Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like a place to put POV content. Perhaps, a seperate location will work. — Dzonatas 16:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you mean.  Do you support this suggestion or oppose it? Durova 19:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Veneration?

message: 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)
replies: text: Please post a reference that defines "first person" in that way.  This interpretation is new to me. Durova 19:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title:  Passive Voice & First Person 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Front National]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RefLabel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Back to work 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it was. Durova 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language?