Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 7

message: "King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France...pay your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France."Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.
Joan of Arc, Letter to the English, March - April 1429
I borrowed the quote box idea from Pericles where it seems to work well.  The translation is my own effort, although a source reference for the French original would be appropriate.  I could do perhaps three or four from Joan of Arc's letters and distribute them through the article.  Do people like this? Durova 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pericles addresses those concerns with external links.  What I hope to do here, if Wikimarkup allows, is to footnote the quote boxes.  I have two other specific examples in mind: her 25 June 1429 letter to the citizens of Tournai where she reports her successes in the Loire valley and her letter to the citizens of Reims of 5 August 1429 where she states her misgivings about a truce with Burgundy.  I plan to insert these as near as possible to the article's description of relevant events.  The short excerpts would offer glimpses of her personality and her use of words. Durova 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good idea? 

message: Posting the results of my Google search:
*"Joan of Arc" 4.2 million returns
*"Jeanne d'Arc" 3.4 million returns
*"Jeanne la Pucelle" 84 thousand returns
Since the third entry is dwarfed by the other two and the matter is already footnoted, I'm cutting the third version. Durova 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the third to be in the majority the older one's source are, and or course french.--Dryzen 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Perhaps the background section deserves one more paragraph to explain some details that could confuse a typical reader:
*Joan of Arc's career was part of the Hundred Years' War which had begun in 1337 as a succession dispute to the French throne with intermittent periods of relative peace.  Nearly all of the fighting had taken place in France.
*Both England and France remained Catholic countries throughout the war.  England became Protestant the following century during the reign of Henry VIII.
*Although the English nobility had spoken Norman French as a first language for several centuries after the Norman Conquest, this was no longer the case in Joan of Arc's era.  The English language had gained ascendancy in England during the fourteenth century.
I'd like to keep this brief because the Background is already rather long. Durova 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional background 

message: I'm submitting this for featured article review to seek additional opinions about fairness and NPOV balance.  Please join the discussion at the link above. Durova 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review 

message: CC80 removed the following with a claim that the site plagiarized other websites:
* Jeanne-darc.dk Various materials including a complete English tranlsation of the rehabilitation trial transcript.
So far as I am aware, this is the only website that reproduces the entire T. Douglas Murray 1903 translation of the nullification trial record.  The Virginia Frohlick site reprints selected excerpts (and unfortunately does not disclose the translator or translation date).  Currently the article references Ms. Frohlick's excerpts at http://www.stjoan-center.com and if I interpret the site descriptions correctly, this matter is the crux of the dispute.  Right now it seems best to leave both sites in the links section.  Ultimately it would be preferable to switch the citations to the more complete version.
The reference change would need to be made thoroughly: actually checking each citation for quotes and exact wording, then updating the access date on each associated footnote.  I specify this because some editor tried to change over the condemnation trial links in April but didn't follow through appropriately.  The article wound up referencing two different versions of the same document and the altered footnotes still provided no-longer-relevant page citations and access dates.  Direct quotes in the article text were no longer accurate either.  I had spent a good deal of time last winter consolidating citations from different editors onto one consistent translation.  To do this right is a tedious task, but attention to detail is essential if this article is to have any real value as a reference tool.
Please post a follow-up below if I've overlooked some relevant issue. Durova 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Oppose. Use English. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It seems to me important that Joan's date of birth be included in the section under "Childhood".  The "when" seems to be an important, basic piece of information that belongs here.  When I tried to add it initially it was deleted because there is no firm evidence to support a particular date of birth. When I added it again with a reference to this uncertainty and a citation, it was deleted because the citation was already in the article.  I still maintain information on her date of birth belongs in this section, and that a citation should be included because of the uncertainty involved.  Just because we don't know with certainty the year she was born is not a good argument to leave it out entirely, in my opinion.  
Tbilb 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that we really don't know her date of birth. We can make a good guess about the year: she was probably born sometime in 1412 — at her trial in 1431, Joan said she was "nineteen or thereabout". Legend has her date of birth as January 6, but this date is suspect. In that very religious period, someone who claimed to be guided by heavenly voices would not heasitate to make hay out of a birthday that fell on the feast of the Epiphany. But Joan did not do this, so we can be fairly certain her birthday wasn't January 6. But that still leaves 364 other possible dates of birth... assuming we have the year right.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The reason to express it there is to include the reasoning for 1412, and to make comprehension of the section easier. Septentrionalis 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasoning is already expressed in greater depth in the footnote that accompanies the first line.  In theory I've no objection to moving some of that content out of the footnote and into the article text.  However, in practice this article used to have a consistent problem with editors who added January 6 to the birthdate.  Most of them seemed to have a passing acquaintance with the topic and probably edited in good faith, which is understandable since the January 6 date gets repeated uncritically in many popular references and many people outside the Catholic tradition don't recognize the hagiographic symbolism.  My worry is that some well-meaning editor would stop at the first line, think I can make this better, and add that date without reading past the introduction.  Because frankly that's what used to happen until I tweaked the opening lines several times.  The current solution has worked for several months.  Now that I've said my bit, go ahead and try what you think is best.  I could give this six weeks or so to see whether another solution succeeds. Durova 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur. Septentrionalis 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, changing. Durova 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indicate Date of Birth 

