Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 6

message: I've failed this article for inclusion on WP:V0.5 due to the unsourced statements and neturality dispute above. Feel free to renominate it once these issues are dealt with. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5|Version 0.5]] nomination 

message: :Finally, Anne of Burgundy, the duchess of Bedford and wife to the regent of England, declared Joan a virgin during pretrial inquiries. For technical reasons this prevented the court from charging Joan with witchcraft.
Is this because (as I recall it) witches were believed to have had intercourse with the devil as part of the pact granting them their powers? If so, we should mention this specifically. If not, we should specifically mention what those technical reasons actually were. This is Wikipedia; we can spare the room. 194.151.6.67 09:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be another fine topic for the facts and trivia article.  You're right.  It's also tangential. Durova 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witchcraft 

message: Once again this disgusting article is perpetuated by the wikipedia authorities.  The fact that "visions" section of this article is allowed to exist refutes any claim the wikipedia people can make of being scientific.  Or rational.  This ridiculous blather about what may or may have not been JoA's mental state is clearly biased and written by another mentally ill person (aka religious) satifying their primitive need to justify their own irrational beliefs in the supernatural.
How can this be allowed to happen over and over and over again?
And why does JoA keep appearing as a link on the front page every few weeks?
Clearly, only through the consent and cooperation of the people who control this site.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they are party to the evangelical nature of the article (if only by tacit consent).
Wikipedia is a joke if they continue to allow this to happen. They may as well rename themselves "The 700 Club."
I urge all rational people to never give any money to wikipedia until they cease their religious agenda and embrace rational thought.  Remember the difference between Reason and Faith: Reason is what allows man to build airplanes, Faith is what makes him fly them into buildings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.223.110 (talk • contribs) .
:Concerning 68.122.223.110's latest appearance: several persons already explained, the last time you did this, what the views of the scientific and historical communities are (e.g, since 40% of scientists believe in God, such a belief cannot be characterized as "unscientific"; historians do not regard Joan of Arc as mentally ill, etc).
:At any rate, Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for Usenet-style attacks against people or religions you personally dislike.  AOL chat rooms are available if you want to engage in this type of behavior. 205.188.116.10 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PATHETIC RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDA OF WIKIPEDIA 

message: Mention of 'mental illness' such as 'temporal lobe epilepsy' and 'schizophrenia' - epilepsy is a brain disease, schizophrenia is a 'mental illness' - there is a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rory Carrol (talk • contribs) .
:Good point.  A recent copyeditor introduced that confusion. Durova 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the site policy Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks.  That approach gets in the way of productive editorial discussion.  68.122.223.164, you criticize me for comments another editor posted.  Your guesses about my gender, politics, and religion are badly off the mark, nor should personal ideology matter when an editor follows WP:NPOV.  Bear in mind that this article has passed peer reviews, requests for comment, and featured article selection with input from dozens of Wikipedians of all backgrounds.  Thousands of people visit this article and you are the first in many months to raise this objection (we used to have another editor who did advance a religious agenda - read the history files regarding that).  Perhaps the problem is not what is actually on the screen, but what you interpolate into it. Durova 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visions 

message: When this article was featured on the front page on April 16, 2006, the first sentence was: Joan of Arc, or Jeanne d'ArcJoan of Arc's name was written in a variety of ways, particularly prior to the mid-19th century. A few examples are mentioned in Joan of Arc facts and trivia. See Pernoud and Clin, pp. 220–221. (1412–30 May 1431),Modern biographical summaries often assert a birthdate of January 6. In reality, Joan of Arc did not know her own exact age, and the "January 9" claim is based on only a single source: a letter from Lord Perceval de Boullainvilliers on July 21, 1429 (see Pernoud's Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses, p. 98: "Boulainvilliers tells of her birth in Domremy, and it is he who gives us an exact date, which may be the true one, saying that she was born on the night of Epiphany, January 6th"). None of the witnesses at her rehabilitation trial provide a birthdate, and the event was probably not recorded. The practice of parish registers for non-noble births did not begin until several generations later.  is a national heroine of France and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church.
Since that time Joan's name has been changed to St. Joan of Arc, Protectress of France and other forms of her name have been added. There hasn't been much discussion of these changes. However, it is clear that "Joan of Arc" is the most common form of our subject's name in English; "St. Joan of Arc" is comparatively rare. "protectress of France" appears to be a rare phrase, if Google is any guide. Therefore, I'm going to change the beginning sentence to: Joan of Arc, also known as Jeanne d'Arc or Jeanne la Pucelle, (6 January 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a national heroine of France and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church. (I've left out the footnotes here, but they will appear in the article.)
Complaints about this article being "religious propaganda" seem to have gone up since the lead was changed to "St. Joan of Arc, Protectress of France" and the saint box was moved to the top of the article; perhaps going back to "Joan of Arc" will reduce these complaints somewhat. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone resolved one of the two concerns that had moved the saint box to the legacy section: the saint box no longer generates a large amount of empty white space when it's at the lead.  The archives include a few discussions on the matter of saint boxes and NPOV balance.  We might want to wait a few more weeks with the box at its present location and see whether it generates more complaints. Durova 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in lead sentence 

