience... Sw
:::::- Of course not. jhb
::*"a symbol" (to many, many people she will not be a symbol of anything at all!)
:::- And, there are those who obviously have used her as a symbol.  Do you suggest that we write about what she is not? JhB
::::- No, just write she is a symbol to some (i.e. the Catholics, the French, some Americans, etc.). Sw
:::::- Good idea. So, why not just update the few words instead of to delete everything? jhb
::*"from heaven" (excuse me? does everybody agree on its existence? is Joan of Arc in heaven, do you think?)
:::- Do I believe in heaven? Hmmm...  I looked into the deep stary sky at night, and I saw what is known as heaven. Others believe in a heaven as not so tangible. It is easier to say "heaven" than it is to say "faith." JhB
::::- "Faith" is a fact of life: some have faith, some don't. Those who have faith sometimes believe in heaven as a place after life. So "faith" is neutral, "heaven" (as a place after life) not. Sw
:::::- I disagree. Heaven as we can tangibly see it is a fact of life. Faith is what you have before you have the facts to believe. Some prefer to use the word space instead of heaven. Either way, "we are in heaven" is technically true. So, "those who have faith sometimes believe in heaven...afterlife" is true to some creationalist but not to the here-and-now type. Heaven is just a word that is so ambiguous it is nuetral, and we don't have to believe it either way to understand its intent. Faith implies we have to know a religion to understand the faith, and some will object to that and might not even read the article.  The use of "heaven" is like how we still use the word aphrodisiac, you don't have to have faith in Aphrodite or even agree to believe the goddess ever existed to understand that word. ;) jhb
::NPOV is...
::*"Joan of Arc became (...); (...), (...) to have (...) of (...), (...) and (...) to give to (...) as (...), as a written part of history, or (...)."
::Maybe you could rewrite the thesis like this: "Joan of Arc became a written part of history." That's NPOV!
:::- Give it a shot! JhB
::::- I did, but it is so evident, it just looks ridiculous. Sw
:::::- It may take many revisions. I simply disagree to delete my changes than to improve them. I worked very hard (many hours) and put a lot of thought into the words to attempt a npov.  I didn't just do a thoughtless quick edit because I didn't like how it was.  The version I added was not perfect, but it was progress. I've heard many stories about Joan that this article doesn't even cover. I don't own the article either, and I don't revert for that reason. Many of those edit sums contains insults, and the changes seem more like because they personally don't like me instead of any attempt to explain their improvement to the article -- ugh...etc etc. I'm not an english professor, but I have tutored english at college. It's easy to see some of these edits are... quick. jhb   
::::::- Just don't take things to personal. Switisweti 10:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: - That's old. Some don't care to discuss. Mr. Ballard 03:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this answers your question. Switisweti 23:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: - I very much appreciate the time you taken to write this. - Mr. Ballard 00:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thesis Statement

message: Seems an anonymous user did a major edit without bothering to look at the discussion page.
Logged in as 205.188.116.203 entire sections were deleted, the summary was removed, and substantial portions of text were removed.  I restored the last edit prior to this major edit with a note in my "Edit Summary" about engaging in discussino before a major edit.--Wjbean 01:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jhballard 02:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edits without discussion

message: Hearing voices is a sign of psychosis. How is Joan viewed by advocates of the "hearing voices means psychosis" schoold of thought? --Ed Poor
:No, hearing voices that aren't there is a symptom of psychosis.  You demonstrate that Joan's voices weren't there, and then we'll have a basis for discussion. -- isis 3 Sep 2002
The burden of proof surely lies with those who support a divine version of the story. They should demonstrate that there is a plausible mechanism for hearing voices (from where?!) that "are there" but have no external manifestation.  -- Ashley - May 30 2004
:See comments on this subject farther above. 
:Regards, 
:Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voices

message: I put that in as an easy way to get a caption. The picture does not currently show what it is of. Mark Richards 16:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture thumb

message: Needless to say, I do consider Rebroads's addition, in view of the debate that has been going on for a month now, and the mediation currently going going on, as highly problematic. (His edits on Talk:Transsexual and other things also make me wonder about his motive, but that seems a pointless route to pursue here and now.) I will refrain from editing the article unilaterally, though, since that would only hinder mediation as it would most certianly spur a heated reaction from Mr. Williamson. This of course only applies as long as mediation takes place. -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Clothing" section

message: Muslims claim that prophecy ended with a guy named Muhammad, and cases such as Joan of Arc could arguably disprove this claim (although Muslims, of course, would disagree...) Anyway, this Joan, for standing up for herself anyway, gets a "PBUH" in my book. 204.52.215.107 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Joan of Arc (pbuh) Prophecy

