Talk:Joan of Arc bibliography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A well sourced paper on the subject of women's roles in early modern European armies:[1] - note for future inclusion. Durova 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Linkspam?

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)


please, don't remove this links, They result from a very serious French site and can bring a new light on these articles concerning of the French events. It is not a question of linkspam. thank you in advance Adrienne93 08:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism alert

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)

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)

[edit] Scope

There's a small revert war going on, about whether Hobbins' The Trial of Joan of Arc should be listed on the page. Hobbins is clearly a WP:RS and could be cited by the main article (but currently isn't, I believe). Basically, I'm wondering if this page is only for works cited by Joan of Arc, in which case Hobbins shouldn't be included; otherwise, I can't see why he should be left out. I note that the bibliography on the French Wikipedia, which is the model for this page, is very inclusive. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the model for this page (the one in the French edition), would you like me to link to that from the Article page?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 21:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be a link to the French page, but it might be more useful to have that link on Joan of Arc bibliography, rather than Joan of Arc. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The article states that it is supposed to be a selective list. Hobbins' book is nothing more than one of many translations of the trial transcript, and one of the least accurate. The book's analysis of the trial contradicts the established view by Pernoud and other legitimate historians. It's been hyped quite a bit but in fact has little value. Since the current bibliography list didn't even include the most famous and established English translations (by W.P. Barrett and W.S Scott) I have added these instead plus another famous one by Raymond Oursel which includes both trials.

Let's stick to reputable or established works. There are quite literally tens of thousands of books on Joan of Arc. We don't need to add them all. Voln 14:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to pretend to know the scholarship in this area, so I can't say whether Hobbins' book is good or not. However, the book is clearly differentiated from the "tens of thousands of books on Joan of Arc" through being published by Harvard. Hobbins is more important for a scholarly bibliography than the latest stuff published by Penguin or other mass-market presses. Furthermore, this book seems to be filling an important gap, as it's the first English translation of the trial transcript in 50 years. This review by Larissa Juliet Taylor, a professor at Colby College, says "The entire scholarly community will welcome two new books that offer English translations of many Johannine sources--Hobbins’ trial translation and introduction, reviewed here, ..." The reviewer thinks that Hobbins' book will be a useful for the classroom, because other editions of the trial transcripts are inadequate in various ways--not enough notes, bad OCR, etc. If this reviewer is correct, Hobbins' book will probably be in use in many college courses. Taylor's review ends: "Daniel Hobbins has provided an extraordinary service to the scholarly and educational community with this outstanding new translation of the Latin trial compilation. Equally important, his critical introduction and notes stand alongside the most valuable recent contributions to scholarship on Joan of Arc." This review suggests that Hobbins' book ought to be included. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with --Akhilleus. Hobbins is also employed by a major university (currently The Ohio State University), which has many prominent historians in its department (Alice Conklin, Matt Goldish, Stephen Kern, Geoffrey Parker, Nathan Rosenstein, Dale Van Kley, etc.) and is not just some random author from an unknown institution. Including his book does NOT diminish the overall quality of the article and nor does it make the list overly long. Therefore, I'll re-add it to the last since more than just myself see its value. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Neither the author nor his supporters are specialists in the relevant subjects - whereas Pernoud was. It makes no difference whether the book is published by Harvard Press - if the information is contradicted by the views of reputable specialists, then the book must be deemed erroneous. The point being: this is not an "important book". Margaret Murray's books were used in college courses too, but historians had rejected her theories as patent nonsense.
I added three of the established translations of the trial transcript. These should be more than sufficient as a sample of such translations which are available. The substantial number of such translations should further illustrate just how little importance should be attached to the latest book, which is redundant as well as erroneous. Voln 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not blank entries for personal reasons. Thanks, --172.149.36.222 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hobbins is a medieval historian at OSU. That makes him a specialist. I've cited and quoted a review that says his book is important. In return you argue that Hobbins' book is "erroneous". It's not clear to me why we should give your opinion more weight than that of a published review by a specialist in the field. Let's keep the Hobbins in, unless someone can show that expert opinion thinks the book is useless. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I could not find any negative published reviews. By contrast, reviews of Hobbins' book by other scholars seem overly positive. For example, Wendy Maier of Oakton Community College writes that this "text is suitable for students, scholars, and anyone with an interest in Joan of Arc." (Maier, Wendy A. History: Reviews of New Books; Winter2006, Vol. 34 Issue 256. p56-56) Other reviews note the significance of the book as being the first translation in 50 years! (The Trial of Joan of Arc., By: Kriz, L., Library Journal, 03630277, 10/15/2005, Vol. 130, Issue 17) I have also found out that Hobbins wrote in the AHR (which academic historians know to be a prestigious accomplishment in the discipline), as he did in the following citation: Hobbins, Daniel. American Historical Review, Apr2004, Vol. 109 Issue 2, p681-681, 1/6p; (AN 12996927). In this article, Hobbins writes on Jean Gerson. So, again, published reviews of this book are positive and we can cite multiple examples of such reviews. Hobbins is a PhD and has taught at at least two universities. He is a Medieval specialist. His book was published by a scholarly press. And he has also written for the AHR, arguably the most significant American history journal. Even if someone digs up one bad review somewhere along the way, the evidence overwhelming suggests that his translation is an important and relevant work, and besides it's hard to find books that someone didn't like, no matter how "classic" they are. But just because some people don't like a book, movie, song, etc. their opinion might not negate the significance of the book overall. Best, --164.107.92.120 16:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I just found yet another positive review that refers to the book as "excellent" and "informative." The reviewer asks why "do we need Hobbins' new English translation?" The reasons given in the review are that Hobbins' book is "more reliable" and "more convenient." The quotes are from WHY THE MEDIEVAL TRIAL OF JOAN OF ARC IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TODAY. By: Tiefenbrun, Susan. Journal of Law & Religion, 2005/2006, Vol. 21 Issue 2, p469-473, 5p; (AN 23023109) So, as you can see, scholars from various disciplines and for different published journals have identified the book as significant, so deleting it from a non-lengthy article is just unnecessary and unwarranted. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The book is erroneous because Hobbins' analysis of the trial is an attempt to rewrite history in a manner which contradicts the accepted view taken by Pernoud and other historians who are recognized as specialists on the subject of Joan of Arc. The fact that Hobbins studies general medieval history - which covers a span of a thousand years (!) - does not make him a specialist on Joan of Arc (as Pernoud was). The reviewers you've cited have done even less research on this subject and are therefore basing their critique of the book upon nothing but the book itself, without reference to external documentation. Any book is going to be given a glowing review if the review is written in such a manner.
This is a classic case of something which Wikipedia is supposed to avoid: the promotion of fringe theories as if they were co-equal to the accepted view among recognized experts. In this case the fringe theory is found in a newly published book which came out only a year ago.
At least allow me to comment-out the entry until the discussion is resolved. Voln 12:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Voln, this is absolutely unreasonable. It's clear that Hobbins has the proper academic credentials, and that his book has received favorable reviews in professional publications. You (or I) are in no position to say that these reviews should be discounted, to question the expertise and research methods of the reviewers, or to imply, as you do, that medieval historians aren't competent to evaluate books about Joan of Arc.
Nor is it proper to say that Hobbins' views are "fringe"--the mere fact that the book was published by Harvard means that experts evaluated the work prior to publication, and thought it was worth publishing. Fringe works get rejected at that stage. Nor do fringe works receive favorable reviews in scholarly journals. I'm restoring the entry, as I can't see any reason why your opinion of this book should override the published opinions of medieval historians. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's clarify a few things.
The reviews cited farther above were not written by "specialists in medieval history". Susan Tiefenbrun is a Law professor. Wendy Maier appears to focus on the Holocaust. Larissa Taylor studies early modern Europe, the Renaissance, Reformation, etc. None of them specialize in anything relating specifically to Joan of Arc. Pernoud did - and your reviewers do not have the expertise to contradict her view.
The book by Hobbins argues (among other ideas) that Bishop Cauchon was a sympathetic judge whose trial was an attempt to save Joan from execution (!) - although he was the guy who sentenced her to die. The trial is presented as a fair and lawful ecclesiastical trial although the book concedes that it was controlled by a secular government which wanted Joan to be killed. There are many other whoppers of this sort throughout. This book not only runs counter to the accepted view among historians but also defies basic common sense. Wikipedia is not obligated to accommodate patent nonsense.
One editor here defended the book by stating that Harvard is incapable of promoting fringe ideas. One of Harvard's most famous (or infamous) recent courses was a class designed to teach students about "the relationship Madonna enjoys with her own belly button" (see, for example, this media article and scan the text for "Harvard")
Is this a legitimate and sober theory, or does it qualify as a fringe idea?
If someone wants to justify including this book while excluding 99% of the many thousands of other books on the subject then the burden of justification lies with those who wish to include it. The article itself states that it is intended to be a selective list rather than including every crackpot tome which has rolled out of the bin. Voln 14:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if YOU disagree with the book and don't like the positive reviews that it has received, the fact that it was published by Harvard, has received positive reviews by many authors, and was written by a Medieval specialist of 14th and 15th century France who teaches at a major university all shows that the book, regardless of what any of us feel about its content, is indeed notable and significant, because others are thinking so. None of us have to like a book to agree that it is important or worthy of inclusion of an article. If a book represents a new direction in historiography that seems to be finding an audience, even if among law professors, then it's worth noting. --24.154.173.243 16:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the comment by 24.154.173.243, and would also add:
1) The Guardian article is irrelevant. We're talking about Harvard University Press, which is a separate operation from the university.
2) Harvard U. Press employs peer review, which means that the book was reviewed by experts in the field before publication. They thought it was worth publishing, so it's inappropriate to call this book "crackpot", "fringe", or "patent nonsense".
3) The reviews that have been cited are by professional historians and a prominent legal scholar, and are trustworthy. Larissa Taylor's webpage at Colby College says that her research interests are "Catholic preaching in late Middle Ages and Reformation, Popular devotion, sainthood, and pilgrimage in late medieval Europe, Mary Magdalene, Church history, Women and gender in medieval and early modern Europe". Joan fits pretty well into this. However, Voln's requirements for expertise are restrictive in the extreme: we trust scholars to review books that fall outside of their area of specialization, because they're familiar with research methods, standards of argument, etc. In other words, if Hobbins' book were really "crackpot", someone who specializes in the Holocaust would be able to spot that.
4) By Voln's own standards, unless s/he is a professional historian specializing in Joan of Arc, s/he isn't qualified to evaluate Hobbins' work. Obviously, I think this is needlessly restrictive, but I do think that we shouldn't rely on the opinions of WP editors in preference to published reviews. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is supposed to go by the accepted consensus among reputable specialists, which in this case would be Regine Pernoud and those who held similar views. The people you've been citing are not in that group.
Nor does this book represent a "new direction in scholarship" as the anon claimed: it merely repackages some old ideas which legitimate scholars debunked long ago. It frequently tries to refute the dominant view among scholars by misrepresenting their arguments, thereby refuting nothing but a strawman.
One editor here defended the book by stating that Harvard University Press is supposed to utilize good peer-review procedures. Well, their courses are supposed to be insured for accuracy too, hence my example of one of their classes which is famously absurd. Clearly neither portion of their system is working - if you disagree, try defending this book's claim that Cauchon was attempting to save the life of the very person whom he himself sent to the stake. The book admits that he was a member of the English government and yet pretends that he was trying to save her from that same government. It does not cite any evidence to back up this claim, and ignores or glosses over the eyewitness accounts which state the opposite (as covered by Pernoud and in fact by Wikipedia's own article on Joan of Arc). Likewise, it attempts to show that the transcript was impeccably recorded, which it achieves by entirely misrepresenting the arguments which Pernoud and others raised against the transcript - the issue never had anything to do with the date of the final editing of the document, as this book claims. This is simply not a valid methodology, and you cannot defend it by appealing to the reputation of Harvard. You would have to show that they are living up to their reputation in this specific case.
Nor can you defend the book by appealing to the academic reviewers you have cited. Someone cannot give a meaningful critique of a book's arguments unless they have adequate knowledge of the specific subject - e.g., if someone has never heard of the eyewitness accounts describing Cauchon's activities during the trial, this book's arguments would sound a lot more plausible. By omitting countervailing evidence, the book can appear valid to those who have read little on the subject aside from the book itself. The reviewers you've cited do not have such expertise, unlike Pernoud, and they therefore are not relevant.
I would add that most books receive their share of positive academic reviews. There were many positive academic responses to Margaret Murray's theory that Joan of Arc was a member of a "witch cult" sustained by a race of "pygmies" which Murray claimed live in Europe as a parallel population. Legitimate historians had long ridiculed her theory as "vapid balderdash" (to quote C. L. Ewen), but you can find plenty of academics who promoted it. Harvard University Press has probably published some of these supportive views.
I bring up the above example because the same issue is central to our discussion. If you want to declare a book to be valid and important - which is by definition a matter of personal judgment - then you need to do something other than appeal to a handful of academic reviewers or to the editorial staff of Harvard University Press. Otherwise, we could probably include virtually every book ever written on the subject, no matter how absurd. Most of them have their academic supporters. However, most of these are not consistent with the consensus view among recognized specialists, which is the factor we are supposed to consider. Voln 11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't have to agree with or like a book for it to be important and worthy of inclusion. If multiple reviews declare a book important, if it was published by a reputable press, if the author is a specialist who teaches at a reputable institution, then it is not hurting anyone by inlcuding the book in a list that is far from unwieldly. The argument against inclusion increasingly reads like a personal axe to grind. Go Bucks! --24.154.173.243 14:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Voln, if your evaluation of Hobbins' work is correct, it should be easy to find a negative review, or some other expression of disapproval from an expert. Until then, since we have no reason to think that you are an expert in this field, I don't see why your personal opinion of this book should prevent it from being in the article.
Please stop removing the book from the article, since two editors believe it should be left in. Since you seem determined to continue the discussion, I suggest that it would be more productive to place a request for comment or seek mediation than continue reverting. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I placed an RFC myself, see below. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

I wonder if it's possible to end the current revert war by turning this into an annotated bibliography of some sort, giving an idea of the strengths and/or weaknesses of each particular source. Granted, there's a snag (probably several) with doing this. Most obviously, we'd have to get rid of the table format, but it might be a little too wide already for some monitors. (It should be noted that the French version doesn't use tables.)  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a much trickier project than one might think, because the annotations would have to be based on published evaluations of each work. Basically, whoever did the annotating would have to know the literature on Joan inside and out, and provide citations for each evaluative statement.
I think it might be worth ditching the table format, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... I guess it's that "no original research" thing getting in the way. (This may be a rare instance where a small amount of original research could be of great help. But policy is policy, and in this case we're more or less stuck with it.) At least we're in agreement on the formatting. I'm used to reading bibliographies in text format, not table format. The current layout doesn't add anything.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

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)
  • I agree with Akhilleus (as far as credibility of source is conserned). Taxico 23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents/centimes/euros

I received an invitation to drop by and offer a comment at this little battle: I'm the editor who raised Joan of Arc and Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc to featured pages. This bibliography has never been at the level I've wanted and now that I'm an administrator my editing time is quite limited. The audience I had in mind for this page would be a high school or undergraduate student looking for references to research a term paper.

The best thing for this page would be if it borrowed more from the example at Pericles. While absolute comprehensiveness is impossible and I'm not particularly impressed by Hobbins either, his credentials are adequate for inclusion here. I'd prefer if the active editors balanced him expanding a "further reading" section with other entries that present more of the predominant interpretations. DurovaCharge! 21:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. Personally, I find Hobbins to be credible enough, although he is probably more at the beginning of his career, so I wouldn't be too harsh on his early efforts. Anyway, on a side note, I went to the Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc article. Any chance of providing links to the various paintings of her from that page somehow? Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be all for that although we run into the dual challenge of finding such sites and confirming that their images aren't copyvio. Much of the painting and sculpture entries originated as unsourced material I translated from the French Wikipedia and haven't been easy to improve: if I had predicted that Wikipedia would come into existence back when I was in France I might have jotted down sculptors' names and other information from various plaques, but it isn't easy to get curatorial-type information from across the Atlantic about works of art that are in public spaces rather than in museums. DurovaCharge! 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that Durova has weighed in with an essentially negative assessment of this book, albeit understatedly phrased. Since your editing at the main article shows you're familiar with Pernoud and other recognized experts, you have to admit that this new book's claims are completely untenable - to phrase it very charitably.
To the other editors here: If I had time, I could track down published reviews which are negative. But most of these are not going to come up on a Google search, as they tend to be published in print journals which usually do not have electronic, publicly accessible formats (or which have an embargo period even if they are online).
There's another difficulty here. Since this book came out only a year ago and does nothing but present yet another English translation of the transcript, there aren't going to be many reviews yet from genuine experts on the topic. For instance, Marie-Veronique Clin (Pernoud's co-author and current co-director of the Centre Jeanne d'Arc at Orleans, France) would undoubtedly oppose the book since it's the very type of revisionist theory which she and Pernoud repeatedly argued against, but I would very much doubt that Clin has even read the book yet much less written anything about it. It's easy to do a Google search and find early reviews on academic websites written by people in other specialties - there are far more of these people than the number of historians who focus on Joan of Arc, after all. Most of these reviews will inevitably be positive because the reviewer is evaluating the book largely based upon nothing but the book's own version of things.
No one has demonstrated that this book would be more deserving of inclusion than any of the many other attempts to rewrite history on this subject. Most of these have also received at least a few positive reviews (it's common and easy to receive three or more endorsements) and most are also published by organizations with decent reputations. If this were to be the standard for inclusion, we could include probably 80% (or more) of the tens of thousands of books published on the subject. The list itself would become book-length.
The anon's accusation against me of "vandalism" or of having "an axe to grind" is neither an argument against the points I have raised nor a productive manner of proceeding. I will assume good faith and refrain from accusing the anon of having a personal interest in pushing this book so hard, but I'm certainly tempted to make that accusation given what has transpired. Voln 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has to use a consistent set of standards. It really doesn't matter what my opinion of Hobbins is - in this limited sense it doesn't even make much difference what Marie-Veronique Clin's opinion is. He has sufficient credentials and a reputable publisher. So in a technical Wikipedian sense it does constitute vandalism to remove that entry from the bibliography. Sometimes I have to grit my teeth in the interests of fairness, but to do otherwise would step onto the slippery slope. Browse WP:RFC to see why. If this bibliography reached 100 entries and the editors considered culling some titles to keep the list manageable, then that would be a different discussion. DurovaCharge! 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I used Academic Search Primer and J-Stor the find reviews of Hobbins' book, not Google. Both of these searches were therefore done on research databases for published professional reviews in hundreds of different journals. ZERO negative reviews turned up. But even if we found a negative review, just because something gets a negative review doesn't diminish its influence or significance. How many movies were slammed by critics, but were still successful financially? Because of who Hobbins is, where he's teaching, who his publisher is, what reviewers have written in the positive sense, people will read and consider his book as something "new," whether any of us agree that it is or not. Best, --164.107.92.120 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Even for those journals which are included in online repositories such as JStor - and the vast majority are not - most of these have a substantial embargo period which insures that only older issues are available online. This becomes of crucial importance when you're dealing with a book that was only published a year ago, since only a tiny percentage of academic reviews of the book are going to be available online at this early point. These few were all written by non-specialists. Furthermore, the vast majority of academic reviews tend to be positive in the interest of professional courtesy and chummy collegiality. This does not indicate that a book is important.
If Durova doesn't want to say that she also considers the book fraudulent, feeling that this is beside the point, then that's fine. It would help clarify matters, however.
If I were to add enough additional entries, could we then start weeding out those which deviate too far from the consensus view taken by recognized experts such as Pernoud and Clin? Voln 11:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone here agrees with the content of a book for it to have had enough impact to merit inclusion. Wikipedia is not about forcing one ideology on people. We should consider alternative explanations, so as to be balanced and not monolithic. --164.107.92.120 12:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't we just come to a decision already?!

Just to throw in my $0.02, this whole argument looks like it's damn near being blown out of proportion (if it's not already out of proportion). What it looks like we need to answer is a matter of Wikipedia policy:

  1. Do we include a book as a source based on how credible the author is on the subject, and whether the publisher is reliable?
  2. Or, does a book have to meet the criteria I just described, and also agree with Wiki-editor consensus?

If it's just the former, I think we've established that the book stays. There's good reason to assume the author knows what he's talking about, and this book is published by a friggin' well-known and respected university press. There's reason to argue only if the latter condition has to be met, too.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely out of proportion, but that happens all the time on WP.
If it's just #1, then we've already established that Hobbins is a reliable source, so there's no reason to keep him out.
If it's #2, I'd point out that three editors have already said we should include it, so we should stop arguing. Regardless of Voln's opinions about the book, the practice of academic book reviews, the classes at Harvard, and the peer review process at Harvard University Press, Hobbins' book is an WP:RS, which means there's a presumption that it should be included. Add to that the favorable reviews, and the fact that this is the first English translation of the trial documents in half a century, and this looks like a book that should be included, for the simple reason that this book seems to be one of the easiest ways for a reader who doesn't have French or Latin to access the trial documents.
Voln's evaluation of the work, while it may be correct on some points, is beside the point: anyone who's done any scholarly work knows that a bibliography sometimes needs to contain work that is objectionable, sloppy, and sometimes flat-out wrong. Unless there's evidence that Hobbins' book is marginalized, never cited by scholars, never used in the classroom, and thought to be absolutely worthless by a majority of current scholars (with the appropriate expertise) I think it should be included now, and should be included even if the bibliography grows substantially. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's good to know my opinions are shared. I was starting to feel like a wing-nut!  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we've already agreed that the book belongs on the list. Voln's criticisms are meritorious; they just don't fit within site policies. I wish every Wikipedia contributor participated at a level where we could amend those standards to have that discussion: when I read Hobbins I rolled my eyes and was amazed that Harvard published him, but they did and we're stuck with it. Please, redirect energies toward expanding this list with better titles. My current responsibilities as an administrator prevent me from doing so. DurovaCharge! 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the concept of this article and if anyone is willing to start an article like this for something like Napoleon I the Great of the French bibliography, I would be happy to contribute at length. I am very familiar with the historiography of Napoleon I and have read lots and lots on the subject. And truth be told, were I to contribute to a similar article for Napoleon, I would argue for the inclusion of not just complimentary biographies, such as David Markham's, which I liked, but even Alan Schom's, which has numerous errors and is overly hostile, and yet has received enough promotion and is so long that it has had an influence, even if some think it's detrimental. Also, if anyone wants to start articles for Hobbins or even his book, I'd be willing to do some quick research to help flesh these in. Sincerely, --164.107.92.120 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually this page is somewhat nonstandard and might eventually get rolled back into the main biography. The Napoleon article could certainly use better balance: its pro-Napoleon tone was the main reason I argued against it at WP:FAC. Either way, there's no reason to hold back from creating a "Further reading" section at these major biographies and adding more titles. I think I mentioned Pericles above. The same editor created a family of superb pages about ancient Greek history that I regard as the current gold standard for Wikipedia biography. I used that example as a model when I translated excerpts from Joan of Arc's letters and inserted them as quote boxes into the main article and I'd be absolutely delighted if some people pitched in to give the bibliography a similar facelift. Regards, DurovaCharge! 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Since people aren't willing to consider excluding this, there isn't going to be much point in continued discussion. But I will make a few observations.
I'd like to thank Durova for agreeing that this is not a valid book and should not have been published by Harvard. If it needs to be included by the terms of Wikipedia policy then that's one thing; but the reasons given by the other editors for including the book are in most cases objectively false.
