Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Thesis Statement

I simply want to learn why anybody else thinks certain sentences are pov, like the thesis statement. Please, discuss here. I want to improve the sentences and not just result to a revert war. I see there are many sentences that need to be improved.

Joan of Arc became the empathic messenger that she so dreamed; undoubtedly, her legacy continues to have a message of courage, strength and passion to give to us as a symbol, as a written part of history, or from heaven.

What is so pov? Where am I wrong?

POV is...
  • "the empathic messenger that she so dreamed" (how could you know what she dreamed?)
- Perhaps, I don't know what she dreamed while she was asleep. The article, at least from the scribes pov, states that she heard voices, and based on those vioces she "dreamed" to become the one to lead the army. JhB
- As Joan is not here to reflect on the matter, we (i.e. Wikipedia editors with NPOV in mind) should refrain from making statements on her personal goals being achieved... Sw
- Then, you agree that the article reflects her personal views when it should not? "that she so dreamed" can be dropped, but "empathic messenger" must be true based on so many written docs about her leadership and her awareness to provoke the coronation.
  • "undoubtedly" (everything on Joan of Arc is doubtedly: nothing is 100% sure)
- It didn't imply the entire article. It implied the present and the conjunctive emphasis, "her legacy continues...." JhB
- People want her legacy to continue. I have no doubt about that. Sw
- "Her legacy continues, undoubtedly, ..." is that clearer? jhb
  • "her legacy continues" (how can you be sure it does? maybe you want it to be?)
- I'm sure there are stories written about her and stories have continued to be written. Jdz's use of "legacy" helped clarify that. JhB
- Her story still inspires people. That's as far as I like to go. Sw
- "Her legacy continues, undoubtedly, to inpsire people ..." better? Even if they like her or not... the trivia section has lots of actions about her. jhb
  • "a message" (maybe you think she has a message, many people will not think so)
- Can she herself convey a message right now? I doubt it. Does her stories convey a message? Yes. JhB
- To some her story may have a message. It's not clear to everyone though. Sw
- Ok. I'm not some biased idiot here (as others edit sums say), as I intend to make it clearer and npov. jhb
  • "courage", "strength" (ask the English if they agree!)
- Even if they don't, does that mean we can't relate what others think? JhB
- Than state that some people think she showed great courage. To others she was just hostile and violent (many were killed due to her actions). Sw
- I agree, but we got to be more distinct than just "some people." Eventually, we'll find the right word. "Some people believe she was born on the 6th..." jhb
  • "passion" (seems a religious, conservative opinion to me)
- Religious means not intended. The stories, even from scribes, written about her more than suggest how dire her actions were. JhB
- "Passion" or "insanity"?: the debate goes on... Sw
- Ok. Those are like details that can be included in the article, but we can find something neutral to say about her efforts before the debate over passion/insanity, courage/hostile, etc. jhb
  • "us" (speak for yourself! I'm just an observer)
- An observer, as intended, is just a reader... JhB
- But not necessarily part of her personal audience... Sw
- Of course not. jhb
  • "a symbol" (to many, many people she will not be a symbol of anything at all!)
- And, there are those who obviously have used her as a symbol. Do you suggest that we write about what she is not? JhB
- No, just write she is a symbol to some (i.e. the Catholics, the French, some Americans, etc.). Sw
- Good idea. So, why not just update the few words instead of to delete everything? jhb
  • "from heaven" (excuse me? does everybody agree on its existence? is Joan of Arc in heaven, do you think?)
- Do I believe in heaven? Hmmm... I looked into the deep stary sky at night, and I saw what is known as heaven. Others believe in a heaven as not so tangible. It is easier to say "heaven" than it is to say "faith." JhB
- "Faith" is a fact of life: some have faith, some don't. Those who have faith sometimes believe in heaven as a place after life. So "faith" is neutral, "heaven" (as a place after life) not. Sw
- I disagree. Heaven as we can tangibly see it is a fact of life. Faith is what you have before you have the facts to believe. Some prefer to use the word space instead of heaven. Either way, "we are in heaven" is technically true. So, "those who have faith sometimes believe in heaven...afterlife" is true to some creationalist but not to the here-and-now type. Heaven is just a word that is so ambiguous it is nuetral, and we don't have to believe it either way to understand its intent. Faith implies we have to know a religion to understand the faith, and some will object to that and might not even read the article. The use of "heaven" is like how we still use the word aphrodisiac, you don't have to have faith in Aphrodite or even agree to believe the goddess ever existed to understand that word. ;) jhb
NPOV is...
  • "Joan of Arc became (...); (...), (...) to have (...) of (...), (...) and (...) to give to (...) as (...), as a written part of history, or (...)."
Maybe you could rewrite the thesis like this: "Joan of Arc became a written part of history." That's NPOV!
- Give it a shot! JhB
- I did, but it is so evident, it just looks ridiculous. Sw
- It may take many revisions. I simply disagree to delete my changes than to improve them. I worked very hard (many hours) and put a lot of thought into the words to attempt a npov. I didn't just do a thoughtless quick edit because I didn't like how it was. The version I added was not perfect, but it was progress. I've heard many stories about Joan that this article doesn't even cover. I don't own the article either, and I don't revert for that reason. Many of those edit sums contains insults, and the changes seem more like because they personally don't like me instead of any attempt to explain their improvement to the article -- ugh...etc etc. I'm not an english professor, but I have tutored english at college. It's easy to see some of these edits are... quick. jhb
- Just don't take things to personal. Switisweti 10:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's old. Some don't care to discuss. Mr. Ballard 03:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I hope this answers your question. Switisweti 23:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I very much appreciate the time you taken to write this. - Mr. Ballard 00:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Names: 15th Century or Modern

