Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 5

message: While there is evidence of a connection between intellectual deficiency and schizophrenia in the general population, the apparent absence of such a deficiency in any given individual is not evidence that that individual was or is free of mental illness.  That is, if a psychiatrist were presented with a patient showing normal to high intelligence, the psychiatrist would not interpret this intelligence level as counting AGAINST a diagnosis of schizophrenia or any "major mental illness."  Conversely, if a patient showed a below-average level of intelligence, this would not be interpreted as counting FOR a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  Put simply, level of intelligence is not a diagnostic criterion for mental illness, unless you consider mental retardation and other developmental disorders to be mental illnesses, which is not generally done and does not seem to relate to the case at hand.
As relates to this article, Jehanne d'Arc may not have been mentally ill at all, or her ideas may have been pathological in origin; however, her intelligence level as recorded (unempirically) in the trial records does not support either case. The only reason to include the paragraph I deleted is unverifiable in nature, namely to create the subjective impression that Jehanne was "too smart to be sick."  Wikipedia should not reflect unverifiable viewpoints or arguments, as the guideline I am looking at right now cleary states.
Furthermore, the section titled "Visions" contains several POV statements, such as the assertion that  the people who have been interested in Jehanne d'Arc's visions "all agree that her faith was sincere."  I don't, for one; it seems more likely to me that she framed her accounts of her ideas in religious terms because these would be the terms most readily understood by her society and peers. However, I would not put my POV into any Wikipedia article, and I do not expect any Wikipedia article to promote anyone else's POV, especially on an issue as ridiculously subjective as "whether or not Joan of Arc believed sincerely in her religious ideas."
"Visions" needs a complete overhaul to be appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia, but I'm not going to do it because this is a topic of religious significance and I don't want to participate in a chest-thumping contest.
68.35.223.245 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. However, liberty and liberation have the same term but different uses. One focuses on the state of freedom, which is what you seem to lean upon above. The other focuses on the removal of something, which does not imply the result is a state of liberty. For example, a manager that chooses to use "nice" words will usually help "liberate" an employee from their job if the employee doesn't like the work place. — Dzonatas 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable Paragraph on Intellectual Decline, and Other POV Issues

message: Although as of April 16th 2005 the Joan of Arc article is now a well detailed, correctly updated piece, i feel there is still a concern in the opening paragraph with the word use 'liberation'. This is rather an over emotive, one sided word for a war that saw French support on both sides of the conflict. No one was essentially liberated as that would mean that upon liberation, a section of the populous in support of the losing side suddenely found themselves in need of liberation from the new lords?!?! surely?!?!? Liberation never truly happened if people were still not at liberty. The word merely serves to suggest that the fashionable, less-educated view that the English were the all domineering aggressors, and furthermore completely undermines the fact that it was as much a French Civil War as it was a war between English and French.
Someone put thought to this and if agreement, or at least a better way of explaining my point, be found please edit the article appropriatly.
fantmax--71.232.13.49 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point. However, liberty and liberation have the same term but different uses. One focuses on the state of freedom, which is what you seem to lean upon above. The other focuses on the removal of something, which does not imply the result is a state of liberty. For example, a manager that chooses to use "nice" words will usually help "liberate" an employee from their job if the employee doesn't like the work place. — Dzonatas 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concern about use of liberation 

message: It's my understandable that she's particularly notable for having achieved so much as a woman, and at such an early age. Yet neither of these points are really mentioned in the intro. The opening paragraph really needs to state the bleeding obvious. Stevage 12:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you feel that the fact of a young woman leading troops into battle during the middle ages was insignificant, commonplace or otherwise unremarkable? Stevage 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the subject of much controversy. Some want to show a more religious side and others want to show a more remarkable performance for a teenage lady. It seems to not settle. There were many more facts in the opener that have been removed. Today, she is a symbol by a diverse many more than a saint for a single religous group. — Dzonatas 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for lead