message: In order to maintain FA standards I'm giving the article a good look - it's been several months since I was a frequent editor.  Posting a few observations for discussion:
*Why was the political poster from the 2002 French presidential election removed?  It was the only recent image in the article - if there was some specific objection to that, it would be good to know so that editors can find something else that demonstrates Joan of Arc's connection to current events.
* The mention of Judy Grundy - could we have a reference for this please?  The current text implies that the footnote at the end of the paragraph cites her, which it does not.  Although her comments seem germane, I'm not familiar with her work or her qualifications.  If no one can verify this then WP:V forces a cut.
* The French forensic study of Joan of Arc's putative remains should be publishing its results around now.  Has anyone seen a report?  We ought to update as soon as it becomes available.
* Does the administrative move of Joan of Arc's home village from the duchy of Bar to the province of Lorraine deserve mention?  Does the specific inclusion of exclusion of Joan of Arc's actual home village among French cessions to Germany after 1870 affect the political overtones of her depictions in late nineteenth century French art?  The article has lost some of its depth and nuance to these geographic quibbles.
Otherwise a skim of the current version looks pretty similar the original FA.  One collaborative phenomenon has continued: contributors who attempt to copyedit sometimes change a line into something vague or misleading.  One such example, as another editor notes above, is the assertion that Joan of Arc was too intelligent to have been mentally ill.  Another is a confusion between psychiatric and neurological conditions.  In addition to hyperbole about the Visions section, some weasel words have lodged throughout the article and unexplained deletions make the Legacy section harder to read.  A few sly editors in the past changed cited passages to misconstrue an expert's meaning.  I intend to see whether this has happened since my last careful read.  I also plan to cross reference the current version against the original FA, restoring or fact checking as time allows.
Another note: hundreds of people are responsible for this article.  I created about 85% of the footnotes and - although I'd like to boast of having raised the article from a POV flag to an FA - I cannot be held responsible for every word.  One recent editor accuses me of biases that I do not possess.  This introduces a danger that my actual biases may remain unrecognized and unchallenged.  So in the interest of candor I'll confess them: I regard the evidence of Joan of Arc's visions as too historiographically tainted to be conclusive of anything.  My principal bias - which I have long worried affects the article - concerns her military career.  I am a female war veteran and adopted my username from Nadezhda Durova, the first female officer of the Russian army.  This article has gained input from advocates of various points of view, but none who oppose my particular fascination.  So I became my own devil's advocate and the positions I cite my against my genuine POV are (I hope) not straw man arguments. Durova 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: the only Google results for Judy Grundy in connection with Joan of Arc are a single page here  and Wikipedia mirrors.  Deleting the mention per WP:V.  Also, no results of the forensic study have been published yet. Durova 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Would someone please import the map image from the French language edition of this article?  It's a better quality JPEG of the same picture we have.  I'm too busy to handle that myself. Durova 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've found the cause of the Front National image deletion: an editor removed it with a claim it was irrelevant to the article.  Upon visiting that editor's userpage I also discovered this person is on indefinite block for various policy violations.  The image got auto-deleted from Wikipedia's database because no article linked to it.  There's another task for downloading when time becomes available. Durova 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an update 

message: I posted the following to both Wikiproject Atheism and Wikiproject Catholicism:
:Hi, I'd like to ask some editors from this project to evaluate Joan of Arc and its talk page, particularly the Visions section.  This FA has come under criticism from a particular editor who thinks it is religiously biased.  In the interest of fairness I'm seeking input from both Catholics and atheists.  No specific expertise about Joan of Arc is necessary - just seeking fresh eyes and general impressions.  Please leave reactions on the article talk page.  Thank you.
Appropriate NPOV for this article has always been a delicate balance.  As other sections of this page show, this has become an issue again in the last six weeks.  In your opinion, are these criticisms valid?  To what degree (if so) and what would you suggest to address any problems?
While this article is featured, it has never had an expert editor for the Visions section. Durova 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal RfC 

message: Per WP:V I reverted the entire clothing section to the version from 24 March. This required some sleuthing and deserves explanation. 	 
The deleted version of this section made extensive reference here , which has the superficial appearance of a legitimate academic journal. None of the people listed on the cover page is an academic historian. Allen Williamson, the author of the study, is a former Wikipedia editor who repeatedly tried to circumvent WP:NOR and WP:Reliable sources on this article. His efforts degenerated into sockpuppetry and vandalism before apparently ceasing when other editors threatened to initiate a formal complaint with his service provider AOL. Now, I submit, he has vanity published in order to quote himself on this website. 	 
The Clothing section's former references to this dubious journal supplied little content other than rehashing Adrien Harmand's work of eighty years ago. Durova 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clothing section revert

message: Here's a media report concerning a woman who is currently sending out Joan of Arc medals for U.S. troops to wear in battle, as a form of "spiritual armor". Perhaps this would be appropriate for mention in the article?
----
(From Catholic News Service -  http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602683.htm )
-----
(material removed because of copyright violation concerns --Akhilleus (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Ms. Benincasa is certainly devoted.  The sort of recent events that get mentioned in this article are on a larger scale such as the political party that finished second in the 2002 French presidential election.  I'm not sure where to suggest you take this, but if it gets reported in half a dozen or so newspapers it might qualify for its own article.  Best wishes, Durova 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please do not post full news reports here.  I suggest that if you collect several news stories about Ms. Benincasa you start a new Wikipedia stub about her and her project using those articles as references.  You could link from that to Joan of Arc under the See Also heading and add that article to :Category:Joan of Arc.  It is impossible to mention all efforts of this scale on the main article.  See Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for representative examples.  Regards, Durova 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan of Arc Medals For U.S. Soldiers