This is not, as Akhilleus alleged, a book people will turn to as an easily accessible translation of the transcript since both Barrett's and Scott's translations are online and free for anyone to read. This renders rather senseless the oft-repeated publisher's blurb declaring that this is the "first translation in 50 years": there haven't been any other translations in the last 50 years because there's little need for yet another one. The anon's argument that the book represents an alternate theory on the subject is beside the point, given that it's not a valid alternate theory. There have been hundreds of other alternate theories on this subject, including Murray's idea that Joan of Arc sacrificed herself as part of a pagan ritual connected with a religion practiced by an alleged "pygmy" population in Europe. This one was actually taught widely in universities during the 1960s and 70s, and is still promoted by some authors. Do we include it as a valid alternate point of view, or does it qualify as patent nonsense? Voln 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
If it was influential, why not? Is it our job to ignore controversial or even ludicrous books that have, however, achieved notoriety? In regads t Hobbins, you continue to cite only personal subjective opinion. You have failed to cite one review of a reputable historian or expert who flames Hobbins' book in a published source. Moreover, why not have a new translation after a fifty year period? Scholars always re-examine sources and shouldn't be discouraged from doing so. Maybe publishing a new translation will re-invigorate interest in the material and thereby have additional significance. While we shouldn't ignore "classic" accounts, we also shouldn't thumb our noses at recent scholarship, especially when no real evidence of hostile published reviews has been featured here. --164.107.92.120 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Voln, most professors teaching college courses do not assign reading from websites. They have students buy books, or make coursepacks. Barrett and Scott are out of print, so you can't require students to buy them, and while it's possible to include them in a coursepack, some teachers will prefer that their students buy Hobbins' book. I have no doubt that some college courses dealing with Joan will use Hobbins, since this is what's said by two of the reviewers mentioned above. I don't think that Susan Tiefenbrun is lying when she says she plans to use the book in her classes. Nor do I doubt that individual researchers might find Hobbins' translations useful, especially if they cannot read Latin or French, since many people prefer to use a book over reading stuff on a screen or printing things out from a website. But I think Durova's point is best--if you don't like Hobbins, add more stuff that you consider reputable to the bibliography. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Plus, having taken graduate courses in history myself, professors oftentimes assign books that don't always conform with traditions or that the professors themselves might not even like, but still recognize the book's influence or potential influence and therefore still assign the book so that students will be familiar with the argument, even if it's to refute that argument. --164.107.92.120 17:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
To the anon: Hobbins' book basically rehashes old theories that were discredited a very long time ago by mainstream historians. It does not even attempt, in most cases, to present any evidence to refute the mainstream view. I should not need to produce a recent review debunking these ideas yet again. They've already been debunked. I suspect that's why Durova said she "rolled her eyes" when she read this book. It's not merely erroneous, it's not even terribly original.
I also already explained why critical reviews, especially at this early stage, are unlikely to be found online. I don't have the time to dig through hundreds of print journals to find negative reviews, nor should I need to.
My main concern with regard to this bibliography is that this particular subject of history attracts an extraordinary amount of nonsense, much like the Templars. Just as a useful bibliography for the latter subject should not include "The Da Vinci Code" despite its great popularity and influence, this list would quickly become meaningless as a research tool if it included every discredited theory produced on the topic. Voln 11:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
In moral support of Voln, Hobbins chose to serve leftovers that have irritated English speaking Medievalists for more than eighty years. This is warmed over George Bernard Shaw. Every year a new crop of students read Shaw's introductory essay and pester their professors with the "discovery" that Joan of Arc had a fair trial. If that hypothesis had merit it would have entered the mainstream generations ago, but the documentary evidence against it is overwhelming. Hobbins appears to be making irresponsible claims to hype the importance of his own book. That said, my opinion or Voln's or any other Wikipedian's really doesn't count: Hobbins has the right credentials and the right publisher - and heaven help us in five years someone else will probably exhume the claim that she was a royal bastard. DurovaCharge! 14:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To Voln, can use cite any reviews that have been published but don't appear online? I read scholarly journals regularly and those that I'm aware of that haven't yet appeared on J Stor or Academic Search Primer ALL identify significant strengths with Hobbins' book. No book is perfect, in fact, nothing has ever been written that can't be improved in some way, but in general professional reviewers tend to identify more strengths than weaknesses. Happy Thanksgiving! --24.154.173.243 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
To the anon: As Durova just said yesterday, and as I have said repeatedly, Hobbins' book does nothing but present variations of old theories which have already been debunked ad nauseam by reputable historians. I do not need to cite a recent review stating this fact: it has been stated repeatedly by all the legitimate historians of the subject. It makes no difference that you have found three reviews by non-specialists who support this book: you can find far larger numbers of reviews supporting Murray's books, or Caratini's recent book which claims that Joan of Arc never led an army, or hokey works such as "Operation Shepherdess", etc. Positive reviews by non-specialists do not give an erroneous book greater credibility: they merely reveal the ignorance of the reviewers. Only the support of recognized experts can give a theory merit, whereas Hobbins' theories are recycled ideas which have already been rejected by generations of recognized experts.
This has been explained repeatedly. Voln 13:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And yet reviews by professional historians that don't yet appear online do exist and are also all recognizing of the strength's of Hobbins' book, as has also been explained repeatedly. Sigh. --172.151.150.96 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this particular discussion has gone on long enough. It has already been pointed out why those reviews are not relevant. As Durova commented recently, this book is just Shaw's imaginative version in a slightly different form. No knowledgeable expert has ever taken this argument seriously, although you can always find plenty of reviews supporting nearly every book that has been published.
You succeeded in getting the book included in the list, but you're not going to be able to convince any reasonably informed person that the book is accurate. Voln 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a professional historian, who has won writing contests, presented at conferences, maintained a 4.0 GPA throughout graduate school, and published as well, and I think Hobbins is a fine scholar and that his book is a welcome addition to this list. You can't please everyone with every book and everything ever written can be improved in some way. Nevertheless, Hobbins is off to a good start and myself and other professional historians recognize this. I agree that the discussion has gone on long enough, but it has been lively! Best, --24.154.173.243 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
We don't seem to be communicating here. The set of old theories being revived in this book have always been seen as absurd and ignorant, roughly analogous to a theory on Napoleon which doesn't understand even the basics of his life. Any genuine historian would recognize that a theory cannot be evaluated without a reasonable knowledge of the evidence which only detailed research can provide. The opinions of nonspecialists (who in this case do not even understand the fundamentals) cannot trump the verdict of those scholars who were recognized specialists and experts on the subject of Joan of Arc - Pernoud, DuParc, Quicherat, Champion, et al. All of this should be patently obvious without the need for argument. Voln 11:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What's absurd and ignorant one day becomes accepted scholarship another day. Consider the Scopes Monkey Trial, the Scientific Revolution, etc. . . . I hope everyone's having a safe travel day! --164.107.92.120 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
In order for a currently discredited theory to become acceptable it would need to present new and credible evidence to refute the prevailing view. This latest attempt by Hobbins does not present any new evidence and in fact does not even address the genuine arguments which underlie the prevailing viewpoint which it seeks to refute. Voln 12:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are you so interested in going after Hobbins? For much of November, your editing has focused in diminishing Hobbins' book. Why the obsession with this article? --164.107.92.120 14:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In most cases, I've been responding to your daily posts here. Voln 11:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but all of the rest of us who have been participating in this debate also continue to edit other pages and not just focus on this one . . . --164.107.92.120 12:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

(arbitrary outdent) Voln, you've referred to half of my comments twice and seem to have missed the other half. There's nothing to debate here because policy trumps our own opinions. You are in danger of dragging this to the point where it becomes counterproductive: Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars may discover this discussion and list it; visitors may be intrigued by the debate and buy Hobbins's book to learn what the fuss is about. Let this die from benign neglect: 98% of readers who have a term paper to research would rather follow a link to a free online translation of the trial transcript - and we all agree the public domain translations are more than adequate. Every relevant citation in the main article links to an online version. DurovaCharge! 15:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format

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)

Sounds fine to me. Voln 11:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/a/Talk%7EJoan_of_Arc_bibliography_e405.html"