message: (moved from original location)
Sorry to interrupt this, i was wondering about how scientists where looking at the remains of supposed her body, is there any latest news on that whether or not it would likely be hers? thanks
:According to the news reports from February the study should have concluded in August.  I've run a search every two weeks since then and seen nothing yet.  Note that this type of analysis cannot conclude for certain whether the remains are hers because they have no other DNA sample for comparison.  The study can only exclude some possibilities, such as if the bone came from a man. DurovaCharge! 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya'know, I was wondering about this, too. I wonder why we haven't heard about this in so long: given the interest in Joan of Arc, there would be interest in the outcome of the testing.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As soon as the results go public they'll get added to the article. DurovaCharge! 02:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forensic investigation 

message: The discussion no longer exists in the current version but here's an archive that contains some interesting cricicisms of the current article.  Some of the inferences drawn there are mistaken.  For instance, one editor speculates that the facts in this article were written by committee (actually about 85% of the citations were added by one editor).  The comments about the Background section, however, are interesting and I'm curious what other editors have to say.  Compare to the online Columbia Encyclopedia and (for those who have access) the Britannica article.  Most short biographies of Joan of Arc provide so little context that they appear to make the contradictory assertions that Joan of Arc fought for, was captured by, and was killed by "the French."  When I prepared this article for WP:FA consideration I did my best to highlight the most relevant facts the geopolitics of her era that a modern nonspecialist would be unlikely to already know (or to find with suitable ease at related Wikipedia articles).  Welcoming comments in light of the discussion at the other site. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting conversation at another site 