message: ===Historical representation ===
Expanded description and title of Mark Twain's fictionalized history of Joan of Arc.  Reworded paragraph concerning the naming of French ships.--Wjbean 18:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Expanded description and title of Mark Twain's fictionalized history of Joan of Arc.  Reworded paragraph concerning the naming of French ships.--Wjbean 18:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical representation 

message: I saw some question about my ancestry being related to Joan of Arc.  Here is a brief sequence of ancestry descent: Jacques D'Arc de Lys -> Pierre D'Arc de Lys -> Jeanne de Lys -> Marie le Fournier -> Nicolas de Marguerie -> Madelaine Marie de Maigen de Bretteville -> Nicholas de Launay -> Machael de Launay -> Louis Gervais deLaunay -> Louis Michael Antoine deLaunay -> Louis Jacques deLaunay -> Francis Van Bartel desIsles -> Adeline L. DesIsles -> Anna Emery Haynes -> Edna Haynes Goudey -> Lorraine Des Isles Mayer -> my mother -> me, Jhballard 07:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: descension summary

message: Ahoy.  I've been silently lurking as the page has steadily improved since I stumbled upon it in December (see the bottom half of Talk:Joan_of_Arc/NPOV).  While some of the issues I pointed out at the time are still there (though they are improving!), there is something else I would like to bring up.  The middle section detailing Joan's Visions and Missions is a tad muddled with in regards to her military conquests and their significance.  A different section with more detail would certainly be cool.  Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 05:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Stuff

message: "Eventually, the Roman Catholic church canonized her as a saint on May 16, 1920."
What about a List of Catholic saints burned by the Church? ;-)
--zeno 22:48, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Formally, the Church didn't burnt them. At least with the Inquisitions, sinners were "relaxed to the secular arm", the civil (or militar) authorities. "The Church does not shed blood". But I don't remember another case of a Christian saint martyrized by a same-confession Chutch. Maybe Thomas Beckett? Have some repressed Jesuit or Templar become saint? -- Error 00:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Saints

message: I have heard that during her trial, Joan faced a question on heresy designed to trip her up, and I would like confirmation or refutation of the story.  She was asked by the inquisitors whether she was in a state of grace.  Answering "no" would mean she was a heretic and worthy of death.  Answering "yes" would be presuming to know the mind of God, in itself a heresy also worthy of death.  Joan neatly evaded death by replying, "if I am in a state of grace, I have only God to thank for it, and if I am not, I pray to God that he help me achieve it."  I always thought this story a good example of her intelligence, which she must have also exhibitted in her battle tactics (if she in fact led the battles, of which I am also uncertain).  Can anyone confirm this tale?  
--zandperl 01:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial question

message: I remember reading (sources escape me at the moment) that a (main) reason for Charles VII's retrial of Joan was to "prove" that Joan was innocent of the charges raised against her, to legitimize her actions that ultimately led to his coronation. By legitimizing her, his position was legitimized. Similarly, his position could be damaged if his coronation was perceived to be enabled by a heretic. (Ok, that was kinda involved, i hope the reasoning came across more or less intact.) Any thoughts?  YggdrasilsRoot 18:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles VII & Reasons for Retrial 

message: An anonymous user has been revising my edits on the subject of the clothes of Joan of Arc. This user has been protecting a section that was initially written by AWilliamson, the self-claimed expert on saint Joan. I question the claim Joan supposedly made herself about her "pants" being the only protection against rape. Indeed the sources say these "pants" (or hose) were tied to her doublet. That was just a normal thing for male clothes (men didn't wear a belt to hold their pants up, they just tied it to their doublet; belts were only used to carry stuff around, like sword and knife). In her case there were 20 laces. I don't question these details. However, the debate is on two things:
*Is it believable that a piece of cloth could protect a girl from rape? In other words: is a girl in a skirt more vulnerable to male aggression than a girl in jeans? I think this is a biased male idea: it comes close to the idea that girls in skirts ask to be raped.
*Did these "pants" consist of two separate hose, leaving the crotch and bottom exposed (only covered by the end of the shirt underneath the doublet and all upper garment), or did they consist of one single cloth? If the hose did not cover crotch and bottom, the claim of protection doesn't hold. She would just be even more vulnerable!
This anonymous user has put forward a source saying the pants were one single cloth. However, this source is (again) a biased source, since it specialises on the subject of (saint) Joan of Arc. It's not an independent source. I now could gather all kinds of sources on the Internet saying the "pants" were separate pieces, but that's not how Wikipedia should work, at least not in my opinion. I therefore seek assistance from real experts on medieval clothing, especially on clothing of the early 15th century.
I' don't want to experience another edit war with this anonymous user (as I assume it is AWilliamson all over again that has been using this IP number: correct me if I'm wrong). — HAJARS 09:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not an expert, but pants started as separate hose and then as hose joined in the back.  The front was left open so that the man could attend to sanitary functions.  Later, as the doublet grew shorter, men were required to wear codpieces to hide their genitals.  Codpieces were certainly used well into the 16th century (see any picture of Henry VIII) so it seems doubtful that Joan would have gained much protection from a determined rapist.  That having been said, Joan may well have believed that she was being protected by the tight laces.  Can't we have a statement that just says that this may the reason she wore them?  Then we don't have to determine exactly what she wore and whether it was effective. –Shoaler (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All I like to have included in both the Joan of Arc and Cross-dressing articles is a little bit of doubt about the effectiveness of these "pants" against rape. Since a anonymous user has reverted my edits again in the section about her clothes (different IP number, same devoted user, I bet it's Allen, to shy to identify himself), I refrain from reverting those back again. I don't want to brake the 3RR. The statement you are proposing sounds just allright to me! HAJARS 21:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the item in Cross-dressing removing speculation about whether male clothing at the time was effective in preventing rape and focused on her fear of being raped.  That was her stated motivation.  Whether it was effective or not is something only she knew.   –Shoaler (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How could it possibly be cross-dressing when one considers the medival version of panties were worn. The so-called trial was more of a cast of fear by the thugs to continue to wear a dress or be burned. Yes, the thugs wanted to easily rape and pillage.  Unforntunately, "rape and pillage" originated as an English phrase. --- Mr. Ballard 01:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pants against rape? 

message: I have to argue that :Category:Wrongfully convicted people is a poor category for Joan of Arc, since it consists solely of modern examples of national judicial courts (separate from any church) who have found people like David Milgaard or the Birmingham Six guilty.  Joan is a much different example, having been a combatant against the country.  It could be argued that many saints fit the mould for 'wrongfully convicted', but I think we should leave that category unstained by arguments of which religion's martyrs were or weren't examples of wrongfully convicted people.  Sherurcij 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Choice

message: Just added a tag about the tone of this article. I see to much devotion for Saint Joan. I like to see more about the historical facts of a story about a human girl, a bit more critical if possible. — HAJARS 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neither a Catholic nor one who goes in too much for faith, etc. but I don't see too much trouble with the current tone, perhaps it's been changed since you posted.  Sure there's some stuff about ths St-Jeanne as you put it, but that is after all the primary reason she is known to us today.  She's not a remembered historical figure because she was a random illiterate Orleanais wench that Milla Jovovich decided to play in a movie, her relevance is as a political-religious legend-myth both in her time and in ours.  Other than perhaps as a study of mental illness or spiritual posession the girl herself is not really all that exceptional.  Gabe 02:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All that crap about her being an army commander. What's that about then? 213.148.229.209 13:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: , .  Some of the original source material is available online in English translation.  From excerpts of her rehabilitation trial see the testimony of  Sieur de Gaucourt, Gobert Thibaut, Simon Baucroix, and Simon Charles.  In  see especially Jean count of Dunois.  Also note Jean Luillier, Thibaud d'Armagnac, and Aignan Viole.   Louis de Contes (her page) and duke Jean of Alencon are two more important witnesses.  Also note father Jean Pasquerel (her confessor).  Jean d'Aulon (her squire) was one of her closest companions in battle.  Durova 17:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: :14:02, 30 October 2005 Jhballard m (again, the title is of the article is Joan of Arc, as is the bolded part. again removed pov about "modern" attribute)
Mr. Ballard, you never responded to my earlier discussion post on the subject.  Silence implies consent.  At least one of you has a copy of Pernoud and Clin.  pp. 220-221 has a very good summary of the scholarship. - Durova
:Obviously, somehow that part of discussion must have been missed. Silence doesn't imply consent. Silence is war. ---- Mr. Ballard 04:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to imply that, and there are many artifacts that suggest the same. Personally, I would have concluded it is an aristocratic origin but the militia influence in the name is very weak. The images in coat of arms, like the iris, suggest some derivative of a royal relationship, but there is no evidence the name stood for any royal or military inheritence. A theory exists that the coat is symbolism for invention of the bow used by the military, which doesn't have strong support since archery is a much older invention. Others have argued the name is said like "dahrk," and further they argue the original name wasn't Arc. I don't agree, and I have researched it, but I have at least accepted the other versions as credible since, in the medival era, people spoke more than wrote thus written form had obvious variations (by scribe). Late phoenician language is the origin of the glottal stop, which is confused with the apostrophe. The "'A" and "A" sound different, with "'A" with a glottal stop and "A" more pure vowel. Early phoenician didn't even have an "A," or letter that looked like an upside down ox (note the sound of "ox"). Early latin (used by various regions that later became France) still had the derived glottal stop notation. The glottal stop in "d'Arc" sounds the same if you say "de Arc" in modern french, which carry's a seperation between "de" and "Arc" by a glottal pause. Modern french uses an apostrophe, which looks very similar to the glottal stop notation, yet the apostrophe doesn't stand for a sound. Obviously without a high resolutent timeline of the sounds, we find arguement of which version of the name comes first and how it is pronounced at different eras. Those arguments usually dismiss portions of the early latin influences on medival french to support their claim. Such portions include the germanic tribe's prominent early latin usage that influenced Burgundy when they controlled that area. The name Burgundy is said to be of germanic tribe origin because of its rougher tone commonly found in the germanic dialect. Perhaps, this is more than you asked, yet there is enough evidence the name wasn't invented in more modern times. ---- Mr. Ballard 04:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan of Arc's Name 

message: Let's conduct this discussion here, rather than with an editing war.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Charles' premeditated involvement in the assassination has never been proven - in written depositions sent to the widowed Duchess, the Bishop of Valence and others only implied Charles' foreknowledge) 
I agree.  You seem to be reading things into my text.  The murder took place before his eyes and he failed to stop it.  Charles had guaranteed John the Fearless's safety.  Charles remained responsible for his subordinates' actions, regardless of the premeditation question.
The relevant point for this article is the disastrous effect on Charles's early career.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (Rheims was taken in 1419 by the English, not the Burgundians. Please study the subject before making changes.)
What matters in this context is that Rheims was a Burgundian possession at the outset of Joan of Arc's career.  When and how they acquired it is a side issue.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (The final assault came on May 7th, not May 8th - as it says in the book by Pernoud you've been using, and all other books on the subject that I know of. May 8th was the day the English pulled out) 
I made the mistake of leaving the earlier draft intact on that point.  Thank you.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: (This confuses the jurisdictions beyond recognition: Lorraine is the modern term for the region, not the 15th century term; Burgundy was a duchy, not a nation, and Domremy was not a part of it.)
I'm not sure on what basis you contest the geography.  Joan herself made a prediction before she left the region that France would be saved by a maiden from the marches of Lorraine, obviously referring to herself.  During the period in this discussion the duke of Lorraine was vassal to the duke of Burgundy by right of conquest.
The principal point for the general reader is that Burgundy was an independent country.  During this era its dukes had held an appanage granting legal independence from feudal duties to the French crown.  
Also, Domremy and a few neighboring communites were completely surrounded by Burgundy.
Consider the audience for this article.  An average reader probably knows Burgundy only as a French province.  Informing them that it was an independent country allied with England explains some dynamics about her capture.  Informing the reader that she came from an isolated frontier region explains some of her ardency.  Both facts explain why she needed to travel from Vaucouleurs to Chinon in male disguise.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Edits 

message: :(Charles' premeditated involvement in the assassination has never been proven - in written depositions sent to the widowed Duchess, the Bishop of Valence and others only implied Charles' foreknowledge) 
I agree.  You seem to be reading things into my text.  The murder took place before his eyes and he failed to stop it.  Charles had guaranteed John the Fearless's safety.  Charles remained responsible for his subordinates' actions, regardless of the premeditation question.
The relevant point for this article is the disastrous effect on Charles's early career.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination of John the Fearless 

message: :(Rheims was taken in 1419 by the English, not the Burgundians. Please study the subject before making changes.)
What matters in this context is that Rheims was a Burgundian possession at the outset of Joan of Arc's career.  When and how they acquired it is a side issue.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation of Rheims 

message: :(The final assault came on May 7th, not May 8th - as it says in the book by Pernoud you've been using, and all other books on the subject that I know of. May 8th was the day the English pulled out) 
I made the mistake of leaving the earlier draft intact on that point.  Thank you.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Retreat 

message: :(This confuses the jurisdictions beyond recognition: Lorraine is the modern term for the region, not the 15th century term; Burgundy was a duchy, not a nation, and Domremy was not a part of it.)
I'm not sure on what basis you contest the geography.  Joan herself made a prediction before she left the region that France would be saved by a maiden from the marches of Lorraine, obviously referring to herself.  During the period in this discussion the duke of Lorraine was vassal to the duke of Burgundy by right of conquest.
The principal point for the general reader is that Burgundy was an independent country.  During this era its dukes had held an appanage granting legal independence from feudal duties to the French crown.  
Also, Domremy and a few neighboring communites were completely surrounded by Burgundy.
Consider the audience for this article.  An average reader probably knows Burgundy only as a French province.  Informing them that it was an independent country allied with England explains some dynamics about her capture.  Informing the reader that she came from an isolated frontier region explains some of her ardency.  Both facts explain why she needed to travel from Vaucouleurs to Chinon in male disguise.
Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burgundy 

message: The current edit is problematic:
:The lifting of the siege — the "sign" that she had said would verify her legitimacy as a visionary — gained her the support of prominent clergy such as the Archbishop of Embrun and the prominent theologian Jean Gerson, who both wrote supportive treatises immediately following this event.
:Note 2: Devout Catholics regard this remarkable act as proof of her divine mission. At Chinon and Poitiers she had declared that she would give a sign at Orléans. The lifting of the siege gained her the support of prominent clergy such as the Archbishop of Embrun and the prominent theologian Jean Gerson, who both wrote supportive treatises immediately following this event. 
I moved the original comment into a footnote and added the "devout Catholics" qualification with respect for the NPOV rule.  What we have now is redundant.
Durova 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of her mission 

message: :Georg Kaiser, Gilles and Jeanne explores Joan of Arc's (historically tenuous) association with the most notorious criminal of her era, Gilles de Rais.
What is the basis for the parenthetical assertion?  No modern scholar doubts they fought on the same side and in the same battles for the most important part of her career.  Following her death he helped finance the Orleans miracle play about her and even acted in the production.
Some of the other plays on the list are far more historically tenuous.
Durova 22:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilles de Rais 

message: User 64.12.116.197 (I suspect AWilliamson, the owner of archive.joan-of-arc.org, considering his language and the content of his edits, but to shy to make himself known or to discuss his edits here on talk) is really making a mess of the article. He keeps putting sources and citations were they shouldn't be put! This article should be readable for people who know little about the subject (that's what an encyclopedia is for) and sources and citations belong in notes or here on talk. It's a shame we have to deal with this, as nice prose by Durova is being destroyed. The article should be brief, clear, neutral and to the point. With all this personal frustration of defending one's own point of view (with sources and even pagenumbers!), the article becomes an absolute monstrosity all over again. — HAJARS 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: defending one's own point of view
Or may I say, of defending one's scholarly research?  The Wikipedia is not a platform for my point of view.
Durova 23:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not. But to user 64.12.116.197 it seems to be very personal. — HAJARS 11:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User [[User:64.12.116.197|64.12.116.197]] 

message: I have deleted the following under the No original research rule:
:Although their interpretation is a matter of controversy, several surviving documents state that Charles and his faction tried to induce the Burgundians to ransom her - e.g., on 14 July 1430 the University of Paris sent a letter to John of Luxembourg stating that the Armagnacs were attempting to obtain her by ransom or other means (see Barrett's "Trial of Jeanne d'Arc", p. 9; and Pernoud's "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses", p 158). An entry in the records of Antonio Morosini records a similar account. But just as Charles VII was never given the chance to ransom his own cousin the duke of Orléans (since Henry V's last will and testament had forbidden it - see: Pernoud's "Joan of Arc: Her Story", p. 193), the Burgundians, in similar fashion, never gave him the chance to ransom Joan - she, like the Duke of Orleans, was considered too important to be allowed ransom, and the Burgundians were just as opposed to Joan as their English allies were.
Scholarly consensus condemns Charles VII for failing to ransom Joan of Arc.  All of the sources referenced contradict the editor's claims.  These misleading citations are an attempt to fabricate a controversy where none exists.
Durova 21:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Footnote 

message: This article is a few kilobytes too large for ideal Wikipedia size.  I suggest we create a new page for the media lists.  Comments?
Durova 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to prune the media lists.  We are not a linkfarm.  Noisy | Talk 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branching off the Lists? 

message: I added descriptions to the external links, added a link to the trial text at Medieval Sourcebook, and removed several (in my opinion) less important or less extraordinary links. Please discuss if I made choices you don't like. — HAJARS 00:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links descriptions 

message: The French wikipedia has a separate article for its Joan of Arc bibliography.  She has been the subject of more biographies than any other person of the middle ages, male or female.  There's been some conflict this week regarding bibliographical sources.  We're space limited on this page.  I suggest following the French example.  Please post your feedback.  Durova 17:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead! It worked for the art bit too. — Switisweti 18:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another branch article?