Talk:Joan of Arc bibliography

message: A well sourced paper on the subject of women's roles in early modern European armies: - note for future inclusion. Durova 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

message: In the external links: La vie et l'œuvre de Jeanne d'Arc by Gilles Marchal. (1)Hideously laid out page. (2) I can't quickly work out if it's non-fiction, historical fiction, or what. But my French isn't great, and I'm not inclined to give it a lot of time. Possible linkspam: User seems to have been adding a bunch of links to one site: Contributions. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam? 

message: I've restored several bibliographical entries that an anonymous editor blanked.  Note to future visitors to this page: if a sourced referenced in the article appears to be absent, check the most recent edit version under my username in this page's history. Durova 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also restored a bibliographical entry that was blanked without an explanation by a newly registered user with few contributions so far. --24.154.173.243 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism alert 

message: Disagreement over whether Daniel Hobbins' book, The Trial of Joan of Arc, should be included in the bibliography. Hobbins is an academic historian, his book is published by Harvard University Press, and has received favorable reviews. One editor questions whether the press and the reviews are reliable, and feels that Hobbins' work is "crackpot" and "fringe".
*Comment: Daniel Hobbins is a medieval historian at OSU, and his book was published by Harvard University Press. This work is clearly a WP:RS, and could be cited by the main Joan of Arc article (but currently isn't). The book has received favorable reviews in professional journals: see this review by Larissa Juliet Taylor, a professor at Colby College; a review by Susan Tiefenbrun in Journal of Law & Religion 21 (2005/2006) 469-473; and a review by Wendy Maier in History: Reviews of New Books 34.2 (Winter 2006) p. 56. (These reviews are quoted in the discussion above.) However, an editor argues that neither Hobbins or the reviewers are experts in Joan of Arc, that we can't consider Harvard University Press a reliable publisher, and that Hobbins' book is "patent nonsense." This editor has provided no reason to doubt the quality of Hobbins' work, other than his/her personal evaluation of the book, and I don't think a WP editor's opinion should count for more than published reviews by experts. In my opinion, Hobbins' book should appear in the bibliography. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with Akhilleus (as far as credibility of source is conserned). Taxico 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: Can we put aside the Hobbins mudfight long enough to discuss the format? The current table layout makes this page, IMHO, hard to use. This would probably be alleviated by putting it into one of the "standard" versions, such as ALA- or APA-style. (I would do so myself, but currently my only internet access is at the office.)  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Voln 11:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: Shouldn't Regine Pernoud be listed with the accent, as Régine Pernoud? And likewise, shouldn't it be Marie-Véronique Clin?  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing them. They're both redlinks, anyway.  — AnnaKucsma  Speak! 19:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pernoud - Regine or Régine?