message: A kids point of view.
  Im doing a project on joan of arc for my french class. I need some new information for my project. Anyone with any information plz help. I will delete this.
:Try the external links at the bottom of the article and the entries on the bibliography page.  This article has plenty of footnotes.  If you find a section that interests you, go down to the footnote and read the source. DurovaCharge! 14:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Voln (Talk | contribs) chose to revert my category entry that Joan of Arc, for the purposes of joining the military forces of France, dressed as a man. There was also evidence at her trial that she dressed as a man, it is thought to protect herself from her jailers. There is a category of women in a similar situation. It is called "Category:Female wartime crossdressers". Is Voln exercising a NPOV? Has Voln read the caution for people who think they own an article, to be found at WP:OWN. So I'm going to put it back, and if reverted again, will have to bring in somebody to settle this nonsense. Joan of Arc belongs to the world.  JohnClarknew 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability is what matters. Joan was indeed accused of being a cross-dresser, a crime under canon law per Deuteronomy 22:5, but she denied it, claiming she wore male clothing as a disguise. This is discussed at length by her biographers - e.g. Beaune, pp 151–160 & 300ff. Joan was not definitely a cross-dresser, so categorising her that way seems inappropriate. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Joan never claimed to be wearing male clothing as a disguise, that was an assertion made by her contemporaries attempting to explain and come to terms with her cross dressing in a positive light. In the Rouen trial records Joan claims she wore the clothing under the command of God, and later in the private examinations even suggested she wore it because she wanted to. The idea of Joan claiming she wore the clothing under the command of God fits in with her defiance during the trial, and her rejection of the Church Militant as an authority to tell her what to do. I suggest you read the complete translation of the public and private examinations during this trial. See Craig Taylors 'Joan of Arc: The Pucelle', which contains a lot of relevant primary material. The biographies on Joan are well known to be questionable in their academic content, and really cannot be taken as totally reliable on their information. 80.41.87.32 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above has been debunked repeatedly by recognized experts such as Pernoud. The source you've cited for this old discredited version is a book that hasn't even been published yet (the distributor, Palgrave, gives a date of January 2007). How could you know what's in it? Voln 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm assuming you're talking about 'Joan of Arc: The Pucelle', which is the first full translation of many of the documents regarding Joan of Arc, and has been in print in Britain since 2006. My main point is that biographies of Joan that are often celebrated contain extremely questionable information and often misinterpret the sources. Obviously I have not read every biography on Joan, but I have read enough to know that they are often written by people of limited indepth knowledge. The trial of condemnation records (both the surviving fragments of the original French, and the official Latin copies) are the only know primary source of Joan discussing her reasons for wearing male clothing herself, and therefore should be the basis of academic opinion on it, despite the obvious and well documented flaws of the records. In the records, dated Monday 28 May 1431 it states "Asked why she had taken this male clothing, and who had induced her to wear it, she answered that she had taken it of her own free will, and that she preferred this male clothing to that of a woman." Joan never once said during her trial that she wore male clothing as a disguise. I know that some people would suggest that this record has been doctored, and I know it is usually not verbatim etc etc, but there would be no reason for the judges of the Rouen trial to doctor her final answer on male clothing in. If you support the view that the judges were acting under political or partisan motives to secure a guilty sentence, it would have been far more damning for them to leave Joan's previous explanation (that she was wearing male clothing under the command of God) as her recognized excuse. This excuse was a rejection of the Church Militant and was a heresy. Besides, if Joan wore male clothing as a disguise, then it wasn't very convincing was it? Previous female saints who dressed as men were viewed as men, thus validating the disguise. Joan was never viewed as a man, always a woman wearing male clothing. 80.47.138.222 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the above is wrong. The Condemnation transcript is not the only source concerning Joan of Arc's motives for wearing male clothing. The witnesses at the Rehabilitation trial provided many quotations from her on the subject, as do many chronicles and the like. The motive was not "disguise", but rather the usage of this clothing as a defense against rape since the hosen and doublet could be tied together to make it difficult for her guards to pull the hosen off. The book you keep citing is, based on your description, dredging up a very old set of misconceptions which have already been debunked ad nauseam by recognized experts. Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the verdict of recognized experts, not discredited theories. This should be the end of this discussion. Voln 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not suggesting that the condemnation trial records are the only source of information on the matter, that would be silly, but it is the only source that has Joan speaking on the matter herself. The book I keep citing is a collection of primary sources translated, it does not contain the arguments but rather the original material (such as the trial records, letters etc.) Reliance on either trial record (both the Rouen trial and the nullification trial) would be a mistake, but I think it is worth considering the value of the only known testimony of Joan on her clothes (despite the obvious problems of trial records.) It is not unreasonable to suggest that Joan wore the clothing of males because she preferred it (although this would require a large section on gender issues and Joan in the article), particularly as the rape scenario is only occured in the Rouen prison, which does not account for the rest of the time that Joan wore male clothing (i.e. most of her time in France.) It also doesn't account for why she was occasionally unwilling to remove her male clothing even to recieve mass. It is accepted from testimony that she was mistreated in prison, and therefore it is a fair point that she returned to male clothing for protection, but that does not mean that her statement that she like male clothing is wrong and that it wasn't a contributing factor to why she wore it to begin with. I'm just throwing it out there for discussion, not suggesting it is fact. 80.47.138.222 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "She said also that it was altogether necessary to change her women's clothes for men's" (Barrett's version of the transcript at p. 45). That seems like relevant primary material. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely keep the category, because whether she was or wasn't, she is famously known for this and so people doing research on the matter would expect Joan to figure into a category.  Within the article itself, someone can simply state that the allegation is uncertain or whatever, but that should have no bearing on whether or not to keep the category. --164.107.92.120 02:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-dressing revert

message: My inclusion of Joan of Arc in the category of Female wartime crossdressers in time of war today seems to have ignited a firestorm in User talk:Voln and others, and has been twice reverted. There are 43 women in the category, which clearly states This is a category for women who have cross-dressed as men for the purpose of serving in the military. Some retained their male identities after the war, others returned to female identities.  No one is suggesting that Joan was a tomboy or a lesbian, nor that the inclusion means anything beyond what it says. Did she fight in a war? (Yes).  Was the war fought by women as some were in ancient Greece? (No).  Did she fight alongside men? (Yes).  Did she wear armor? (Yes). Case closed, she should be included in the category!
However, the term "cross-dressing" (read this link, which cites Joan of Arc) has today taken on the taint of sexual perversion, and it might be wise to either change the word which is a mischievous word, or delete the category altogether as not being significant, because it is causing conniptions in people who appear to feel personally responsible for Joan's femininity and saintly purity.  From that category, I researched further and expanded a piece on Pauline Cushman, whom someone had already written up as a "transvestite spy", despite the fact that there was no evidence for that assertion whatsoever - she'd been widowed twice, and given birth to 2 children! I hope a decision can soon be made about this hot topic, and how problems of WP:OWN and NPOV information can be properly dealt with.   JohnClarknew 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this category should included. Joan certainly wore men's clothes, but (at least according to this article) she wasn't adopting a male identity. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross-dressing is a needless buzzword!

message: Voln's edit history includes a distinctive nexus of interests (Joan of Arc, Roman Catholicism, and homosexuality) as well as familiar patterns of edit warring and particular sensitivity on the subject of cross-dressing.  As with the earlier disruptive editor, Voln mentions the names of scholarly authors without actually providing direct quotes or page numbers - my previous research revealed that the vandal's claims about the content at issue often amounted to gross distortion - and even repeats the vandal's peculiar claim that the specific construction of Joan of Arc's clothing provided defense against rape.  See this source, which mimics the format of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but whose "peer reviewers" are amateur Joan of Arc enthusiasts and whose author has no publication record in recognized journals.  The vandal, who is probably this study's author, inserted that source as a reference into the article earlier this year.  That has been nearly the only citation this editor ever provided in a disruptive career that may have persisted for two years.  See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for a fuller description.
Subsequent to the previous disruption spates I have become a Wikipedia administrator.  Voln's edits of 3 December are one revert shy of WP:3RR, but talk page participation here and at Talk:Joan of Arc bibliography arguably crosses the WP:POINT line and may violate WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors.  Thus far I have not tagged this editor's user page with a suspected sockpuppet template or requested a suspected sockpuppet investigation, but I am rather close to doing so, and if the investigation comes back positive I will seek a community ban.  Then, through Wikipedia:Checkuser, I will pursue bans against all other active sockpuppets of this vandal: I suspect he remained active on religion and homosexuality topics while largely avoiding Joan of Arc except when I go on Wikibreak.  I will also seek consensus for removing the link to this website - which is probably owned by the same person - per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and petition America Online to terminate service for longsanding user contract violations.
If these allegations are mistakenly leveled I apologize in advance, yet the similarities are too striking to ignore.  If these allegations are accurate then the appropriate response is to cease disruption. DurovaCharge! 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The community has banned Voln, its sockmaster account AWilliamson, and related sockpuppets after a unanimous discussion.  Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson, the only dissenting voice was a Williamson sock.  As the primary investigator on this lengthy and unusual case, I suggest posting queries regarding other possible sockpuppets to my user talk page. DurovaCharge! 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal]]? 

message: A few points that I feel could improve this article slightly that need to be discussed:
1. Change the name of the re-trial section and all mentions of the 1455-1456 re-trial from 'rehabilitation' to 'nullification' trial. Rehabilitation in this context has pro-catholic overtones and hints that the aim of this trial was to make some comment on Joan of Arc's spirituality, or sainthood. This is not the case, the trial was started to effectively investigate the procedural concerns of the 1431 Rouen trial, and that was all. It makes sense to use 'nullification trial' as this was the terminology used by those involved with the trial at the time, and the aims of the trial fit this title more adequately.
2. Acknowledge some of the flaws of using evidence from the condemnation trial records and also the nullification trial records, the problem being that many do not recognize the problems of the latter. There appears to be a pro-Joan bias in historical study of the subject that means that many scholarly works, including numerous ones cited in this article often criticize heavily (and often justly) the evidence of the condemnation trial records, yet completely ignore the debate over the nullification records and use those records as evidence without acknowledging the obvious flaws within them. The problem is that the nullification records portray a Joan that most people, especially Catholics, are happy to see and therefore even practiced and celebrated academics are sometimes drawn into the trap of taking the evidence on Joan they see therein at face value without even acknowledging the obvious motives and biases of opinions mentioned in them. Whereas, the same academics are very keen to question the validity of opinions expressed in the Rouen condemnation trial records, quite rightly, yet completely ignore this process for the other trial. It truly is mind boggling that such historians could ignore this process of source criticism. 
This is to the extent that at certain conferences on Joan of Arc, academics being booed for presenting papers that provide evidence of corruption, contradictions and ulterior motives involved in the nullification trial of 1455-1456. As a result, few successful writers are keen to write material on the subject of the flaws of the nullification trial, and the 'different' less pro-Joan view that comes from not taking every shred of evidence from the nullification trial as fact. I'll put it this way, how many academic historians of value do not at least question the validity and accuracy of the sources they are using as basis of their work, especially the records of a trial that was conducted 25 years after the original trial? I would be happy to add more specific examples of the flaws of the records at a later time if necessary. But until this problem is addressed I feel that this article does little but mirror the conclusions on Joan of Arc that is essentially biased history, despite the good academic reputations of the authors in question. While I fully expect certain editors of wikipedia to jump on my back because of this (it is a bit of a taboo, hence why many historians haven’t challenged ‘the accepted view’) but I feel it is worth discussion and perhaps a separate article on the various trials themselves.
I think these points are worth discussing, especially by people who have read books that actually criticize, or acknowledge the bias in the sources in question, and aren't biased by their faith on the matter. Even if people are still happy on having an article that is based upon writers that do not acknowledge fully the flaws in the evidence (because that IS unfortunately the consensus view in print, partly due to the immense stigma of criticizing Joan in published works, or bizarrely even questioning the pro-Joan evidence seen in the nullification trial). This process of ‘breaking the cycle’ is made even harder because many of the ‘famous’ historians that base their biographies of Joan of Arc use the evidence from the nullification trial extensively to make their assertions on Joan, as I’m sure certain wikipedia users will be keen to remind me. Basically I would be happy to even add a tertiary article on the known problems and history of BOTH trial records, and the preliminary investigations as the materials are available to me. To me there seems to be a need to acknowledge this. 80.47.161.190 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite reliable peer-reviewed sources please, and by this I do not mean the "Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies" or any such, I mean publications in known and noted historical journals or books from reputable academic publishers.  That is the starting point. WP:NPOV contemplates that significant points of view be represented proportionately, so if your thesis is the subject of a significant debate in academic circles, even if it's a view held only by a few named but prominent individuals, it may be verifiable for inclusion. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience is a good guide to what kinds of things are appropriate, and also the extent to which participation by directly involved parties with a vested interest in content may be acceptable. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP has a good point about neutral wording for the second trial.  I hadn't considered those hagiographic overtones.  I agree about posting major changes to the talk page first.  Full citations, please. DurovaCharge! 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the label of the re-trial to nullification in all the instances I could see, and added a brief line on the aims of the re-trial 1455-1456 to avoid confusion on readers linking it to the later decisions on the sainthood of Joan of Arc by the Catholic Church. Thanks for the comments. 80.41.79.204 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehabilitation trial 

message: The rib bone and piece of cloth purported to have been from Joan of Arc's pyre site are unlikely to have been actual relics: the linen was not charred and the bone shows signs of embalming. DurovaCharge! 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link above goes to the MSNBC story. DurovaCharge! 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interim report from the forensic study