I understand your point of view Mr. Williamson:

The forms "d'Arc" or "D'Arc" are the modern versions of her family's surname; the latter spelling (with two capitalized letters) is a recently-invented attempt at a compromise between those who believe the name was a contraction and those who believe it was a single word. In the 15th century manuscripts, the name appears in numerous forms - Darc, Daix, Day, Tarc, etc. "Jehanne (or "Jhenne", etc) was the 15th century version of her personal name.

Which I did try to combine other POVs into it, like yours. You may have a very valid point, but I simply do not agree. We could perfect it with every detail to make it NPOV. I felt we should not bring a linguistics debate in the article, so I kept it out and kept it simple. I hope you can agree to that. I've always heard "d'Arc" said with a glottal stop and have never known it as only a recent invention to spell it as such. In my studies of french, I learned that diacritical marks did exist to produce a glottal stop before a vowel. The capitalized "D" & "A" in "D'Arc" is just how it was recorded and still is recorded. Ordinarily, it is written "d'Arc". Just because "Jehanne" is a 15th century version of her name doesn't explicity mean her name was spelt as such by her. Others may have heard her name "Jeanne" and thought it was spelt as "Jehanne". That is very evident as it happens even in my first name. Your view above doesn't even try to include this kind of information. If you can write a better version that expresses all the POVs, please try. Otherwise, let's just keep it stated without the POV and hint to the reader it is disputed, which is a fact and not a POV. – Mr. Ballard 05:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To make this as brief as possible: no 15th century document ever spelled her name with an apostrophe - you may have seen a transcription or translation which followed the common practice of adding such punctuation (as even most scholarly transcriptions do), but that doesn't reflect the actual spelling in the original manuscripts. More importantly, there was no such thing as a "standard" form of anyone's name (or even of common words) in that era - all spelling was phonetic, and each scribe simply spelled it as he saw fit. Joan of Arc never insisted on a standard spelling, much less "had the spelling changed", nor could she have possibly done so given that no such concept existed - you're taking a modern mentality and assuming that it was also followed in the 15th century.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 02:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Obviously, you did not understand my point of view if you assume I based it on "modern mentality." (Note: I tried to reference your web pages for brevity, but the links were broken.) To use your logic sample that the name was "common among witches," you expressed "Jeheanne" is the common 15th century name, and you conclude that is the correct form. At least, that is what you seem to demand in the footnote on the name. With "d'Arc" it is the same logic implication that you made. Runic languages are phonetical, but french used the alphabetic language with diacritical marks. A modern glottal stop exists, like the word "Sallé" which has a distinct glottal stop. We could mispell "D'Arc" as "Dárc," just to demonstrate the variation but hint at a similar glottal stop. The glottal stop is not a modern concept. Your version of the footnote narrows it down to either a contraction or a single word because that is how it is commonly related. I have known it to be different, and that is with a glottal stop. I don't try to say that my point of view is the only correct version. I don't even try to push an arguement, like "well, hey, this is what my family says and I'm a descendant, so there." I just want the footnote to be open about the history of the name and not to express any particular conclusion. You even stated, "The lack of any apostrophe in 15th century contractions has left the matter open to speculation, although the Latin form, "Darco", has been taken to indicate that it was simply a name rather than a contracted phrase." Is it open for speculation or did you make a conclusion? - Mr. Ballard 05:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let's see if I can disentangle this mess. First of all: my website says that her _name_ was commonplace, not a specific _spelling_ of it - two entirely different things. Secondly: the term "phonetic spelling" refers to the fact that scribes spelled words as they saw fit, to represent pronunciation, rather than using a fixed "proper" spelling for each word or name. Thirdly, and most importantly: the reason her surname is open to speculation is precisely because an apostrophe was never used in the 15th century, for any purpose whatsoever - it was not used to represent a glottal stop. It would be valid to speculate whether the name was a contraction or a single word, but not valid to claim that any original manuscript has it written "D'Arc" - you're looking at transcriptions or translations which follow the standard practice of inserting modern punctuation to improve clarity (as I myself also do when transcribing medieval documents), and you have leapt to the conclusion that it was actually written that way in the original manuscripts. Such is not the case - the apostrophe was added by the transcriber.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 02:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Yes, two entirely different things: how it is spelt versus how it is pronounced. Exactly! Just like contracted words and glottal stops are two entirely different things both modernly noted by the apostrophe. Before Middle French, several languages were spoken that were all related, and less than 10% of France spoke french as it is known today. The influence of Middle French took over, and it wasn't until the 20 century that 90% of France actually spoke the common French language. (Older) Latin still had an influence in the 15th century on France with others as well, like Germanic. Those of the era may have still pronounced the letter a as a glottal stop, as it was only a glottal stop with the Phoencians (way-way-back) and early Latin. If you pronounce "de Arc" today in the 21st century, you will still here that glottal stop, naturally. That, however, is not how the name is spelt, yet it could be. Modern influences drops the glottal stop and contracts words togethers, as in "langue d'oïl." The letter h is still used like a soft glottal stop.
--- Mr. Ballard 07:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think all that needs to be said here is: you might want to take a look at books which present factual information about medieval French, such as Einhorn's textbook or the large dictionaries by Godefroy, etc. No apostrophe was ever used in that era, for any purpose; and much of the rest of your information likewise bears no resemblance to the subject.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 02:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Look at the form "Darc," at least some would think it is said like dark. Without even the apostrophe added, the early letter a had the sound of a glottal stop. If you say "Darc" with the letter a as a glottal stop, it'll also sound like "de Arc." Your replies have indicated, nonetheless, that you have focused on the apostrophe character rather than the sound of either the modern or archaic letter a. - Mr. Ballard 04:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My replies have focused on the apostrophe issue because that has been the point of dispute here, not the pronunciation. In any event, if you want to discuss glottal stops, I would suggest you go over to [Talk:Glottal Stop] - there's an article devoted to this subject, and an associated discussion page.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 02:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC))

first paragraph

Here is the attempted version done by Noisy on 3 April 2005:

Joan of Arc1 (January 6, 14122 – May 30, 1431) (also styled the Maid of Orléans3) is a national heroine of France and a Saint of the Catholic Church. By birth a peasant, during the turmoil of the Hundred Years War she became an inspirational figure such that in 1429 and 1430 the French Royal army followed her command, and they defeated the English at the siege of Orleans, the Battle of Patay and other engagements. The accomplishments of Joan and the army enabled the coronation4 of King Charles VII, and he therefore ennobled her family. Subsequently, the Burgundians captured and delivered her to the English. Clergymen condemned her for heresy and she was burned at the stake5. Centuries later, Pope Benedict XV canonized her, recognising her innocence6 as found by an earlier appeal after her death.

Which reverted many previous changes for reasons of NPOV. As noted in the edit summary, Noisy stated the format is standard to wikipedia; however, I disagree. We can discuss here. For example, the use of the footnotes or like helps keep the introduction NPOV while the details of different POVs can be expressed in details further in the article. Noisy's version also seem to imply that the article focuses on her being a Saint, but the entire article already expresses more. Mr. Ballard 18:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's revise these sentences further:

After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent on 7 July 1456 during an appeal on her case. The Church later canonized her in 1920.

The previous version I wrote was:

Centuries later, the Catholic church canonized her with her innocence as found by an earlier appeal after her death.

Sentences compliment each other in order. The idea that supports the main sentence is the canonization by the catholic church. The point about the appeal and her innocence supports the canonization. The previous sentence about the execution supports the main sentence. In MLA style, the point about the appeal would follow after the point about the canonization. If the paragraph was strictly in chronological order, each sentence would have a sequential order rather than complimentary.

We know the part about the appeal is important, but to much detail distracts the reader. We want to entice the reader to want to read the entire article. Too many dates and the article appears technical; the reader has to think about what is written. Instead of "this occurred on blah-blah and this occurred on blah-blah" we just summarize and say "a few years later" That is why I put "Centuries later" instead of specific dates that are already covered in the body text. I tried to use similar sentences like the two above. I put it in MLA format and got the awkward:

The Church later canonized her in 1920. After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent on 7 July 1456 during an appeal on her case.

We can remove the dates because they are expressed in the body text. If the reader is really interested in the dates, the reader will read the entire article.

The Church later canonized her. After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

Which is easier to read but still awkard. We can see that a few centuries passed between her death and her canonization. Let's simply explain that to the reader.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. After the war, the Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

We still need the info about the appeal, but the phrase "after the war" is vague. Since "centuries later" follow right behind the date recorder of her death that is not so vague. The reader doesn't know about which war. We originally had the Hundred Year's war, but that is replaced by "In 1429 and 1430." Let's delete it becuase the war isn't significant at that time anyways.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. The Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

Which is not so awkward, but it lacks clarity and implication that joins the two ideas together. This is simply done:

Centuries later, the Church canonized her, for the Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case.

We could use "so" instead of "for":

The Inquisition declared her innocent during an appeal on her case, so, centuries later, the Church canonized her.

Which implies that her canonization happened directly because of the appeal, which is not true, so we can't use "for" or "so" here. Let's update the tense, but I don't like this version:

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. The Inquisition declared her innocent from an appeal on her condemnation.

Which could change to imply "condemnation" by the pointed out metonym "death" in the previous sentence.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her. The Inquisition declared her innocent from an appeal after her death.

Let's try to join these ideas again, and represent the time between the "centuries later" and "death."

Centuries later, the Church canonized her with her innocence as declared by the Inquistion from an earlier appeal after her death.

This almost works, but it needs clarity because "from" is vague with either the declaration or the canonization. This is why I had it, like:

Centuries later, the Church canonized her with her innocence as found by an earlier appeal after her death.

Which works. It doesn't distract the reader with too many dates. It leaves out some critical information, but such is already found elsewhere in the document. We could expand it and put some critical information back in, but that might be another distraction. I prefer the simplier form, for I know I can read further into the body text to get more details. The only problematic word here is the word "church," as it is vague for which church. Do we know of a specific group inside the church besides the pope that started the canonization? - Jhballard 20:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is the proposed sentence for reasons specifically stated above.

Centuries later, the Church canonized her with her innocence, found by an earlier appeal after her death.


Added a seperation to this talk, so we can focus on the issues. Instead of an answer to the question or comments about the sentence structures above, this was the discussion:

Hate do do a drive-by posting on this, but I don't have the time to delve deeply. I couldn't even make it past the first section of the main entry; the grammar was so poor as to be uncomprehensible. Lines like the one about the United States military combine errors of misplaced capitals, incorrectly applied objective case, and odd construction. It reads like it was translated poorly from an unfamiliar text. I'd edit that line, but it has no citation or source, so I have no idea what the true intent of it is. Please, please, please... Clean this up. Run it by a copy editor.

That part was added by JHBallard, who has steadily reverted all attempts to correct the grammar. (AWilliamson 03:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC))

In response, I checked further, and "United States Military" is the correct capitalization. The original quote may have come from Louis Kossuth and later adopted by the US military. A medal of St. Joan of Arc is given to honor women that have shown such spirit. "grammar was so poor," do tell. --- Jhballard 06:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Any native speaker of English can see why it's wrong - there shouldn't be any need to painstakingly argue the point. This has been going on for over a week now. (AWilliamson 03:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC))


Major edits without discussion

Seems an anonymous user did a major edit without bothering to look at the discussion page. Logged in as 205.188.116.203 entire sections were deleted, the summary was removed, and substantial portions of text were removed. I restored the last edit prior to this major edit with a note in my "Edit Summary" about engaging in discussino before a major edit.--Wjbean 01:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jhballard 02:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) wrote: I updated the text from the major edit by AWilliamson, and I explained every detail, mainly MLA style. I hope we can add more body text or links that refer within the text to add complete detail. I suspect it is the only way for this piece move towards npov.

Voices

Hearing voices is a sign of psychosis. How is Joan viewed by advocates of the "hearing voices means psychosis" schoold of thought? --Ed Poor

No, hearing voices that aren't there is a symptom of psychosis. You demonstrate that Joan's voices weren't there, and then we'll have a basis for discussion. -- isis 3 Sep 2002

The burden of proof surely lies with those who support a divine version of the story. They should demonstrate that there is a plausible mechanism for hearing voices (from where?!) that "are there" but have no external manifestation. -- Ashley - May 30 2004

See comments on this subject farther above.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Autobiography -> biography

Samuel Clemens wrote a fictional autobiography of Joan of Arc under the pen-name of Sieur Louis de Conte, forgoing his usual pen name of Mark Twain.

Somewhow, I don't think "autobiography" is the word that's wanted here.

Misc

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has two songs the subject of which are Joan of Arc: "Joan of Arc" and "Maid of Orleans." --Daniel C. Boyer


Question on execution

Some years ago, an article (sorry, no reference) appeared in the popular press, claiming that documentation had been found to show that a peasant woman was burned in Joan's place. Records of the execution are said to mention that the prisoner was shrouded and therefore not identifiable to the crowd. Joan was claimed to have been taken to The Netherlands, IIRC, where she lived a long life with no further involvement in politics. Evidently she was convinced to shut up and drop out, in return for which she was allowed to live. This claim seems to have sunk without a trace. I cannot recall the credentials of the people behind the story. Anyone?? TIA --LBlake


Picture thumb

I put that in as an easy way to get a caption. The picture does not currently show what it is of. Mark Richards 16:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


Three revert rule

Hello everyone. Switisweti and AWilliamson have been having an edit dispute over an external link to a controversial reconstructed painting. I'd like to propose that the link be left in the article. It does say that it is a reconstruction, and as such that automatically means to me that it is likely not to be 100% historically accurate. I see it as a harmless enough inclusion for people interested in such things. For example, in the T'ai Chi Ch'uan article there are several external links to schools that I know personally to be run by fraudulent, incompetent hacks, yet I suffer their presence because they are relatively well known fraudulent, incompetent hacks with hundreds and thousands of incompetent students and therefore notable. The reconstructed painting may or may not be fraudulent, but it is well known to Joan's aficionados, apparently. I will put in that it is a controversial reconstruction, will that do? A discriminating person should be able to make up their own mind on the issue if they have sufficient information. Regards, Fire Star 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Fire Star, I totally agree with you. This is a good solution. As I already proposed to AWilliamson, a few critical comments concerning this link shouldn't do any harm. Something like "the views displayed on this site are on debate", but just "controversial" will do too. And indeed it's a controversial painting, as is the text. But still, all relevant links should be included, devotive ones as well as critical or even controversial ones. Again: this is alright. Switisweti 00:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


----
First of all: the problem isn't with the portrait so much, but with the falsification of another historical issue in the accompanying text. I already covered this point when it was brought up on my talk page.

Why don't you just put a more elaborate comment next to the link to explain why that certain detail is a falsification in your opinion? Maybe others could respond to that and something like a consensus could grow from that. That's more worthwile than just ignoring and deleting.
Please see my comments on this farther below.


Secondly: the painting is not "well-known": it's something that was just recently made and put online by the site's owner. If you're implying that it has a historical value in its own right, then that certainly isn't the case.

But that's just your personal opinion as a self-proclaimed historian. Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please see my comments on this farther below.


Finally: If we need to include links to fraudulent information of this sort, then it would also be necessary to add links to sites claiming (for example) that Joan was English (which is an actual theory, believe it or not), or that she allegedly never played any role in the Hundred Years War, etc. Applying this principle to other subjects, the Napoleon article would need to be revised to reflect Charles Philipon's theory that Napoleon never existed, and so forth. The end result would be an "encyclopedia" which is merely a list of every conceivable absurd idea, with little or no educational value.

If all these so-called "absurt" ideas and theories were included — (naturally) well commented, that would be nice. That would in fact enrichen this encyclopedia! Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Given that 99% of the many thousands of sites on Joan of Arc are already being excluded from the "External Links" section, I have to ask why this specific site needs to be listed, especially given that it's one of the least accurate?

Please ad those 99%. The current list is one I too worked on, and I couldn't find any other sites (except for exact doublures). Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))


----------
To respond to Switisweti's comments:
Firstly, In answer to your edit comments on the article itself: The version promoted by the website in question was rejected by not only myself, but also Quicherat, Champion, Pernoud, DuParc, etc (... break by Switisweti, continues below)

I seriously thought Quicherat lived during the nineteenth century, but maybe I was wrong. Obviously Quicherat himself visited that particular link and he must have told you his findings. Maybe he still tells you his opinions from the afterlife. I guess you mean that Quicherat (as well as Champion and Pernoud, etc.) share your vision on your beloved Joan of Arc. Or even better: you agree with them, when you read their writings. You can't be serious about exactly knowing what these people would have thought about a particular web site. Anyway, your point is clear. You feel supported by these "friends" of yours. It's very funny and sweet in a certain way. I rest my case. I respect your persistence. Switisweti 23:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Why not include articles about those historians, BTW? I already made links: just click and write!)
As you know, the point was that since this site merely repeats an old and long-discredited version which was rejected by past as well as present historians, these experts debunked the old piece of fiction that the site's information is based on. This shouldn't need to be explained. AWilliamson 04:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(..)- the latter group being the chief historians who did the seminal groundwork on the subject, or who otherwise made important contributions. This wouldn't need to be explained to anyone who had researched the subject in any depth, since the above persons are recognized as among the most important scholars in this area, and their view is in fact the dominant view among reputable historians - a consensus has already been reached by experts. This website's version, on the other hand, is a variation of a fictional idea that was popularized by people such as the playwright George Bernard Shaw.
Secondly: A full explanation of the site's errors would be far too long for an external link entry. I already posted a summary of the evidence when this came up on my talk page.
Thirdly: the painting in question was, according to the site's own information, made by the site owner himself, rather than being a painting with a long and illustrious history in its own right. This isn't my "opinion", but rather the author's own description.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 04:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

The "Clothing" section

Needless to say, I do consider Rebroads's addition, in view of the debate that has been going on for a month now, and the mediation currently going going on, as highly problematic. (His edits on Talk:Transsexual and other things also make me wonder about his motive, but that seems a pointless route to pursue here and now.) I will refrain from editing the article unilaterally, though, since that would only hinder mediation as it would most certianly spur a heated reaction from Mr. Williamson. This of course only applies as long as mediation takes place. -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Current formatting

The formatting of the first paragraph did not fit with all other biographical articles. I have implemented standard Wikipedia formatting style. All commentary should be on the talk page, and not in the text of the article. Noisy | Talk 16:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


3RR

I am sorry, but I have had to report User:Jhballard for breaking the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Please note, Jhballard, that you don't "own" this page: other people have the right – and indeed responsibility – to improve the page, as well as yourself. Noisy | Talk 16:22, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Noisy, I have requested several times to discuss many different issues and changes with you. This is the only response I have received to date. Indeed, we all can improve the page. Consider the bulk of the article is not written by me, it impossible to see why you think I own the page. Is that your point, or do you really want to improve this page and continue with proper discussion instead of edit wars?

Merge Required

Article needs to be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc_%28historical_figure%29 , or one deleted, etc.