message: Excuse me, but if a sexual assault in prison is not a rape, what is? Bcameron54 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The distinction between sexual assault and rape seemed unnecessary and contrived. I took the liberty of removing the offending line. Cwiki 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Execution

message: So the heresy trial was political but the rehabilitation was just finding the "truth"?   Note that the rehabilitation was ordered by the first of the Borgias, a notorius nepotist and well versed in the politics of the day. It would not have happed if Henry VI had won.   --213.122.37.62 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hopeless POV

message: :This whole section needs to be scrapped and started again. The arguments use the following "logic" -
Joan had hallucinations/delusions or really did hear voices from God; therefore she had schizophrenia or really did hear voices from God; she didn't have all of the modern DSM-IV criteria to justify a diagnosis of schizophrenia and surely everyone can tell a schizo when they see one; therefore she wasn't schizophrenic and really did hear voices from God. 
It is possible to have hallucinations and/or delusions and still function socially and intellectually. Cwiki 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cwiki, that is a lot of work though. In the meantime I think its an improvement to delete this section 
", usually by .... circular reasoning".
The main point has already been made: If you do not think the visions themselves are sign of mental illness there is no evidence that JoA was mentally ill. The section was to long to make the point. For instance: information about the percentage of scientists that believe in God should not be in this article. Pukkie 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visions

message: The DSM-IV-TR, for those who are unfamiliar, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. It is the manual used to try to classify mental illness. For those who don't believe God really spoke to Joan, Joan satisfies the neccessary 2 out of 5 criteria listed in criteria A for schizophenia; that is, delusions and hallucinations. Criteria B for schizophrenia involves social and or occupational dysfuntion. Joan does not appear to satisfy criteria B. But people who for various reasons argue against a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on her failing to satisfy critera B are a little premature. There is a condition in the DSM-IV called "delusional disorder". This is a category for people who meet criteria A but essentially do not meet criteria B. You often here people familiar with the absence of criteria B symptoms in Joan, diagnosing her as having  "delusional disorder"; but they are wrong as well. To satisfy the criteria for delusional disorder hallucinations may be present, but auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent. Scratch that; let's go back and look closer at schizophrenia.
:Paranoid schizophrenia (the DSM-IV-TR version, not he Hollywood version) is a type of schizophrenia where delusions and auditory hallucinations predominate, while their affective and cognitive functioning remain relatively intact. (Look it up. Google - dsm-iv-tr "paranoid schizophrenia")
:The argument that Joan did not have schizophrenia because (to quote from the article on Joan) Joan's lack of social and occupational decline "represent a lack of some of the identifiable symptoms that modern medical diagnostic manuals consider necessary for a positive diagnosis" is incorrect. Cwiki 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia and the DSM-IV-TR 

message: 213.197.202.209 keeps on reverting my work. He has not addressed my concerns in the above sections - getting rid of the circular reasoning bit and schizophrenia and the dsm-iv. I prefer discussing these things on the talk page to engaging in edit wars but 213.197.202.209 won't respond. I am a physician and I know something about the diagnosis of mental illness. 213.197.202.209 is obviously a christian fundamentalist and reverts anything I edit on the subject. Cwiki 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV section - visions 

message: There is no need for two separate articles. --evrik 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that I would keep them separate.  The main article is pretty big as it is, and the focus one on her path to sainthood is probably useful for a Catholic.  I'd probably use a different title for the other one: Canonization of Joan of Arc, for instance?  Noisy | Talk 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Canonization... sounds about right; There's no duplication as such, and the other article could simply be cleaned up. Mtpt 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am pro merging. (Wikimachine 02:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm against merging. The canonization story is interesting enough to merit a separate article, and the current Joan of Arc article is already huge. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I am against merging and agree that the other article should be exerpted and linked from this one. I also agree that Canonization of Joan of Arc would be a better title for the other article. Killdevil 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a consensus, so done. Neddyseagoon 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge