Talk:Joan of Arc/Cross-dressing-talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Original research? Somebody's school paper? Huh? RickK 06:48, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• She cross-dressed, it's true, but does this merit another article (after Joan of Arc). Delete. Mandel 07:30, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

• The content might be worth keeping, but not at this title. Delete as it stands. Deb 10:24, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• This seems to have arisen from a debate at Talk:cross-dresser as to whether Joan was technically a cross-dresser. The topic seems to be already covered in Joan of Arc, though not in so much detail. Possibly merge, at the risk of overemphasising one aspect of her trial at the cost of the rest. Certainly don't see any point keeping the title, which no-one is ever likely to type into the search box. I'd say careful merge and weak delete. Securiger 12:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• The article itself isn't badly written, but the terminology (esp. the title) is a problem for me. The term "cross dressing," in that it has has overtones of fetishistic behaviour in the service of sexual gratification, is somewhat misleading and can thereby be considered offensive by orthodox religionists. It seems Joan was a soldier, wearing military gear appropriate to that role, and only subsequently wore masculine clothing in an attempt to protect herself from the men around her, rather than for any modern concepts of challenging gender stereotypes... Delete. Fire Star 14:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changing my vote to redirect.Fire Star 15:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I already said in Talk:Cross-dressing, maybe many people entertain the false notion that cross-dressing necessarily has something to do with sex or fetishism, but certainly that cannot be an argument for writing Wikipedia articles according to this prejudice. Not the mention that Cross-dressing states more than clearly that this is not the case before the historical examples (including Joan) are even mentioned. It is Mr. Williamson and not Fire Starter who entertain the questionable notion that they can definitely and certainly tell why Joan of Arc cross-dressed, and who are pushing their points beyond any reasonable limits. -- AlexR 21:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see my response to this farther below. AWilliamson 01:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to Joan of Arc. Tuf-Kat 20:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
• Obviously not a school project or a text dump; it's cohesive, factual, and interesting info. If it's a little unwikified and unstandardized, it's because this is a new user whose first contribution was two days ago. Don't bite the newcomers!

  Regardless, this article really should be integrated into the Joan of Arc article, with no redirect needed because no one is ever likely to search under the current title. Delete, after the original author has a chance to merge the content. • Benc • 23:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I quite agree, User:AWilliamson has the makings of a solid contributor. Fire Star 00:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Do not redirect. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 01:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  How is this not encyclopedic? —siroχo

---

I'm the author of this article, and yes, it was an attempted compromise re: an ongoing and seemingly interminable debate over another article here on Wikipedia. While RickK certainly has a valid point with regard to its status as a separate article, I nevertheless would ask that he would take the circumstances into consideration and allow us to work out the issue.
A brief background: the purpose of this new page was to address precisely the issue that Fire Star rightly alluded to above - i.e., the original article being debated (entitled "Cross-Dresser") had misleadingly implied that Joan of Arc wore male clothing as a fetish or personal preference, etc, and this new text was intended to serve as a linked side-page explaining in detail why the label might give people the wrong impression. I would much prefer to take her name off the main article entirely and thereby eliminate the need for an explanatory side-page, which Stbalbach had also agreed with; but there is one editor (AlexR) who is obstructing all attempts to change the main article, as he apparently is also doing in at least one other current (and enormous) discussion as well.
Finally: I appreciate the kind words from Benc and Fire Star, although I would point out that I would be able to contribute more of the historical information I was originally planning to write for Wikipedia if the process was less frustrating. When making even the smallest change can result in becoming embroiled in endless bickering, it creates an impossible situation. Surely this is not how it's supposed to work. ( AWilliamson - Allen Williamson, historian, Joan of Arc Archive ) 02:33, 11 Oct 2004

Than you for the slander, but I - unlike you - never made any statements as to Joans reasons for cross-dressing, since knowing them is simply impossible. The article and my contributions also never stated that Joan wore them as a fetish, for sexual gratifications or whatever. Male clothing might have been her personal preference (non-sexually, just as some women today prefer them), but then again, they might not -- as I said, impossible to say (The article does not say they might be, just for the record, and never did, either.). I also did not obstruct any changes, on the contrary, I had the article title changed from Cross-dresser to Cross-dressing because obviously the first title lead to misunderstandings, and I rewrote it, and made particularly certain that it was clear that no motives for historical persons are stated. The only ones who constantly state motives for Joan and threreby make the article POV are Mr. Williamson and now Fire Starter.