Regards, Neil

Joan of Arc (historical figure) put on vfd. Noisy | Talk 16:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


Joan of Arc (pbuh) Prophecy

Muslims claim that prophecy ended with a guy named Muhammad, and cases such as Joan of Arc could arguably disprove this claim (although Muslims, of course, would disagree...) Anyway, this Joan, for standing up for herself anyway, gets a "PBUH" in my book. 204.52.215.107 15:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

Historical representation

Expanded description and title of Mark Twain's fictionalized history of Joan of Arc. Reworded paragraph concerning the naming of French ships.--Wjbean 18:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Epilepsy theory

User Jehannette Why are my changes being deleted regarding Jehanne's epilepsy? I have documented why this may be so! Please stop deleting my edits! Joan of Arc COULD have had epilepsy. I have documented PUBLISHED RESEARCH on this!

Greetings, and welcome.
Aside from the reason already given by Switisweti, it is also the case that - as I believe other historians have pointed out before myself - the epilepsy theory is based on an erroneous or incomplete conception of how Joan's visions are described in the documents, thereby resulting in an erroneous theory. I'm currently writing up letters to send to the sites you listed (plus the academic journal which had a similar article) in order to correct their information: once given accurate information about Joan's case, I'm sure they will agree that epilepsy is not a feasible explanation, and will hopefully change their pages accordingly.
If necessary, I can also expand Wikipedia's article so that it gives a fuller accounting of what the evidence is on this point (without citing any specific explanation or personal interpretation of this evidence).
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 05:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC))

User Jehannette This is just nuts! The journal Epilepsia is a PEER-REVIEWED journal and the article that I list in the "links" section was written by two prominent neuroscientists from one of the most prominent research academic institutions in the world. Since I have cited published research for my claims, the edits should stand until you can provide evidence from the neuroscience community to the contrary. Again, I use the word “possibly”. Can you provide evidence that Jehanne’s experiences were NOT the result of epilepsy?? Sounds like a POV to me!

It can, and has, been proven that she did not have epilepsy - among others, Judy Grundy wrote a piece rejecting the notion, and (more importantly), the people you cited were basing their theory on entirely erroneous historical information about the person they were analyzing - they certainly may be experts on epilepsy, but they are not historians and their conception of the historical facts concerning their "patient" was based on misconceptions, resulting in a flawed diagnosis. I'll be sending the websites you mentioned the correct information, as well as sending a letter or short article submission to the academic journal in question. If any doubt remains after they see the valid evidence, I will discuss it with these people, not here at Wikipedia.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC))

(A long back-and-forth at this point has been moved to Talk:Joan_Of_Arc/Evidence_and_Style.)

However, Jehanette, do sign your entries properly, that is with -- ~~~~ , and two BR tags are completely unnecessary, too. And if you answer to something, use the appropriate number of colons in front of your answer. You are more likely to be taken seriously by others if you stick to established conventions. And those are not that difficult to learn, either :-) --AlexR 16:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well lets not get too testy here. As someone who enacted one of the reverts, in my defense, let me say that they really do look like vandalism (initially anonymous edits, overwriting seemingly valid parts of the article, etc.) However, at this point I will leave it up to people more knowledgeable than myself to decide whether or not to include this information --Cvaneg 18:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Write a seperate chapter about this epilepsy-theory with a lot of "may" and "could" etc. and incorporation of the information is fine. Not just a short remark between brackets in a section that covers a completely different subject. That's just to easy and looks like vandalism, especially when the edits are anon. Switisweti 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, fine, but why did you delete the entries that I added in the "external links" section? I will write a seperate chapter and submit it in a week or two. --Jehannette 21:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

descension summary

I saw some question about my ancestry being related to Joan of Arc. Here is a brief sequence of ancestry descent: Jacques D'Arc de Lys -> Pierre D'Arc de Lys -> Jeanne de Lys -> Marie le Fournier -> Nicolas de Marguerie -> Madelaine Marie de Maigen de Bretteville -> Nicholas de Launay -> Machael de Launay -> Louis Gervais deLaunay -> Louis Michael Antoine deLaunay -> Louis Jacques deLaunay -> Francis Van Bartel desIsles -> Adeline L. DesIsles -> Anna Emery Haynes -> Edna Haynes Goudey -> Lorraine Des Isles Mayer -> my mother -> me, Jhballard 07:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)