Oh, and BTW, what other debate are you refering to? And can you really judge whether I am bickering there or whether I may have a point? 'Cause if you can't, then why do you mention it? -- AlexR 21:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see my response to this farther below. AWilliamson 01:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Thanks for the explanation, AWilliamson, I accept your reasoning. I look forward to further contributions from you. Email me, if you wish, for further comments. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Joan of Arc. EDIT: I'll support delete once this info has found its proper home, probably in the Joan of Arc article. —siroχo 03:49, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong, strong delete. This trend towards creating a new article when there's an edit war over the main one is really problematic. Don't let it spread. Ambi 07:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  I certainly agree with that notion in general, but to outright delete info from the encyclopedia like this is disturbing. This information should be kept under this title until it finds a better home, not deleted because of an edit war! —siroχo 07:44, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep or merge. _R_ 12:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• This is encyclopedic information under a non-encyclopedic article title. Merge into Joan of Arc and delete -- and incidentally, some of Talk:Cross-dressing (notably the part mentioning "laces and points") should probably come with it. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:17, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Joan of Arc. Information is good, well written. Just doesn't deserve its own article. — Gwalla | Talk 02:39, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Redundant material. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  Redundant with what? There are only one or two sentences in Joan of Arc alluding to what is explained here. —siroχo

Since the original use that this article was supposed to serve has now been bypassed (it's been simply ignored during the debate, along with all other attempts to compromise), the discussion over deletion is unnecessary. Go ahead and delete it - I plan to add similar material, but trimmed down to a feasible size, to the Joan of Arc article. I was hoping to have already modified that article significantly by now, by adding more substantial information on a variety of issues as well as correcting some of the inaccuracies in the current version; followed perhaps by edits to articles dealing with 15th century history in general; but the abovementioned debate has left me no time, and has implied that even the smallest edit may lead to weeks of senseless debate.
I may be eccentric, but it has occurred to me that if the bickering on Wikipedia was a bit less relentless, I think we'd all get a lot more material added. AWilliamson 13:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Usually no such bickering occurs. However, attempts to insert ones personal prejudices and POVs into articles do quite guarantee longish debates - but maybe you could simply avoid that in the future and do some usefull work? -- AlexR 21:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see my response to this farther below. AWilliamson 01:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Merge. --209.94.128.82 18:33, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• merge, no redirect Wolfman 18:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and condense/merge with JofA. No redirect. The "cross dressing" portion of the title has modern connotations which may not apply. Is the topic really significant enough to warrant its own article?--NathanHawking 20:33, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
• Merge Redirect is technically needed for ease of linking or searching, after the merge it won't be needed, will it? BACbKA 22:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete For reasons already more than once explained in Cross-dressing and Talk:Cross-dressing, the article is very much POV, and should therefore be deleted. Claiming, as Mr. Williamson constantly does, that he can make a definite statements that Joan cross-dressed out of pure necessity is ridiculous. -- AlexR 21:25, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to make a few brief points in response to AlexR's latest comments: 1) I think any reasonable individual can see that citing documented evidence is not "POV", but is in fact simply a matter of properly citing what the preponderance of this evidence states; and whether some people like it or not, the evidence states repeatedly that necessity was her motive.

I never objected to the quotes, I merely state that one cannot (with any historical person) take any quotes at face value, again, I stated the reasons for that often enough. Claiming that the quotes are to be taken at vace value is POV, not the quotes themselfes. [AR]

Please see my response farther below. AWilliamson 02:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2) Anyone who looks at AlexR's previous activities, such as in "List of transgendered people", will find that there are, in fact, other cases in which he kept fighting against a broad consensus view and was additionally accused of making personal attacks against his opponents.

Errrr.... Broad consensus I was fighting against? There was one person who objected to the use of one word he did not understand, but there was neither a broad consensus on removing that bit, nor was I the only person who wanted the information to remain in the article. And accusing somebody of personal attacks is a nice way of saying "I don't have any arguments, but I am not finished here.", nothing else. As you ought to know, since, instead of answering to my arguments, your arguments now mainly consist of these accusations. [AR]

Please see my response farther below. AWilliamson 02:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3) Given the fact that his position in "Cross-dressing" has been opposed (for one reason or another) by several different persons, I think everyone can see what's going on here.

I could not care less how many people oppose my position, because the opponents lack arguments. My "opponents" all claim that it is somehow indicating some sexual deviance, a fethish and/or a gender issue (seems to be no big difference between the first two and the last, either) having Joan of Arc in an article about cross-dressing, without at the very least stating clearly that she had a "honorable" motive for doing so. (Strange enough, BTW, that nobody ever debated the other people named as examples.) I do indeed think everybody can see that. I just don't think it is a justifyable position. And until you actually at least try to understand what I am saying, instead of just answering to what you think I am saying (or, more often, not at all), you will hardly be able to convince me of your point of view. -- AlexR 02:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to address your points in one spot, for convenience.

Concerning the evidence, and your arguments against it: I just responded to this (again) in the Cross-Dressing discussion - I had in fact previously addressed your arguments many times before, and did so yet again in the most recent post.

Concerning the points you made on the issue of consensus: In the other discussion I referred to, I could see quite a number of people arguing against your position - including Ortolan88, jguk, and others who merely wanted an obscure term to be defined in the article, and yet were met by your constant resistance to this small and common-sense change. But more to the point, we certainly have had a situation of that sort in the Cross-Dressing dispute. AWilliamson 02:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is, needless to say, an incorrect summary of the debate. I just hope Mr. Williamson reads his historical sources with less preconcieved notions in mind than he shows when he refers to anything I said. I leave it to the reader to read that debate by themselves and judge for themselves. -- AlexR 10:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, indeed: a few days ago, I invited people to see for themselves what the debates in question have been like. AWilliamson 01:18, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as I said a few days ago, I think the article should be deleted for other reasons. AWilliamson 01:08, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion