Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 1

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please, let's focus on progress.

Part of this archive is a fork from this page: Talk:Joan of Arc/Evidence and style

Subpages

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)

Military Stuff

Ahoy. I've been silently lurking as the page has steadily improved since I stumbled upon it in December (see the bottom half of Talk:Joan_of_Arc/NPOV). While some of the issues I pointed out at the time are still there (though they are improving!), there is something else I would like to bring up. The middle section detailing Joan's Visions and Missions is a tad muddled with in regards to her military conquests and their significance. A different section with more detail would certainly be cool. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 05:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saints

"Eventually, the Roman Catholic church canonized her as a saint on May 16, 1920."

What about a List of Catholic saints burned by the Church? ;-) --zeno 22:48, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS: Just kidding - I did not want to offend anyone's religious feelings ...

Formally, the Church didn't burnt them. At least with the Inquisitions, sinners were "relaxed to the secular arm", the civil (or militar) authorities. "The Church does not shed blood". But I don't remember another case of a Christian saint martyrized by a same-confession Chutch. Maybe Thomas Beckett? Have some repressed Jesuit or Templar become saint? -- Error 00:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

One of Joan of Arc's unique distinctions is that no one else has been both condemned and sainted by the Roman Catholic Church. Durova 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Trial question

I have heard that during her trial, Joan faced a question on heresy designed to trip her up, and I would like confirmation or refutation of the story. She was asked by the inquisitors whether she was in a state of grace. Answering "no" would mean she was a heretic and worthy of death. Answering "yes" would be presuming to know the mind of God, in itself a heresy also worthy of death. Joan neatly evaded death by replying, "if I am in a state of grace, I have only God to thank for it, and if I am not, I pray to God that he help me achieve it." I always thought this story a good example of her intelligence, which she must have also exhibitted in her battle tactics (if she in fact led the battles, of which I am also uncertain). Can anyone confirm this tale? --zandperl 01:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm the question and answer. From an English translation of the transcript of her third public examination:

"Do you know if you are in the grace of God?"

"If I am not, may God place me there; if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest in all the world if I knew that I were not in the grace of God. But if I were in a state of sin, do you think the Voice would come to me? I would that every one could hear the Voice as I hear it. I think I was about thirteen when it came to me for the first time."

-- Paul Murray, 6 Sep 2004

In French :
— Êtes-vous en état de grâce ?
— Si je n'y suis pas, que Dieu m'y mette ; si j'y suis, que Dieu m'y garde.
Quite intelligent for a so-called "peasant". Inspired by the Holy Spirit, this answer leads the Church to think she was in the grace of God. Gwalarn 12:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- Mike Corbeil, 9 Nov 2005

Re. Paul Murray's entry, his is one interpretation, but maybe another possible one is that while perhaps she was not literally acting under the Grace of God, in the warring, say, well, for Christians God is Forgiving and she would have had access to this grace, if she was sincere about the request or desire. What Paul Murray says seems, I believe anyway, to be the normal immediate interpretation, but given that none of us knows God very much, maybe this other possibly valid take is fitting.

Blocked user

Hello everyone. I recently (by request) blocked a user for repeatedly removing content from the article without edit summary or discussion. This user then contacted me, and (sort of) explained why he was doing what he was doing. I gave him a list of links explaining our policy, and unblocked him a few hours later. I will keep an eye on things, and if necessary will block the IP again if what comes from it appears to be vandalism. Fire Star 03:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe I am that user. I removed religious propaganda from the article. I have no idea how to to an "edit summary" or "discussion" since all the help pages mention these things but there is apparently no link to do that that I can find.

I put an explanation in the body of the article since I can't find any other place.

I received no email from you answering my question: is this encyclopedia an actual encyclopedia or is it a right wing religious propaganda medium? If such unscientific and blatantly mythological statements are allowed in articles, then obviously this place is a mouthpiece for such viewpoints and I can stop trying to remove superstitious statements.

That would be a pity since this is otherwise a cool place.

Neither did I receive an email with links explaining anything. The help pages here are circular and only lead back to themselves and insanely long lists that are useless.

Hi Favedave, I sent this message to User talk:69.239.114.85, and I'll send it to your new talk page, as well. it will explain a lot about how we do things. Because we report on religious things, doesn't mean we espouse them. Our policy of NPOV is our "prime directive."

"Greetings. If you are the Favedave who sent me an email message, then you were blocked for removing sections of the Joan of Arc article multiple times in one day without any communication from you, even when the other editors asked you not to in their edit summaries. I realise that you are new to Wikipedia, so you will be forgiven quite a bit, and I hope you end up liking the place and sticking around, but your aggressive tone in the email message to me, things like "And it's obviously not (an encyclopaedia) if your primitive religious views trump all else" needs to be modified if you are going to edit successfully here. Wikipedia is run by consensus, so there were other reasons for the reversions of your removals, reasons you should consider and discuss if you want your edits to remain relatively unmolested. I will shorten your block time, but in the meantime please review the following links in order to help your sojourn at Wikipedia be more productive.

Regards,

Fire Star 23:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

-Fire Star 13:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charles VII & Reasons for Retrial

I remember reading (sources escape me at the moment) that a (main) reason for Charles VII's retrial of Joan was to "prove" that Joan was innocent of the charges raised against her, to legitimize her actions that ultimately led to his coronation. By legitimizing her, his position was legitimized. Similarly, his position could be damaged if his coronation was perceived to be enabled by a heretic. (Ok, that was kinda involved, i hope the reasoning came across more or less intact.) Any thoughts? YggdrasilsRoot 18:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS:(and i won't belabor the NPOV issues in the article, since it seems to be a touchy topic)

Charles VII didn't retry Joan of Arc. He did petition the pope to reopen the case. Her mother made a similar petition. Twenty-four years after Joan of Arc's death Charles VII's rulership was well established. Her retrial coincided with the conclusion of the war in his favor.

Ample documentary evidence demonstrates the English government's active role ensuring her initial condemnation. The extent to which Charles VII influenced the retrial is entirely a matter of conjecture. It's reasonable to suppose some witnesses hoped to please the victorious regime. It's also reasonable to suppose Charles VII declined to interfere in a papal investigation. No surviving records indicate he did more than ask for a retrial. Durova 02:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Visions section, NPOV, and accuracy

There are competing historical theories here:

Joan of Arc and others around her encountered supernatural phenomena, and accounts of these events have been passed down to us over the ages.
Joan of Arc was insane, delusional, or a chronic liar. Accounts of others sharing in her visions are the result of exaggeration through re-telling or religious fervor; mental illness; fraud; white lies in support of one's faith; confusion or hallucination through the power of suggestion, confirmation bias, religious excitement, or other natural psychological phenomena.

From the first sentence:

Many contemporary attempts to explain Joan's visions have been based on the commonly-held belief that her visions were described merely as auditory sensations which only she could hear.

to the last:

It can be pointed out that if this has a natural explanation, it certainly cannot be any known form of mental illness or hallucination.

...as currently written, this section sounds like it's debunking the idea that Joan of Arc was insane, hinting at a supernatural explanation. It needs to be corrected so that it's neutral between the two theories. The rewriting process would be easier if we had some more details about the claims that are made...

The mental conditions suggested include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and even temporal lobe epilepsy.

Who makes those suggestions? Can we name any professional mental health experts?

historical documents state flatly that other people (e.g., the Count of Clermont, Guy de Cailly, etc) could simultaneously experience her visions.

Which documents would those be? Can we get some excerpts?

Doctors have examined some of the descendants of her family and found no evidence for a genetic mental illness.

Can we get specifics here? References?

References on these facts would not only help verify accuracy, but also help expand the article and provide external sources for more information and context for interested editors and readers. -- Beland 3 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Previous discussion, since archived, points to this journal article: Epilepsia. 1991 Nov-Dec;32(6):810-5. (abstract)

I also happened to find mention of her here.

AWilliamson said: 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 see this article here. -- Beland 4 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

See [1]. Page references within this large HTML document appear to refer to pages for the original transcript. For reports of shared visions, page 92 provides a suitable excerpt. Elsewhere refer to 51, 96, and especially 106-109.

Asked whether the clergy of her party saw the sign, she answered that when her king and those of his company had seen it and also the angel that bore it, she asked her king if he were content, and he replied yes. And then she left, and went to a little chapel hard by, and heard that after her departure more than three hundred people saw the sign.

Licensed medical and psychological professionals usually refuse to attempt diagnosis of people they never met. Conservative exceptions exist: Einstein's brain was preserved for science, medical reports regarding George Gershwin's brain tumor remain available, and DNA evidence resolved a well-publicized debate about Thomas Jefferson's African-American descendants. It might be interesting to compare the bone fragment at Chinon against DNA from Joan of Arc's modern relatives.

Beneath that level it becomes imperative to note that publication and peer review standards for "diagnosis" of historic figures are far more lenient than for case studies of living people. A historian needs no specialized training or physician's approval to impute any malady under the dignified heading of scholarship. Few lay readers know this. Hence the public grants far more weight to some armchair diagnoses than the hypotheses really deserve.

Occasionally some instance calls out for attention. Harriet Tubman exhibited classic symptoms of narcolepsy. Joan of Arc is not another such example. Among other objections, it is hard to suppose that an army of veteran soldiers would pursue repeated frontal assaults at the urging of a standard bearer who had untreated schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The temporal lobe epilepsy hypothesis is somewhat more intriguing.

I favor the approach of Regine Pernoud and Marie Veronique-Clin in "Joan of Arc: Her Story" and Kelly deVries in "Joan of Arc: A Military Leader." Sidestep the issue. The abstract nature of Joan of Arc's visions sheds little light on most other issues surrounding her career. It respects all points of view to note that she appeared quite intelligent to her contemporaries, evidently held sincere faith in her visions, and lived in a time and place that regarded such experiences as rare but possible. Durova 10:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Support. E.g. the statement that "the mental conditions suggested include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and even temporal lobe epilepsy" is too flat. Brandmeister 13:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Credulity

(previous discussion on the same section)

"As written in the testimony, Joan also stated that these visions often took solid, physical form that she and other people could see and touch. Doctors have examined some of the descendants of her family and found no evidence for a genetic mental illness. It can be pointed out that if this has a natural explanation, it certainly cannot be any known form of mental illness or hallucination."

This is ridiculous - to take at face value what was written some hundreds of years ago by people entirely convinced of the existance of God and entirely unscientific in their approach towards such matters which are hardly well-understood today, let alone then! Toby Douglass 00:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

That section was added in order to address certain modern medical theories which argue - according to the theorists themselves - that "if one accepts the descriptions of her visions at face value" (or words to that effect) then these allegedly describe private visions which could therefore be hallucinations brought on by schizophrenia or other such disorders. The article merely points out that these descriptions actually do _not_ say that her visions were private or exclusive to herself, a point which needs to be stated if theories ostensibly based on these descriptions are to be addressed.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 02:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Have taken the initiative of removing this text Doctors have examined some of the descendants of her family and found no evidence for a genetic mental illness. It can be pointed out that if this has a natural explanation, it certainly cannot be any known form of mental illness or hallucination. for reasons stated, no discernable evidence, NPOV, no references found Sherurcij July 7, 2005 03:49 (UTC)

Pants against rape?

An anonymous user has been revising my edits on the subject of the clothes of Joan of Arc. This user has been protecting a section that was initially written by AWilliamson, the self-claimed expert on saint Joan. I question the claim Joan supposedly made herself about her "pants" being the only protection against rape. Indeed the sources say these "pants" (or hose) were tied to her doublet. That was just a normal thing for male clothes (men didn't wear a belt to hold their pants up, they just tied it to their doublet; belts were only used to carry stuff around, like sword and knife). In her case there were 20 laces. I don't question these details. However, the debate is on two things:

Is it believable that a piece of cloth could protect a girl from rape? In other words: is a girl in a skirt more vulnerable to male aggression than a girl in jeans? I think this is a biased male idea: it comes close to the idea that girls in skirts ask to be raped.

Did these "pants" consist of two separate hose, leaving the crotch and bottom exposed (only covered by the end of the shirt underneath the doublet and all upper garment), or did they consist of one single cloth? If the hose did not cover crotch and bottom, the claim of protection doesn't hold. She would just be even more vulnerable!

This anonymous user has put forward a source saying the pants were one single cloth. However, this source is (again) a biased source, since it specialises on the subject of (saint) Joan of Arc. It's not an independent source. I now could gather all kinds of sources on the Internet saying the "pants" were separate pieces, but that's not how Wikipedia should work, at least not in my opinion. I therefore seek assistance from real experts on medieval clothing, especially on clothing of the early 15th century.

I' don't want to experience another edit war with this anonymous user (as I assume it is AWilliamson all over again that has been using this IP number: correct me if I'm wrong). — HAJARS 09:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but pants started as separate hose and then as hose joined in the back. The front was left open so that the man could attend to sanitary functions. Later, as the doublet grew shorter, men were required to wear codpieces to hide their genitals. Codpieces were certainly used well into the 16th century (see any picture of Henry VIII) so it seems doubtful that Joan would have gained much protection from a determined rapist. That having been said, Joan may well have believed that she was being protected by the tight laces. Can't we have a statement that just says that this may the reason she wore them? Then we don't have to determine exactly what she wore and whether it was effective. –Shoaler (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

All I like to have included in both the Joan of Arc and Cross-dressing articles is a little bit of doubt about the effectiveness of these "pants" against rape. Since a anonymous user has reverted my edits again in the section about her clothes (different IP number, same devoted user, I bet it's Allen, to shy to identify himself), I refrain from reverting those back again. I don't want to brake the 3RR. The statement you are proposing sounds just allright to me! HAJARS 21:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have modified the item in Cross-dressing removing speculation about whether male clothing at the time was effective in preventing rape and focused on her fear of being raped. That was her stated motivation. Whether it was effective or not is something only she knew. –Shoaler (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

How could it possibly be cross-dressing when one considers the medival version of panties were worn. The so-called trial was more of a cast of fear by the thugs to continue to wear a dress or be burned. Yes, the thugs wanted to easily rape and pillage. Unforntunately, "rape and pillage" originated as an English phrase. --- Mr. Ballard 01:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Category Choice

I have to argue that Category:Wrongfully convicted people is a poor category for Joan of Arc, since it consists solely of modern examples of national judicial courts (separate from any church) who have found people like David Milgaard or the Birmingham Six guilty. Joan is a much different example, having been a combatant against the country. It could be argued that many saints fit the mould for 'wrongfully convicted', but I think we should leave that category unstained by arguments of which religion's martyrs were or weren't examples of wrongfully convicted people. Sherurcij 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Tone

Just added a tag about the tone of this article. I see to much devotion for Saint Joan. I like to see more about the historical facts of a story about a human girl, a bit more critical if possible. — HAJARS 22:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm neither a Catholic nor one who goes in too much for faith, etc. but I don't see too much trouble with the current tone, perhaps it's been changed since you posted. Sure there's some stuff about ths St-Jeanne as you put it, but that is after all the primary reason she is known to us today. She's not a remembered historical figure because she was a random illiterate Orleanais wench that Milla Jovovich decided to play in a movie, her relevance is as a political-religious legend-myth both in her time and in ours. Other than perhaps as a study of mental illness or spiritual posession the girl herself is not really all that exceptional. Gabe 02:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

All that crap about her being an army commander. What's that about then? 213.148.229.209 13:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[2], [3]. Some of the original source material is available online in English translation. From excerpts of her rehabilitation trial see the testimony of [4] Sieur de Gaucourt, Gobert Thibaut, Simon Baucroix, and Simon Charles. In [5] see especially Jean count of Dunois. Also note Jean Luillier, Thibaud d'Armagnac, and Aignan Viole. [6] Louis de Contes (her page) and duke Jean of Alencon are two more important witnesses. Also note father Jean Pasquerel (her confessor). Jean d'Aulon (her squire)[7] was one of her closest companions in battle. Durova 17:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Joan's propaganda use

One quick correction -- the opening paragraph says that Joan was used by 'allied' propaganda in both World Wars, but neglects to say that she was used extensively by the Vichy government during WWII, probably more than by the allies.

Changes

I've made some alterations:

1.

She was said to have convinced Charles to believe in her by relating a private prayer that he had made the previous 1 November, although he additionally insisted on having her examined for three weeks by theologians at Poitiers before granting final acceptance.

Only one witness supports this hagiographical claim. (See the rehabilitation trial excerpts I cite above). This statement also implies that the theological examination was her only test. Charles also sent agents to her home region and commissioned his mother-in-law to confirm Jeanne's good character. I've deleted the above and inserted the following:

She won Charles's confidence in a private conference. He verified her morality with background inquiries and a theological examination at Poitiers.

2.

She arrived at the besieged city of Orléans on April 29, 1429. After several English fortifications were taken from May 4–May 7, the remaining English forces were pulled from their siege lines on May 8.

Far too much of this article is in the passive voice. My insertion corresponds to testimony of half a dozen eyewitnesses at her trial of rehabilitation.

After French forces drove the English from lesser fortifications May 4 – May 7, they attacked the main English stronghold on May 8. Contemporaries acknowledged Jeanne as the hero of the engagement after she pulled an arrow from her own shoulder and returned wounded to lead the final charge.

3.

An attack on the city finally came on September 8, but ended in disaster when Jeanne was shot in the leg and the attack was called off against her will.

See the retrial testimony and deVries.

Despite a crossbow bolt wound to the leg she continued directing the troops until the day's fighting ended. The following morning she received a royal order to withdraw.

Other: Inserted the requested fictional works list above with Twain added. Modern political symbolism expanded. Changed footnote #1. Would prefer to delete it altogether. Joan of Arc did not know her own exact age. Only one of 115 witnesses at her retrial claimed to remember her birthdate. Citing a major feast without better evidence looks hagiographic.

Added the following under Clothing:

When questioned about her clothing during her condemnation trial she referred the court to the Poitiers inquiry. That record no longer survives. Circumstances suggest the Poitiers clerics approved her choice as one of the exceptions to Biblical clothing law.

Edited the subsequent bullet point for clarity without changing its tone.

At the beginning of Trial and Execution: 1.

An attempt to lift the siege lsid to the city of Compiègne on May 23 led to her capture by Burgundian troops when she and her soldiers were trapped outside the city.

Less passive and per testimony from both trials:

An attempt to lift the siege of the city of Compiègne on May 23 led to her capture. When she ordered a retreat she assumed the place of honor as the last to leave the field. Burgundians surrounded the rear guard.

2.

Several sources state that Charles demanded that she be ransomed back to her own side, but the Burgundians refused. Instead, she was transferred to their English allies in exchange for the usual monetary compensation common in such transfers, with the hand-over being entrusted to Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais and counselor for the English occupation government.

No source indicates Charles made any attempt to ransom her. Neither did he ransom his own cousins the dukes of Orleans and Alencon. Rehabilitation trial testimony records three escape plots. In the one I mention several witnesses agree about the distance of the fall.

It was customary for a war captive's family to raise a ransom. Jeanne's relatives lacked the funds. Many historians condemn Charles for failing to intervene. Jeanne attempted several escapes, on one occasion leaping from a 70 foot tower to the soft earth of a dry moat. The English government eventually purchased her from duke Philip of Burgundy. Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan, assumed a prominent role in these negotiations and her later trial.

Apparently there was a real controversy about this article several months back. I'll await the opinions of more experienced members before making further changes. In general my view is:

The article needs polishing for brevity, clarity, and syntax.
Modern French Jeanne d'Arc isn't much more accurate than our English Joan of Arc. I'd revert to custom. Issues surrounding her acutal name are trivial but complex. One could argue for Jeanette Romee, Jehanne la Pucelle, and Jehanne du Lys. The surname Darc had several alternate spellings including Dart, Tart, and Tard.
Sometimes the tone takes shades of emotion inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Certainly the condemnation trial was a kangaroo court. Its coverage needn't be resentful.
Relevant religious history is well researched. However, the depth of this particular discussion raises questions about balance. I'd like to edit out redundancies in the trial and clothing discussions. If space permits I'd expand a few other matters such as the debate about military policy following the victory at Orleans and the political significance of the coronation.

Durova 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Your changes (either already made or suggested) are very much appreciated! Please edit boldly! As I mentioned at #Tone this article should be polished to fit an encyclopedia. - HAJARS 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

An anonymous user made some alterations to my update and a third user sent me a message that my update had been restored. To the anonymous user: please feel welcome to message me regarding your concerns. Durova 01:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Noticed this code note on the editing page regarding Joan of Arc's birthdate. Not sure whether it's new:

!---it's the 6th or the 16th, but to choose either one today is obviously POV as either one has no solid proof, see note 1---

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/joanofarc-trial.html p. 38

Asked how old she was, she replied she thought nineteen.

All but one of the witnesses at her trial of rehabilitation give a similar formulaic answer: nineteen, or thereabouts (see Monstrelet).

The doubt is not about some particular date in January, but about whether she was even born that year. She came from humble origins in an era when few people were literate. Birth records were a rarity. Since Joan herself and 114 other witnesses do not know her precise age and one witness cites the Epiphany, it becomes a matter of faith to believe she was born on the Epiphany. I respect that as a personal belief (and that would make it the the 6th). As publishing matter it belongs in the Catholic Encyclopedia rather than here. Durova 06:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are birth records for Jeanne d'Arc which were traditionally written in the books of the preists. An order to reveal the d'Arc descension further supports the date. The record show January 16th. On the bit about the Feast of Epiphany, someone recalled that Jeanne's madre was seen with labor pains. That obviously confused the history to make people think she was born on Feast of Epiphany, the 6th. Anyways, the note is there to prevent a revert war against the date. ---- Mr. Ballard 15:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone has located Joan of Arc's birth record please post a citation. Neither trial record shows any indication of it. Citing a later document is not convincing: it arguably copies the one witness who remembered the Epiphany.

The tradition you mention is a later custom. Few people of European descent can trace their ancestry beyond the sixteenth century. Earlier eras recorded births only for the elite. Joan's large number of godfathers and godmothers is evidence against such a record ever having been made: the older custom was to provide enough witnesses to testify if her baptism ever came into question. This was the main legal concern surrounding a birth to a small village in her era. Durova 18:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Review Descension Summary for a trace. The books of the priests were started well before the retrial. ---- Mr. Ballard 19:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, according to custom her family's descent would be recorded from the following generation onward. Charles VII ennobled them during her lifetime. This adds nothing to our understanding of her own birth.

I'm not sure what you mean by the books of the priests were started well before the retrial. Certainly her career in public life was well documented. If you can produce an original record of her birth I will reverse my position. My point is that accepted standards of historiography give primacy to contemporary documents over summaries written several generations later. Most historians who consider this question at all discuss only the 6th for that reason. You have not answered my objections raised above. Please refer to my citations. The evidence on this point is overwhelming.

Noticed the following:

--- NOTE: do not delete this note, it is to prevent revert wars on the date, her birthday is said to be the 6th or the 16th, unless you have a time machine to go back and find the exact truth, do not delete this note ---

I'd been warned that emotions run high on this board. I would like to reassure all concerned that I have no ideological axe to grind. I have already added text in favor of her sainthood under the Clothing discussion. I will continue to do so where good scholarship permits.

There are well-documented occasions where the record confounds non-Catholic scholars. To summarize two:

Joan won the confidence of Robert de Baudricourt with a revelation. To challenge her claim of divine visions he asked her what was happening on Orleans that very day. She answered that a terrible defeat was taking place. A few days later when news arrived he discovered that she had been right: their interview had taken place the same day as the Battle of the Herrings, a serious defeat and the only significant engagement since the start of the siege. Baudricourt was a war-hardened captain and a skeptic, yet he found this so extraordinary that he granted her request to meet the dauphin.

At Chinon and at Poitiers Joan declared that she would give a sign of her mission at Orleans. During the final engagement she pulled an arrow from deep in her own shoulder and returned wounded to lead the final charge. Modern films such as Braveheart notwithstanding, this was almost unheard-of. Richard the Lion-Hearted had received an identical wound two centuries earlier, responded just as she did, and died of infection three weeks later.

My intention in removing the citation about her birth is not to disparage anyone's faith but to apply a uniform standard of analysis. If we advance this very weak position then we embark on the slippery slope where other doubtful interpretations seek attention, such as the arguments that she was a Protestant or a homosexual. I would rather not go there.

Please refrain from sarcastic comments. That tone is inappropriate in a scholarly discussion.

Another re-edit:

Several sources (such as the Morosini documents) state that Charles demanded that she be ransomed back to her own side, but the Burgundians refused.

From Joan of Arc: Her Story by Regine Pernoud and Marie-Veronique Clin, pp. 97-98:

Morosini, who had left Bruges on December 15, wrote to Venice as recorded in his Journal: "One heard first that the lady had been in the hands of the duke of Burgundy, and many men said that the English would buy her for money, but at that news Charles sent them an embassy to alert them that he would never consent to such a deal; if they persisted, he would give similar treatment to those of her men whom he held hostage." The slight tremor of this passage is the sole piece of evidence for the suggestion that Charles VII made any effort on Joan's behalf. Even here there is no claim that he himself attempted to ransom Joan, but only to prevent her delivery to the enemy. No documentary evidence suggests that the king offered a ransom or made any effort whatsoever to free Joan of Arc.

Pernoud is perhaps the most prolific and respected scholar of Joan of Arc of the twentieth century. Her opinion is by no means singular. In addition to her comments one should note that Niccolo Morosini was quoting hearsay. He was a Vienese merchant in Bruges on business. No documentary evidence records that Charles made good on this purported threat.

I will gladly engage in reasonable discussion. That said, there is a limit to the amount of time one can spend countering irrelevant, nonexistent, or misread citations. Durova 22:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The ennoblement of the family by Charles VII only helped the d'Arc descension record. The priests recorded the births. Of completely original records, I have a bible stored away that has some generations of my family tree written into it like another book part of one bible. It's the same tradition previous generations performed, but the books belonged to the churchs. I've read the books were researched late 16th century for the records. I've also seen people state that they still exist. What happened to the books, however, between the 16th century and now is a good question. What does exist in my hand is the copy of the descension passed down since the trace of de Lys. The traces are done because ancestors got married to non-nobles, and the non-nobles needed documentation to prove that they married into a noble family and deserve the noble title by marriage.

About "the record confounds non-Catholic scholar," that is a prejudgement. That would only work that those that hear such voices and relate such revelations are only catholic followers. Modern biotechnology proves that one doesn't have to be a catholic follower or be insane to hear voices or relate revelations. As for the arrow, even if one believes the coincidence is a sign, it doesn't mean it was only a rendered catholic sign. ---- Mr. Ballard 22:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the second matter, I agree there are medically documented cases of sane people having religious visions. See the above discussion of temporal lobe epilepsy. Other neurological disturbances to the right temporal lobe can result in complex hallucinations. (See the Physician's Desk Reference) A thoroughgoing skeptic might suppose she had a head trauma or a low grade brain tumor. These hypotheses can explain her sincerity and her sanity but not the miraculous (or very nearly miraculous) truth of her predictions. Either she must be taken at her word or she was a singularly lucky, brave, and robust young woman. She was all of these things anyway - but to a skeptic much more so.

Regarding the first matter, you are repeating yourself. If you wish to continue please respond to these unanswered points:

Joan of Arc could only approximate her own age.

Mode. Has any asked if everybody of that era knew their age exactly? Did they make calendars to put everywhere like they do now? Those questions haven't been answered. If I say "I'm about 19," that is an approximation. Did they expect someone to know the exact years, months, and days? - mr. B

All but one of the witnesses at her retrial could only approximate her age.

How did they know their ages exactly? Did they live in the same manner as her? Did they have access to a calendar more often? To many unknowns still. - mr. B

No surviving document of her birth has survived.

Do you claim that the books of the priests and any transcript from them are all gone? I do have a trace on hand. - mr. B

No surviving copy of such a document survives from the century in which she lived.

See above. - mr. B

The only surviving document asserting a birthdate from the lifetime of her contemporaries is a single sworn statement from a witness more than forty years after the event.

That witness must have been at least 70 years old. Good memory for such a duration? Do you mean the document material or the content? The content of the records survived. The original materials I doubt all survived when we consider the french revolution. - mr. B

Fifteenth century birth records were common only for the elite; her origin was quite humble.

Perhaps, what easily survived were records of those considered elite. Also, being an Arc already echos a mark more than humble upon the family. A few stories are found about the Arc name, so I don't claim any one as the truth. Some say it is by invention, and others say it is by militia, but it isn't by royalty as loud as Lys. The name Lys, however, is traced as above. So, I shouldn't have to repeat this point. - mr. B

Her large numbers of godmothers and godfathers are consistent with the custom of providing many baptismal witnesses in lieu of a written record.

I've noticed some inconsistencies with the records. Some show many relations, while others, like mine, don't show as many. I question who added all the extra relations and where the sources where. A crowd of godmothers and godfathers could explain the reason. There seems to be an odd force to find evidence that she is nothing other than of the catholic religion. Are the records a forgery to confound? I'm not worried about it as much. The word of mouth is that she wasn't of the catholic religion even if she was baptised as such. That explains the questions if she was ever baptised. I would want to avoid the conspiracy theory and just get to the facts, yet many facts aren't what people say are facts. Many documents can't be factual only because they are of that era. The retrial obvious has led a case heavy in favor of the catholic view. Pity. - mr. B

Durova 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

About "I agree there are medically documented cases of sane people having religious visions. See the above discussion of temporal lobe epilepsy. Other neurological disturbances to...," that is a limited view. That means you have accepted on religion or brain damage as the only reasons. How many drugs cause hallucinations? What makes these drugs cause them? On a biotechnology note, what if these drugs were really programmed DNA splices that were assimulated and executed. They wouldn't be a hallucination. They wouldn't be a religious revelation. It would be a form of a media player. We have the technology to know this is possible even if we don't have the perfect tools to create such DNA-spliced-media drug. We haven't ruled out evolution or intelligent design. There are possibilities if it is within your consideration. One that doesn't consider these possibilities (like the DNA-media-drug) when they know enough about the existence of biotechnology, I'd considered not open. ---- Mr. Ballard 01:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a typical change I've seen, from:

Although notably born around the Feast of Epiphany, January 6th, the books of the preist of the time had record of her birthdate as January 16th.

To:

A letter from Perceval de Boullainvilliers on 21 July 1429 says that she was born on the Feast of the Epiphany (January 6th), but a family which believes to be descended from one of Joan's brothers has information stating it was January 16th.

Notice how the information changed to delete information about the existence of the books. It amazes me that a someone would want to cover up any evidence of such family tree and, instead, cast doubt upon descension. Wouldn't historians want to find artifacts or evidence to support different claims? I know of some reasons why the family tree documents is a target to cover up by some, seriously. ---- Mr. Ballard 04:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, mr. Ballard, if we put math on the question, the result is that most people in Western Europe descend from the family of Joan of Arc! Just go like this: start with my neighbour (for example) and his parents (2), his grandparents (4), etc. From now until 1431, that's 574 years. Let say a generation takes 25 years (used to be a lot shorter in the old days), so that's at least 23 generations. With every generation, the number doubles. Result: In the time of Joan of Arc there were 4,194,304 (4 million!) people walking around in Western Europe from who my neighbour descends. Fat change some of them were family of Joan of Arc! Just consider how large the populations were at that time! Your claim of being "family" of Joan of Arc isn't questioned at all. You probably are, but you're not alone or unique in this. I'm sorry. HAJARS 10:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I never stated any intention about a question on who else may be related to d'Arc. I'm unsure of the grief pointed out or why it was pointed out. I've clearly stated that I don't intend to stand on a pedestal and preach gospel about Joan as the only truth because of my descension. Instead, I've pointed out that I've heard many stories. I've heard more varieties of stories then those within the article about Joan. I rather see the text not biased and open to the different view points. Much of the other varities of Joan got deleted or ignored solely because it doesn't relate to the trial transcripts, and that isn't a good enough reason to filter out other evidence or potential evidence. The trial transcripts have never been any grounds to center any evidence. To take such stand upon the trial transcripts is highly biased. The trial information is good, but it is only trial information and not absolute doctrine. Does this help dissolve any instance of grief? ---- Mr. Ballard 13:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is and there was no grief. I just wanted to remind you of the fact that your belief of descension, and whatever transcripts from your family archive you have at hand, is not a scholarly motivation to edit this article in a encyclopedia. Perhaps you could create your own web site about the matter and leave this article at peace. — HAJARS 18:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In consideration of the variety of stories I've come by, I leave most of the article alone and not try to add the diversity. I do make small changes where one attempts to state a solid claim when such claim would be pov based on biased or limited scope of support. Any scholarly or non-scholarly person would be able to break such illogicals or pov. Wikipedia is not ready to only merit article by a specific scholarly field. I've suggested this idea, and I've seen attempts to make certain versions tagged with certifications, but until then the content follows a single path and it's just open content. I'm not unsympathatical about it, I have made changes to other documents on subject that I profess, and I find changes that don't follow the specific definition. Nevertheless, an encyclopedia is based on viewpoints rather than a specific set of facts. Again, an effort to make some articles be a complete scientific definition of the title still is a work in progress. Further, as a viewpoint, I am evidence of descension and carry evidence of the existence of other factors that can't be ignored. A scholarly person would not dismiss such information because it doesn't flow nicely around a centered view of the trial transcripts. A scholarly person realizes there is more history to discover. Instead of my own webpage someone outside of of wikipedia, why not a wikipedia article like "Saint Joan of Arc (retrial version)" be made. Then all specific information related to the retrial could be told and not be held controversial with other information. I'm am all for the effort to gather and publish all sources of information rather than filter them out because they don't fit nicely with the centralization around the trial transcripts. ---- Mr. Ballard 03:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

09:41, 30 October 2005 64.12.116.197 "A number of errors: Charles of Orleans was never allowed to ransom - Henry V had forbidden it - and neither was Joan (no document claims Charles ever had a chance to ransom her))"

How can I say this gently? Henry V had been dead for eight years. Please provide complete citations for your changes. — Durova

LOL! — HAJARS 18:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Henry V's Will

(Henry V's **last will and testament** had left instructions forbidding Charles d'Orleans from being ransomed - a well-known fact which Durova's sarcastic response proves he didn't know.)

Demonstrate how you think this is relevant.

Henry V's prohibition was very narrow. Nearly every other Agincourt captive had been ransomed years before Joan of Arc entered public life.
No one seems to question why she wasn't ransomed from the English. The issue is why she passed from Burgundian to English control.
Joan of Arc was captured by the Bastard of Wandomme, a vassal of the count of Luxembourg in service of duke Philip of Burgundy. Any inferences drawn from Henry V's will had no bearing on the Burgundian head of state.

Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Several sources (such as a letter from the University of Paris on 14 July 1431, an entry in the Morosini registers, etc) state that Charles' government tried to get the Burgundians to allow her to be ransomed back to her own side, but the Burgundians refused.

Note 3: Several surviving documents state that Charles or his faction tried to induce the Burgundians to ransom her - on 14 July 1431 the University of Paris sent a letter to John of Luxembourg stating that the Armagnacs were attempting to obtain her by ransom or other means; an entry in the records of Niccoló Morosini records a similar account. But just as Charles VII was never given the chance to ransom his own cousin the duke of Orléans (since Henry V's last will and testament had forbidden it - see: Pernoud's "Joan of Arc: Her Story", p. 193), he was, in similar fashion, never given the chance to ransom Joan - both were considered too important to be ransomed back to their own side.

Joan of Arc was dead on 14 July 1431. Do you mean 1430?
The University of Paris was strongly partisan to the English cause. Please cite your source. Bishop Pierre Cauchon had ties to the University of Paris. He was actively trying to ransom her for the English. Your footnote appears to be a mistaken attribution to the Armagnacs.
You misrepresent the Morosini Journal. See above.
Your Pernoud citation refers to an irrelevant document and contradicts her analysis. See above.

Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

(Yes, these were typos - should be 1430. I added two sources for this document - incl. a different book by Pernoud that you haven't read (Pernoud herself mentions this document in the book I cite).)

Please refrain from speculation about the extent of my research regarding Joan of Arc. You have not cited this second book you claim to reference. Durova 23:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

(Durova - I'm highlighting my (previous) citation of Pernoud's "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses", p 158, which mentions the relevant document - you didn't see it the last time.)

Good book, bad citation. See my critiques above.No original research

the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say.

Durova 02:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Joan of Arc's Name

14:02, 30 October 2005 Jhballard m (again, the title is of the article is Joan of Arc, as is the bolded part. again removed pov about "modern" attribute)

Mr. Ballard, you never responded to my earlier discussion post on the subject. Silence implies consent. At least one of you has a copy of Pernoud and Clin. pp. 220-221 has a very good summary of the scholarship. - Durova

Obviously, somehow that part of discussion must have been missed. Silence doesn't imply consent. Silence is war. ---- Mr. Ballard 04:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The relevance of my edit is the frequent and mistaken inference that d'Arc implies an aristocratic origin. What is your objection? Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It does seem to imply that, and there are many artifacts that suggest the same. Personally, I would have concluded it is an aristocratic origin but the militia influence in the name is very weak. The images in coat of arms, like the iris, suggest some derivative of a royal relationship, but there is no evidence the name stood for any royal or military inheritence. A theory exists that the coat is symbolism for invention of the bow used by the military, which doesn't have strong support since archery is a much older invention. Others have argued the name is said like "dahrk," and further they argue the original name wasn't Arc. I don't agree, and I have researched it, but I have at least accepted the other versions as credible since, in the medival era, people spoke more than wrote thus written form had obvious variations (by scribe). Late phoenician language is the origin of the glottal stop, which is confused with the apostrophe. The "'A" and "A" sound different, with "'A" with a glottal stop and "A" more pure vowel. Early phoenician didn't even have an "A," or letter that looked like an upside down ox (note the sound of "ox"). Early latin (used by various regions that later became France) still had the derived glottal stop notation. The glottal stop in "d'Arc" sounds the same if you say "de Arc" in modern french, which carry's a seperation between "de" and "Arc" by a glottal pause. Modern french uses an apostrophe, which looks very similar to the glottal stop notation, yet the apostrophe doesn't stand for a sound. Obviously without a high resolutent timeline of the sounds, we find arguement of which version of the name comes first and how it is pronounced at different eras. Those arguments usually dismiss portions of the early latin influences on medival french to support their claim. Such portions include the germanic tribe's prominent early latin usage that influenced Burgundy when they controlled that area. The name Burgundy is said to be of germanic tribe origin because of its rougher tone commonly found in the germanic dialect. Perhaps, this is more than you asked, yet there is enough evidence the name wasn't invented in more modern times. ---- Mr. Ballard 04:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Check my links to the condemnation trial record regarding the coat of arms. Joan describes it in her testimony. Charles VII granted it in honor of her service. I've heard you're one of her brothers' descendants? You might enjoy this:

The blue field, fleur de lys, and crown all represent royalty. That's either royal blood or a direct grant from the king. The position of the sword and crown aren't an established heraldic convention, yet the suggestion is obvious. My sword that saved the crown. A high honor!

Most coats of arms get altered over time. Descendants add chevrons, bars, quartering - all sorts of things. This coat is an old grant yet it never got altered. I have two unconfirmed hunches why. First hunch: in the days when heraldry meant something socially, this was almost impossible to top. Why get a Lexus if it means trading in your Ferrari? Second hunch: French heraldry law restricted the use of royal symbols. The grant was legal in its original form, but perhaps they risked a legal challenge if they changed it. I'm not expert enough on that matter to be sure. Durova 06:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Durova, you have added the "modern" attribute again. Your comment above does not specifically state any reason why you would continually re-add such word. ---- Mr. Ballard 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Other Edits

Let's conduct this discussion here, rather than with an editing war. Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Assassination of John the Fearless

(Charles' premeditated involvement in the assassination has never been proven - in written depositions sent to the widowed Duchess, the Bishop of Valence and others only implied Charles' foreknowledge)

I agree. You seem to be reading things into my text. The murder took place before his eyes and he failed to stop it. Charles had guaranteed John the Fearless's safety. Charles remained responsible for his subordinates' actions, regardless of the premeditation question.

The relevant point for this article is the disastrous effect on Charles's early career. Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Occupation of Rheims

(Rheims was taken in 1419 by the English, not the Burgundians. Please study the subject before making changes.)

What matters in this context is that Rheims was a Burgundian possession at the outset of Joan of Arc's career. When and how they acquired it is a side issue. Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

English Retreat

(The final assault came on May 7th, not May 8th - as it says in the book by Pernoud you've been using, and all other books on the subject that I know of. May 8th was the day the English pulled out)

I made the mistake of leaving the earlier draft intact on that point. Thank you. Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Burgundy

(This confuses the jurisdictions beyond recognition: Lorraine is the modern term for the region, not the 15th century term; Burgundy was a duchy, not a nation, and Domremy was not a part of it.)

I'm not sure on what basis you contest the geography. Joan herself made a prediction before she left the region that France would be saved by a maiden from the marches of Lorraine, obviously referring to herself. During the period in this discussion the duke of Lorraine was vassal to the duke of Burgundy by right of conquest.

The principal point for the general reader is that Burgundy was an independent country. During this era its dukes had held an appanage granting legal independence from feudal duties to the French crown.

Also, Domremy and a few neighboring communites were completely surrounded by Burgundy.

Consider the audience for this article. An average reader probably knows Burgundy only as a French province. Informing them that it was an independent country allied with England explains some dynamics about her capture. Informing the reader that she came from an isolated frontier region explains some of her ardency. Both facts explain why she needed to travel from Vaucouleurs to Chinon in male disguise. Durova 21:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Proof of her mission

The current edit is problematic:

The lifting of the siege — the "sign" that she had said would verify her legitimacy as a visionary — gained her the support of prominent clergy such as the Archbishop of Embrun and the prominent theologian Jean Gerson, who both wrote supportive treatises immediately following this event.

Note 2: Devout Catholics regard this remarkable act as proof of her divine mission. At Chinon and Poitiers she had declared that she would give a sign at Orléans. The lifting of the siege gained her the support of prominent clergy such as the Archbishop of Embrun and the prominent theologian Jean Gerson, who both wrote supportive treatises immediately following this event.

I moved the original comment into a footnote and added the "devout Catholics" qualification with respect for the NPOV rule. What we have now is redundant. Durova 22:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais

Georg Kaiser, Gilles and Jeanne explores Joan of Arc's (historically tenuous) association with the most notorious criminal of her era, Gilles de Rais.

What is the basis for the parenthetical assertion? No modern scholar doubts they fought on the same side and in the same battles for the most important part of her career. Following her death he helped finance the Orleans miracle play about her and even acted in the production.

Some of the other plays on the list are far more historically tenuous. Durova 22:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

User 64.12.116.197

User 64.12.116.197 (I suspect AWilliamson, the owner of archive.joan-of-arc.org, considering his language and the content of his edits, but to shy to make himself known or to discuss his edits here on talk) is really making a mess of the article. He keeps putting sources and citations were they shouldn't be put! This article should be readable for people who know little about the subject (that's what an encyclopedia is for) and sources and citations belong in notes or here on talk. It's a shame we have to deal with this, as nice prose by Durova is being destroyed. The article should be brief, clear, neutral and to the point. With all this personal frustration of defending one's own point of view (with sources and even pagenumbers!), the article becomes an absolute monstrosity all over again. — HAJARS 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

defending one's own point of view

Or may I say, of defending one's scholarly research? The Wikipedia is not a platform for my point of view. Durova 23:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. But to user 64.12.116.197 it seems to be very personal. — HAJARS 11:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Footnote

I have deleted the following under the No original research rule:

Although their interpretation is a matter of controversy, several surviving documents state that Charles and his faction tried to induce the Burgundians to ransom her - e.g., on 14 July 1430 the University of Paris sent a letter to John of Luxembourg stating that the Armagnacs were attempting to obtain her by ransom or other means (see Barrett's "Trial of Jeanne d'Arc", p. 9; and Pernoud's "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses", p 158). An entry in the records of Antonio Morosini records a similar account. But just as Charles VII was never given the chance to ransom his own cousin the duke of Orléans (since Henry V's last will and testament had forbidden it - see: Pernoud's "Joan of Arc: Her Story", p. 193), the Burgundians, in similar fashion, never gave him the chance to ransom Joan - she, like the Duke of Orleans, was considered too important to be allowed ransom, and the Burgundians were just as opposed to Joan as their English allies were.

Scholarly consensus condemns Charles VII for failing to ransom Joan of Arc. All of the sources referenced contradict the editor's claims. These misleading citations are an attempt to fabricate a controversy where none exists. Durova 21:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Branching off the Lists?

This article is a few kilobytes too large for ideal Wikipedia size. I suggest we create a new page for the media lists. Comments? Durova 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Better to prune the media lists. We are not a linkfarm. Noisy | Talk 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

There was a request for mediation for this article. Please summarize the nature of the debate here. Keep in mind that RFM is for issues disputes only - not for conduct disputes. The Arbcom handles those. -St|eve 09:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This mediation involves more than two people. ---- Mr. Ballard 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

64.12.116.197, Mr. Ballard, HAJARS, Noisy, and I are all involved to varying degrees. I began contributing in late October in response to the inappropriate tone flag. Posted my proposed changes on the talk page, received no objection for several days, and proceeded to edit. HAJARS and Noisy were both very supportive and encouraging. 64.12.116.197 and Mr. Ballard were not. 64.12.116.197 discusses content only in article history notes. In the opinion of some editors this is anonymous editing from Awilliamson, a banned editor. I requested mediation when I saw what looked like academic dishonesty in the form of fictitious and misleading citations. That problem has been resolved. There may be lingering questions about what constitutes original research. The article's religious tone remains an issue: in my opinion it's fine to say "Devout Catholics consider X a sign from God," but crosses the line to assert "X was a sign from God." Durova 17:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I just like to see Durova to be able to finish her edits. I requested the adjustment of the overall tone. Durova responded to this but faced opposition from 64.12.116.197 and Mr. Ballard. I support Durova because I regard her edits to be worthy and NPOV. — HAJARS 22:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

'Comment: HAJARS, Your username appears to suggest that you consider yourself and your views on the subject to be superiour to those of other contributors. user:64.12.116.... please log in with your chosen username a stick to that, and improve your contributions under that name. As far as user:64.... and User:Jhballard being a banned editor, I will make an inquiry with the investigator. If so, there would appear to be no basis for mediation, and this would require only a re-enforced blocking. Regards, -St|eve 03:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of user jhballard being banned, only awilliamson. This article seems to have been a point of controversy about six months ago. I'm a new Wikipedian. Durova 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Steve, please read the reason for my name on my user page. It's just humour. Please understand. It's also a comment on other, real, sock puppets. To bad I have to explain. I'm not feeling superiour at all: I'm just playing with those who do (i.e. AWilliamson). In reality I am Switisweti. — HAJARS 15:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To the moderator: has there been any determination whether 64.12.116.197 is AWilliamson? Before I alter his/her last edits I'd like to know whether I'm in danger of violating the three revert rule and/or ought to prepare otherwise superfluous defensive footnotes. Thanks for helping us here. Durova 06:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Agenda

Please update or revise this list of the items that we are to discuss. -Mr. B

Hallucination vs. DNA spliced media (question arose by Durova) -Mr. B

Let's drop this one. I hope you were joking. Durova 07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a joke. It's just not a common course of conversation. It's an argument against the religuous overtone. -Mr. B

Then I missed your point. Blame text communication. It looked bizarre. Durova 19:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The article uses documents as facts even though there is no scientific proof that they are fact. Given today's knowledge of biotechnology or the debate between evolution and intelligent design, the conclusiveness of the text is easily arguable. - Mr. B

You've lost me again. If you're talking about reasons to doubt historical analyses of Joan of Arc's visions, then you and I may reach similar conclusions for different reasons. However as editors it is our business to report leading scholarly research, not to impose our own idiosyncratic views. Durova 23:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As there is no room for original research on Wikipedia, the article may mention the possibility of hallucinations (because there has been talk about that among scholars), but we should drop "DNA spliced media" as only mr. Ballard seems to investigate this (im)possibility. — HAJARS 23:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

birthdate, Feast of Epiphany (continuous debate over sources) -Mr. B

Mr. Ballard and I disagree about historical method. One contemporary document asserts that Joan of Arc was born on the Epiphany. Mr. Ballard has access to a family genealogical record dated some 150 years later that asserts a January birth date.

All other contemporary documents can only approximate her age to the nearest year. Joan of Arc herself did not know her birth date and 114 of 115 sworn witnesses could describe her age no better than nineteen or thereabouts. I have explained in some depth why her birth was probably not recorded. Historians doubt the accuracy of the one document that offers a date: it appears hagiographic that someone who was not present at her birth names a major feast day after scienshe achieves fame. If a birth record ever surfaces I will change my position, but until such time I have to side with most historians and over 99% of the primary source material. Durova 19:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You sound as if you have pereference to believe the content based on the historical materials it is found on rather than the historical content conveyed in any random medium (like wikipedia). For example, the content of the genealogy is more historical than the current medium it is conveyed. If all original documents were destroyed by the time of the French revolution, your biasism for historical materials confounds you simply by the destruction of evidence. Actually, I'm amazed that such a point is not taken seriously into account, as if one is compelled or by shown devout-ness. Case in point, I presented my geneaology and the repeated response is "i doubt it." I'm surprised the geneaology just wasnt taken with an open mind. If I didn't do any research on the information in the geneaology, I would have believed the d'Arc was a modern name, but I'm convinced there is more than enough evidence that it wasn't a modern invention. Also, I didn't discredit the other various forms of her name, as I just wanted their sources listed, but someone else deleted the sources over and over. The information is good even though, as you say, we disagree on the historical method. - Mr. B.

Please check the Wikipedia articles on historical method and historiography. It's standard practice to give greater weight to original documents. You're right to say this causes problems when those documents get destroyed or lost. In that case historians resort to the best surviving information. Your genaeological record would receive more attention if it traced descent from someone affected by that dilemma such as Scottish patriot William Wallace. Durova 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We just can't refer to nonexistent document (destroyed during the French Revolution?), especially when there is no consensus about them ever existing. Only mr. Ballard beliefs he can draw from this nonexistent document and (again) there is no room for original research on Wikipedia. I already suggested to mr. Ballard directly to put his findings on his personal homepage. — HAJARS 23:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you mean his inference of an original birth record from the later genaeology, I agree. I don't promote my own research on the Wikipedia. The standard is the same for everyone. Durova 01:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The "modern" attribute on name, and various other forms (continuous debate) -Mr. B

Try comparing Walter Raleigh. Durova 07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What is your point? - Mr. B

1. The Raleigh article notes variant name spellings at the outset. The case for similar consideration is stronger here.

2. Joan of Arc was never known as Jeanne d'Arc during her lifetime.

That is a point which even you can't prove, now. I ask that you be more open minded about it. - Mr. B.

I don't attempt to prove it. I cite the conclusions of historians Regine Pernoud and Marie-Veronique Clin. I will read any contradicting historian with equal fairness. I haven't found one. Have you? Durova 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, we can't forget common sense. I don't intend to say no you can't include such conclusion, but be fair and state the source of such conclusion, or at least don't make the conclusion appear to be the consensus that strives as the basis to remove any other doubt. Don't we want to allow different points of view and allow the neutral point of view. [Will respond more later.] - Mr. B

I cited them in an earlier discussion about her name, including page numbers. From your response about Latin I thought you had read the reference. You cannot justly accuse me of failing to be open minded or allow different points of view when I welcome opposing scholarship and you have none to cite. Before making such personal attacks I would appreciate the courtesy of viewing the evidence I offer. Durova 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wether or not "Jeanne d'Arc" originates from her own time is not important. There is absolutely no consensus about the name originating in that form from her own time. This is no place for speculation, so must refrain from stating the name IS from the 15th century (And it most likely isn't). — HAJARS 23:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right. We've raised the bar much too high. The appropriate standard should be, Could a reader pick up a modern classic or visit a museum or conduct a Google search and locate another name for this person? The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Mr. Ballard could verify that in a few minutes at the Gutenberg Project. If he chooses not to try then he should concede the point. Durova 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

3. Jeanne d'Arc became a consensus term for her in the nineteenth century. Serious historians still doubt its appropriateness. Durova

The doubt exists because less than 10% of the population, in her era, in all areas and regions actually knew how to write what is known today as French. You can expect that even less than 10% knew how to spell perfectly or consistently with the other areas. - Mr. B

The doubt exists on multiple levels and goes much deeper than spelling. It's well established that something like d'Arc was a surname within her family. Was it her surname? See Pernoud and Clin. Durova 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

4. Readers who pursue this subject beyond Wikipedia will encounter other names. Shakespeare names her Joan la Pucelle. Schiller calls her what might be translated as The Maiden of Orleans. Other versions are equally diverse and confusing.

5. For these and other reasons I cannot call the modern French version of her name definitive. No counterargument has been presented: people just revert this correction. Durova 19:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Durova, I have presented an argument. Did you ignore it? Look above about old latin and the glottal stop. Instead of a direct response about the language, you wrote to me about the coat of arms. - Mr. B

Your post looked more like a commentary than a counterargument. Try looking at it this way: very few documents from before 1860 refer to her as Jeanne d'Arc. For more than four centuries there was no consensus version of her name. The earlier period produced art and literature about her that still holds public interest. Durova 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wound as sign (unsetteled text between Durova and another user) -Mr. B
Religious tone ("Saint Joan" this, "Saint Joan" that) - which has been decreased by Durova for the greater part, though 64.12.116.197 has been trying to put it back - HAJARS
POV tone (hounoring and devotive; trying to defend al her actions) - which has been decreased by Durova for the greater part, though 64.12.116.197 has been trying to put it back - HAJARS
passive voice (style, lack of direct subjects, misrepresentation) - Mr. B

I mean this grammatically. For example, The religious play in her honor at Orleans was declared by the 15th century Church to be a pilgrimage site meriting an indulgence, and she was subsequently used as a symbol of the Catholic League during the 16th century. Durova 07:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Even though there is tolerance with passive voice with the "verb... by..." structure, there is still no need to do passive voice, and we can update it. For example, The 15th century Church declared a religiuous play in her honor as a pilgrimage site in Orleans that merited an indulgence. The Catholic League symbolically used her in the 16th century. "subsequently" and "during" are illogical for such statements. - Mr. B

I think you and I agree. 64.12.116.197 seems to prefer that style. Durova 19:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

any more?
I'm uneasy about one of my changes even though no other editor has objected. My mention of the Front National under the Legacy section may be too casual, especially in light of nearly two weeks of immigrant rioting in the Paris suburbs. The Front National is a far right political party that finished second in the 2002 presidential race and forced a runoff against President Chirac. It is anti-immigrant (particularly against African and Arab immigrants) and opponents have called it both fascist and a national disgrace. The Front National is well known for invoking the memory of Joan of Arc. Is it NPOV to ignore this controversy? Would it stray off topic to discuss it? Durova 19:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Front National is well known. It's use of the Joan of Arc story shouldn't be ignored though. All sides of the story should be documented. It's not all good news. That's OK. (Don't see how this relates to the riots though...) — HAJARS 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Front National's campaign posters have included blatant anti-Muslim symbolism and anti-immigrant statements. The rioting is occurring in immigrant Muslim neighborhoods. At the very least that's unfortunate coincidence. Perhaps we should insert the word controversial as a modifier to the party name. Durova 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" is a right denomination. I don't believe the riots are aimed at FN, but at the goverment and unemployment. Wouldn't include any references to the riots here. — HAJARS 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Durova 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC) BTW Front National receives much less attention in North America than in Europe. I spent part of the last two years in Latin America and East Asia where I never heard it mentioned.

I hope 64.12.116.197 comes to the table. What happens if he or she doesn't participate? Durova 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the other users will comment. I've spotted about ten factual reverts since my last edit which seem to be the work of this editor. Some are minor. Others are significant. At least one is blatant academic dishonesty. I could footnote every disputed point with a legitimate citation. That would take time and make a long article still longer. Would this editor care? What do the rest of you think? Durova 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this user 64.12.116.197 should at least be banned from this article alone, since he doesn't bother to participate in Talk (even long before mediation, when I asked him to discuss his edits on Talk several times, with no effect). — HAJARS 11:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I asked this user to discuss edits on talk as well. If this were a university I'd seek disciplinary review on the grounds of academic dishonesty. Wikipedia has different ways of handling things. This is mediation, not disciplinary action. We might wait a full seven days for mediation to work? Durova 19:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean right away, and I was only suggesting, not demanding. I can be patient. It is my opinion thought that - now this user has refrained from editing some time - the article is improving every hour. — HAJARS 23:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

At the same time I don't want to wait too long. I'm leaving some inaccuracies intact for now, particularly regarding her captivity, because I don't want to land on the wrong side of the three revert rule. What else can I do, when I cite leading experts and the other editor manufactures false evidence? Durova 18:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Somebody needs to sign the above - writing anonymously on talk pages presents an identity problem for other people. -St|eve 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

External links descriptions

I added descriptions to the external links, added a link to the trial text at Medieval Sourcebook, and removed several (in my opinion) less important or less extraordinary links. Please discuss if I made choices you don't like. — HAJARS 00:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC) BTW: I hope I didn't violate the mediation process with this edit, or did I?

Two suggestions for improvement

Shouldn't there be a list of (scholarly) books on Joan of Arc.?They are mentioned on talk, but I'd like a (short) list of recommended books.

I'll see what I can do. Durova 08:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Durova 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. Thanks. — HAJARS 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

How is Joan a shepherd? I'd like to remove the category that says she was...

— HAJARS 00:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you point to the quote? Durova

It says [[Category:Shepherds]] at the bottom. HAJARS 11:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

She wasn't an actual shepherdess but has often been called one even by some of the people who knew her. The originators of this description were prosperous men who met her after she left her home community. It's uncertain whether the use is allegorical (the flock = the faithful), a blanket term for country girls of low social rank, or complimentary exaggeration to emphasize how far she had risen. The term confuses some modern readers who understand it literally. Durova 08:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I leave it as it is. — HAJARS 11:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say wait to see whether some other editor objects, then delete it. The expression was an archaic piece of hyperbole. It's misleading, sort of the equivalent of putting everyone from Texas into Category:Cowboy. Durova 16:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Tone (revisited)

I think we can now safely remove the Tone tag at the top of the article. Most of the religious tone has disappeared now. The current text fits an encyclopedia. If nobody disagrees I'll remove the tag very soon. — HAJARS 11:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, all I did was go to work, and I come back to conclusive work. Some of us don't have the time to spend all day at the computer to respond. Like right now, I have 1 minute left and that isn't enough time give a well-formed response. ---- Mr. Ballard 15:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Take your time. Yet bear in mind, when you send me on quests to document minor assertions, that I also have other responsibilities in life. I find it frustrating to reference things that barely warrant citation, only to see doubts resurface because you refused to read the evidence I offered. Time is indeed an issue. Please treat everyone's with equal respect. If you want the article to reflect your input then you share an equal burden to:

1. Defend your own position with references.

2. Rely on established historians.

3. Read and consider the citations provided at your request.

While I try to achieve consensus, the impression you create is of someone who considers himself exempt from Wikipedia's NPOV and No original research rules. It is not easy to proceed with such an editor. If you lack the wherewithal to make positive contributions by the same standards you expect of others, then please trust the goodwill and scholarship of other contributors. Durova 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ballard. Just relax. The fact that the article is improving and the Tone tag just seems out of place doesn't mean there is no room for discussion. Nothing changes if I remove the tag, except for the fact that readers wont be bothered with that tag any longer. That's all. Take your time to respond. — HAJARS 20:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that implication. Yes of course. There's no deadline for contributing to the article. Taking off the flag just means it's gotten better. Durova 00:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

HAJARS, we all have responsibilities. I hate to point it out, but you just seem to have bullied the issues. Durova seems much more relaxed. I'm able to argue the issues and state the facts, yet you want to only recognize arguements from "scholary historians." That is fine, but remember that this wikipedia is open content and that doesn't mean choice "scholary historians" only. Durova made the point that my text was misunderstood for one reason or another, but Durova didn't go on to burden a fault.

I'm surprised I even have to type about this ambient character, as it is found in other debates also. I wonder if mediation could help. Wikipedia mediation is suppose be between two people and also by mail. As of now, I'm clueless if mediation really started because more than two are involved. Perhaps, that is why it is done by mail to make sure both side of the argument can be well understood without any other judgmental influences.

I do rely on the contributors here for information. I also have some of my own that is obviously preemptively not recognized. For example, you say I did my own original research, but I question exactly what original research did I do. I've only stated one research I did, and I didn't even include it in the article, so there should be no argument over original research. If you though I did my genealogy as original research, then such statements are were prejudged, as no one ask me if I did it. It was just "passed down" to me. As for Durova's comment about a trace on it, yes there was an official trace done on it before the French Revolution. If I can't put in information that isn't original research that I have also cited that does also contradict other documents, the article is not neutral.

About the tone, I do suspect you do have a biased view HAJARS. Case in point, Durova has wrote:

"This deeply religious young woman from a humble background believed she had visions from God telling her to recover her homeland."

Which you seem to support, yet I can go into the archives and dig out:

"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"

That was about "the empathic messenger she so dreamed" I wrote that you stated was pov. As Joan is not here... how can you support stated deeply religuous beliefs over being a messenger (from God or whatever)? Talk:Joan_of_Arc/archive#Thesis Statement ---- Mr. Ballard 13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your family record is a source document. If a historian evaluated it in a paper published in a scholarly journal then you might quote that author, but only to the extent that the author chose to discuss it. Anything else constitutes original research. My family also has old genaeological records. It would be unethical for me to make Wikipedia my mouthpiece for comparing a private collection of unpublished documents against known works and established historical opinions. What I am saying, unfortunately, is that no conclusion you draw from your genaeology can be suitable for publication here. Durova 15:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Durova, the inclusive factor is more about reputable and verifiable information than just original research as you state being published in a scholarly journal. The scholarly journals are the easier resource, but I disagree that they should hold any more weight than other sources. I can provide a link to the complete text of the family tree document. My ancestor that did the last research did it probably around 1958. We would have to research diaries to find a more specific date. (There were earlier ancestors that did genealogy, also.) Further additions to the family were just appended. My ancestor must have put together information passed down in the family plus information from Smithsonian (New York) and The New York Library. Somewhere in those, one states of the existence of the "book of preists" that exist[ed] from which the original information was taken by the work of a trace of nobility for Chas. DeLaittre II. Even if those original books do not exists, if you or anybody else can see and use this family tree document I have to do the exact same research then it is verifiable. Would you contest either the trace of nobility or the information from the Smithsonian or the New York Library as reputable? ---- Mr. Ballard 19:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The New York Public Library is a reputable institution, yet as with any large library it includes some dubious resources. Its mission is to collect and organize books that may be useful to a scholar, not to select only the ones that are accurate. I used to do research there and I can recall finding Mary Milbank Brown's The Secret History of Joan of Arc, which is thoroughly absurd. It's only good for a laugh if you're researching Joan of Arc but it would be useful if you were conducting a study of conspiracy theories. This is why it's necessary to cite the specific source, not just the name of the institution where the research was done. Durova 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Do consider that my ancestor, the researcher of this information, probably didn't practice harvard references or other modern citation structures. What this comes to is that the information contained in my family tree can't be ruled out in this modern day. That is the same that I can't rule out other documents, that probably are much more famous, that other editors have. Obviously, I've been on here for a long time to fight a stance. I couldn't simply accept to let others toss out my family tree as not evidence or as not a source, so easily. Given the technicalities of structured specific source citations or lack thereof, is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence? Surely, you have demonstrated you're wise enough to know the answer. It's the same answer as if one questioned the book of priests as evidence. Their absence isn't enough to disqualify related information. Their absence isn't enough to proove that other sources are more historically correct. I haven't taken this entire context as being a descent of Joan of Arc as a personal fight. I'm very logic natured, and it's more like (metaphorically) the evidence picked me rather than I picked the evidence. It's not about personal fame. If anything, I just chose my battles. If I have a war to win, it is to show that much of history got erased to destroy evidence of martyrs. This is no conspiracy theory. The evidence of martyrs, yesterday, is enough to change the powers that be, today. Just like the problematic question over the existence of the books of the priests to if were destroyed in the French Revolution does it effect the historical method applied to other documents. Obviously, there is enough belief in the historical methods to make such question very difficult. I'm sure Joan, be it known by genetic metaphysics or so, didn't chose personal fame as the reason to so deeply make a change! ---- Mr. Ballard 20:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have to rule out this document. It's original unpublished research even if it was done fifty years ago. You might make use of it informally as a guide to your own research. I'd suggest starting with English language sources from the first half of the twentieth century. M. Boutet de Monvel's Jeanne d'Arc was popular then. Victoria Sackville-West's Saint Joan of Arc had been in print for a couple of decades. George Bernard Shaw also wrote a long foreward to his play Saint Joan. Bear in mind that historical consensus has changed since that era. Best wishes. Durova 20:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

We could do with some mediation here, mediator? — Switisweti 21:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Durova, I don't know why you are stuck on why it's "unpublished original research." What do you think qualifies as that? I have read at the policy and asked about it (on #wikipedia) and it should be fine. What you seem to qualify it as if it is commercially published, and that commercialism is not a qualifier. I am not the one who wrote the research, and it has been posted to the web. It isn't unpublish knowledge, which would be if I wrote it and kept it to myself. WP:NOR ---- Mr. Ballard 04:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please post a link? I withdraw some of what I said. Unfortunately this form of publication is not enough to meet Wikipedia's policy. Check the heading "What counts as a reputable publication?" What would qualify are the reputable published sources your relative relied on when he created this work. Find the ideas he found, where he found them, and those ideas become welcome here. Durova 03:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The consenses for no original research is what users *should* follow, and that doesn't mean must. I don't state this to point out exceptions to the policy, but more because it appears you don't think I'm being of good faith. What you have done is try to require me to spend lots of money to prove the document as truth that it was from reputable resources. That is not what the policy requires of what we *must* do to use the information. That would clearly set the standard to high. The significant point is that the document states that the book of the priests were the record, and that implies the books existed up until some time. I seriously doubt you'll find those books on Amazon.com, as with other destroyed or lost artifacts. I'm not about to spend tons of money to fly around the world in search of these books when I already have enough evidence to contradict other interpretations her birth. ---- Mr. Ballard 05:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ballard, the standard is the same for everyone. Most universities allow guest researchers to visit their collections. Research librarians will request loan copies of books from other collections. These are free services. Durova 00:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Durova, your confused, but maybe I can ask you a question to make it clear what you asked of me: do you have the ISBN number that I can use to request the "books" of those preists? There is no "works cited" page with standard citation structures on the docuement, Des Isles' Family Tree. There is just a paragraph and short annotations as well as other sources, like diaries and informal personal talk (now deceased), on how that family tree was constructed.

Even if I did what you requested, it would become original research. Otherwise if not, I wonder what is your intention. If you want me to solely just verify the document, then use that so said same standard, as you state, to verify everything you read and used here and all of its sources. Surely, people wouldn't contribute to wikipedia if that standard was required. That is, however, the standard as you see it to disqualify other sources that would contradict your sources that have become personally attached to you. I understand that you want to use more mainstream publications, and I understand that wikipedia doesn't rely on scientific proof or expert witnesses for articles. It's clear that the intention of no original research is to filter out crackpots. Essentially that is what you, and a few others, have intentionally or unintentionally prejudged me. Ouch! ---- Mr. Ballard 14:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ballard. I remember our previous discussion about a (N)POV intro quite well an I also remember that you appreciated the time I took to discuss matters with you. It was a pleasant and humourous discussion. I haven't changed my opinion about NPOV. A statement about Joan of Arc herself being very religious is NPOV. A statement about Joan of Arc being very succesful in (for instance) making the world and heaven a better place is not NPOV, because that's a religious statement. Joan believed something. That's a fact. But the text shouldn't support the belief she was a holy person. You see the difference? The fact that Joan believed something doesn't make her a messenger (at least not to me). That's why I also hesitate to call her a " shepherd". Maybe you've read that too here on Talk?. — Switisweti 18:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (putting down my sock puppet for a while as it's getting much to serious now)

Sw, I see your point. When I read "deeply religuous" I read it in a way that sounded as a pov, as one knew exactly she practiced rituals or other shows of praise. Perhaps, a better word can be found that doesn't have such overtone. ---- Mr. Ballard 19:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's very challenging to phrase things appropriately when talking about the spiritual visions of a famous saint. I'd be glad to see a suggestion that's more NPOV and less open to misinterpretation. Durova 19:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking Forward

I realize we're still in mediation with unresolved issues. This article has made a lot of progress recently, despite editorial differences. If we want to aim for something worthy of Wikipedia's main page we'll have to step back and evaluate structural issues. With respect for everyone's hard work I want to be completely candid and wait for input. Here's what I have in mind:

Some of the section headings look like misnomers. I suggest reorganizing the headings so that Mission covers her early travels to Vaucouleurs and Chinon. Then use a separate title for Orleans through Compiegne. I'm not sure what to call this period, but for now I'll say Leadership (better titles welcomed). The third part of her life I'd call Captivity, Trial, and Execution. This proposal doesn't change the content of the article, just the grouping and headings.

Try it. It'll might lead the even a better style. ---- Dzonatas

Name: Most of the article refers to her as Jeanne. I've been consistent with existing text. Yet since the main title is Joan of Arc I suggest converting the body into the same familiar English version. Do you agree?

Agree. ---- Dzonatas 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Political significance: this article hints at her importance. I think we should say more. Contemporary documents from as far away as Scotland, Germany, Italy, and Constantinople mention her. How important was her contribution to the outcome of the Hundred Years' War? There's no scholarly consensus on that question. We ought to mention the debate. Did she change the status of women? (Hardly, but readers wonder). This complements the context this article already gives at the outset.

Is it something that belongs in a seperate article or subpage? We've had sentences that point out such significance, but they are prone to revert wars or late updates. Any addition of such will need explainations which add length. ---- Dzonatas 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of this could work into the main text. Most would go with Legacy. You're right about length and I'm looking for safe areas to cut elsewhere. Is there any section you're particularly fond of or you particularly dislike? I want to respect active editors' preferences.

The article is several kilobytes too long. Here's where sensitivity matters. I'm suggesting expanding one theme in an article that needs cutting. Chide me if you think I'm wrong: some of our hard work needs to go. I invite all editors to nominate bits of this article for deletion. I'll start with my own suggestions:
- False Joans of Arc seems like a minor topic. Mind if we cut here?

It has its point that can be summarized. ---- Dzonatas 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

- Joan of Arc in Popular Culture might take some judicious editing.

Plus, all other trivia may go onto a seperate page. ---- Dzonatas 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Noisy was against that idea. Durova 11:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

- The current Capture, Trial, and Execution flows pretty well but it's a huge segment. I think we (and to a good extent I) go overboard describing just how thoroughly the trial was rigged. Its verdict didn't stand the test of time.

Okay, I'll set down my metaphorical can opener and let the worms crawl over the counter. Tell me what you really think. Durova 05:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems quite like things have been going better now. Even if the article isnt quite WP:FA perfect, the important issue from the Mediation POV is to break the knot so that people can untangle it easier. I will take a closer look later today. -St|eve 17:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian Knot

We do have an unresolved conflict. Since it's hard to find things on this page I'm cutting and pasting from higher up. Durova 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Durova, your confused, but maybe I can ask you a question to make it clear what you asked of me: do you have the ISBN number that I can use to request the "books" of those preists? There is no "works cited" page with standard citation structures on the docuement, Des Isles' Family Tree. There is just a paragraph and short annotations as well as other sources, like diaries and informal personal talk (now deceased), on how that family tree was constructed. Even if I did what you requested, it would become original research. Otherwise if not, I wonder what is your intention. If you want me to solely just verify the document, then use that so said same standard, as you state, to verify everything you read and used here and all of its sources. Surely, people wouldn't contribute to wikipedia if that standard was required. That is, however, the standard as you see it to disqualify other sources that would contradict your sources that have become personally attached to you. I understand that you want to use more mainstream publications, and I understand that wikipedia doesn't rely on scientific proof or expert witnesses for articles. It's clear that the intention of no original research is to filter out crackpots. Essentially that is what you, and a few others, have intentionally or unintentionally prejudged me. Ouch! ---- Mr. Ballard 14:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have explained above, there are many reasons to believe those "books of the priests" never existed. The only reason you have advanced for supposing them is a single unsourced summary that has never been peer reviewed. This is inadequate. If such books of the priests did exist then it should be possible to locate references to them in reputable sources. This is your responsibility since you are the one who wants to advance that hypothesis. I have gone so far as to suggest authors and titles of leading historical works, explain university guest reading policies, and outline interlibrary loans. These are procedures you ought to already know.

I have asked you before to refrain from personal attacks. Rather than pursue the leads I offer you create new ad hominem accusations about my supposed state of mind. Mr. Ballard, this is unacceptable. Durova 16:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Durova, you have put me on the defense of my ancestor's work. I know I really don't need to type this, but I haven't questioned your state of mind, but I have questioned your intention and others intention to so vigorously rid of a valid document by whatever means to make it look invalid. Most of the documents about Joan of Arc are just as questionable. There are many inconsistenencies. Just because there are inconsistencies is no basis to think there are ad hominem messengerial attacks upon you.

As for peer review, there might only be a lack of one with the recent additions. ---- Mr. Ballard 14:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who really doesn't understand what you're saying here? Since your documents aren't published and aren't accesible, there can't be any such thing as peer review. The peers don't have access to your (ancestor's) documents! — Switisweti 15:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

As for hypothesis and research, I just relay the information on the document and I have done research to see if it even possible to have a name spelled like "d'Arc" instead of other various forms written by other sources you have. That is where you're confused (if you want to think that is an unacceptable state of mind, do so), as I haven't posted any of that research in the document. There is nothing against to post the research here in the talk pages, yet you accused me of the "no original research" rule. I have taken a responsibility with the document, but you have failed to correctly realize it. I didn't write the document. I didn't write the ancestry. It's information that has been passed down threw generations and filled in with other sources libraries and such. It appears that this document scares you and other historians because it might be significant. I understand it might affect their personal views of Joan of Arc, but it's just a few technical details that are at hand and the issue of the religuous overtone. Consider that I am here on wikipedia to try to make change and converse with others and historians, I have already started the responsibility you so stated. Just back off on the crackpot idea because you, Durova, are the only one who has so heightened the issue. Are you interested in the information or to just win something, like mediation? ---- Mr. Ballard 14:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This just has to stop. Never mind that you didn't do the research yourself and your ancestor did. We (peers) don't have access to these documents of yours because they haven't been published. That's why these documents can't be judged for reliability. That's why you just can't use them here for reference. And that's (almost) the last I want to say about it. This is taking just too long. — Switisweti 15:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

And, mr. Ballard, If you do want to use the documents in your posession, please publish them elsewhere first, so we can review them. If they are important, you shouldn't keep them to yourself. Don't publish them here on Wikipedia ('cause that's in violation with No Original Research), but publish them on your personal website (or something like that) and then refer to it in this article about Joan of Arc. That's the only way! — Switisweti 15:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ballard, all I have asked you to do is to meet generally accepted standards of scholarly research. I have come across some strange amateur hypotheses about Joan of Arc before. In every case my challenge is the same: prove it in a reputable manner. There are three basic ways that people respond to this challenge. One is to read leading works on the subject and see if the conclusion is supportable. This is the proper response. The other two are highly improper. The second is to ransack respectable histories, distorting their content in an effort to demonstrate a foregone conclusion. The third is to disregard respectable histories and argue in ever shriller terms that one's engineer friend, contract bridge partner, or hairdresser surely knew what he or she was talking about.

You, Mr. Ballard, fall into the third category. This document of yours doesn't scare me at all. I treat it with the same respect I would treat any other unsourced original conclusion by an anonymous amateur five centuries after events: I disregard it. If your relative's conclusions are true then they ought to be supported elsewhere. I would take a genuine interest if you could cite mainstream sources to verify your apparent belief that a local priestly birth record was destroyed in the French revolution. I have simply never seen such a thing in my extensive research. All that I have located indicates the opposite. My opinion on the matter is not closed. I merely need a valid reason to conclude otherwise. That, Mr. Ballard, you have manifestly failed to provide. If anyone is scared it would seem to be you.

Rather than arguing the case on its merits and refraining from personal attacks you now call me a crackpot. Turnabout is fair play, Mr. Ballard. I advise you not to go there. Durova 18:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Calm down, Durova. It's been published and archived. It just hasn't hit mainstream. There are other users on here well aware of the document. Here is a free copy: Des Isle Family Tree from about year 2000. I've had other kids and haven't added them to that signed version, but that is the version that was published. ---- Mr. Ballard 22:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you're following these posts correctly? It was Switisweti who wanted the link.

Here's my analysis of your family tree:

1. The preface states that it was prepared by Edna Bearwald. It does not indicate where or how the research was conducted. A statement in the middle of the document indicates that none of the American branch of the family learned French. This would be a serious handicap to Ms. Bearwald's research.

2. The record's assertion about books of the priests cannot be interpreted to apply to Joan of Arc's birth. See parish register. That practice began in 1497 in Toledo and did not become universal until 1563. See my discussion above for the reasons why Joan's nephews and nieces might have been an exception to this but Joan herself would not. Therefore the Jan. 16 birthdate remains unexplained since it correlates with no known document. Ms. Bearwald claims this in general terms and not as a direct reference to Joan's birthdate. Apparently those parish registers were less than comprehensive. See below.

3. The king changed the family name to du Lys, not de Lys. A careful genealogist would not make that mistake.

4. The reference I found to a niece of Joan of Arc by her brother Pierre du Lys refers to a Catherine du Lys, not a Jeanne de Lys as your record claims. [8] "Catherine du Lys, nièce de Jeanne d’Arc, fut mariée par le roi Charles VII à François de Villebresne, allié à la famille de Musset." Pierre had two sons but apparently no other daughter.

5. I did find a reference to the le Fournier name tracing descent from Joan of Arc's brother Pierre. [9] "petition of Robert Le Fournier, baron de Tournebeu, and his nephew Lucas du Chemin, seigneur du Féron, both descended from a daughter of Pierre du Lys."

6. However, at the name "Jean le Marguerie" the trail ends.

7. The chronology on your family tree leaves enormous gaps.

7a. "Jeanne de Lys, m. 1436 to Francois de Villebresne, parents of Marie de Villebresne, m.1485 Jacques le Fournier, Lord of Villeanoble." It is exceptionally rare for a daughter to marry 49 years after her parents' marriage.

7b. The very next line is, "Marie le Fournier, m. Jean le Marguerie, Lord of Forteral, belonging to the Chamber of the King, deputy of the nobility and for Lower Normandy, made a noble in the 1580 by a decree of the Privy Council recognizing the relationship of his wife to Jeanne D'Arc de Lys." This leaves 95 years wholly unexplained.

7c. Taking 7a and 7b together, the record attempts to document only one event for a period of 144 years.

8. "Nicholas be Launay, Lord of Launay, DesIsles, du Parc, des Noes and Villapelee, officer of the King's house and grand falconry, b.1645, given the nobility of his ancient extraction in Sept. 1655 by M. deMarie..." This is highly suspect. The policy of granting nobility to Joan's descendants through the female line [10] (text of the original grant in modernized French) ended in 1614 through a reform of the taille, an important ancien régime tax. Noble families were exempt from payment.[11]

9. No other source found on Google connects the name "des Isles" to Joan of Arc.

10. The way that you published this document in no way constitutes a peer review.

To summarize, this document is less than completely accurate. An hour's research turns up several serious shortcomings. You should have spent that hour yourself before asking the rest of us to accept its findings. As a private family project it bears enough resemblance to known records to be worth pursuing. I encourage you to begin with [12].

However, this falls far short of Wikipedia standards for source material. Contrary to your claim, the No Original Research rule is not a suggestion. It is policy. Regardless of who drew up this document, or your transcription onto Wikifamilies, it remains original by Wikipedia's definition. Historical respectability does not grow like moss over inappropriate documents as they age.

At some point in the future some product of your record might become appropriate for this article. The way to achieve that is:

a. Contact French genealogists to verify material in the existing record.

b. Fill in the gaps in the dates.

c. Maintain rigorous records of all your sources and correspondence.

d. If further research does substantiate your claim to descent from Pierre d'Arc, then contact appropriate historical societies and professors of medieval French history.

e. Wait for them to analyze and publish your findings in a respected venue.

In the best scenario, this process will probably take years. You might be delighted to verify beyond reasonable doubt that you are indeed a descendant of Joan of Arc's brother. More often in such cases, the would-be descendant discovers instead that some fanciful person in the interim claimed a heritage where none existed. Be prepared for either result if you pursue this. I followed my own family legend of descent from an English duke and found that it was nonsense.

I wish you well on your personal research. As far as I am concerned this question is closed until a peer reviewed journal recognizes your claim to descent.

It is now time to return to the serious business of editing this article. Durova 05:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of what you state, I haven't even used. You made a few weak assumptions. I've already look into the "du Lys" and "de Lys" variations, for one. If I found the same conclusions as you, I wouldn't be here. Chat more later... ---- Dzonatas 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedian?

I've read what Durova and Switisweti said on your user talk page, Durova. That is terrible what Durova and Switisweti have conversed. I didn't make this personal, but yet had to defend myself from the start. Both of them have made attacks beyond just the simple debate of this page. I wonder if their will be further attempts to glamour their points and try to mock me and my family, but it only further prooves that there really was no intention to debate the issues. I have serious doubts to Durova's and Switisweti's virtue as a wikipedian editor. I've asked them to refrain from the personal attacks. This so called mediation seemed more like an arena to sling mud. Perhaps, this is why real mediation only happens between two people and by mail. These paths weren't followed. I feel it may be this only way to resolve issues to avoid the public mockery, as the mockery the conversation above has become.

Durova, as you have taken a stand on the texts you have chose to relay here, so have I stood on the texts that I have known. We have different points of view. Most of the issues above could be easily argued, but the truth isn't known because we can't go back in time and watch history unfold. Scientific proof isn't even enough to make a great encyclopediac article. Given those facts, it is based on point of view. You have become too stubborn with the texts you have known. It's not I that ask to take my collection of documents at face value, but you have insisted your collection has to be taken at face value. I understand your points you try to make, but you obviously stated you don't think I even get it. That is where you have gave up and let communication fail. I've noticed several points avoided over and over. I suspected awhile ago the discussion wouldn't stay on track. You started the mediation, and you made the claim it is closed. Somehow, I thought this would be different. I doesn't matter to me if you prove my document completely false, yet look at what you did. You not only tried to proove it false, but you let my family be mocked in the process. Were you and Switisweti out to try to hurt someone's feelings? Is that how you prove your point? I bet all that could have been avoided. There was no good done here when it came to a younger generation being mocked, as she has done nothing to either you or Switisweti.

Further, Durova, you have overlooked one point. I don't go out and study all those "offers" you made because I was just an editor here. I'm not the researcher. I can easily argue the "no original research," if I don't do the research. It seems foolish, but wikipedia is naive like that. Unfortunately, you have taken the bait. You have done original research on the Des Isle Family Tree. I didn't even ask you too do such. You posted your analysis above. In essence, your arguments for or against the document cannot be used in the article because the opinions are from original research. Although, you have shown that information has been at least reputable somehow in some small portion, and you have shown the information can be verified in several ways. It is ironical.

Also, the research I did was never directly involved with Joan of Arc. Instead, I just traced the language to see if it was possible or not if her name could be spelled like "d'Arc." I found from many sources that showed it is possible at the time she lived, for I had to research the languages before she was even born. I posted the result a few times on this talk page. That may be some original research done on linguistics, but not Joan of Arc. I'm sure I have represented the Des Isle Family Tree pretty well, yet others thought it was personal.

Undoubtfully, Durova's work here is still useful. ---- Dzonatas 17:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Received the following as a personal message on my talk page:

It appears your intention was to ruin a reputation, mine. That is obviously why we were are not able to communicate. You don't show like you want to take the time to communicate. Instead, you have jumped to conclusions, prejudged, and casted shame from your own words. That is the trait of a psychopathic bully. The message above is like a goose that goes off after it thinks it has won a brawl, and it is the same as a bully. You've shown disrespect. Even to try to mock my daughters name, and she has done nothing to harm you. Rather you agree with how the name is spelled or not for her, don't you think she'll still like it? What if she sees this message. You have created this saddness you try to cast out upon her. That is so shameful of both of you. Nevertheless, you expect you are virtuous wikipedian? This proves elsewise. ---- Mr. Ballard 16:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal feelings cloud your judgment, Mr. Ballard.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html

Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science

Robert L. Park, Ph.D.

Dr. Park is a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and director of public information for the American Physical Society. He is also the author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2002).

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

You have attempted to edit the Wikipedia with material that evades the peer review process.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

You claim that mainstream historians and other Wikipedia editors are trying to suppress your family history.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

You claim some original records were destroyed nearly two centuries ago. No outside evidence verifies your claim.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

You rely on an unsourced piece of amateur research.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

You claim the research is credible because it dates from the late 1950s.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

Your relative Edna Bearwald worked in isolation.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

You must propose new laws of historical interpretation to explain why your family tree should be taken seriously.

In short, you have placed your faith in a rather obvious fraud. Any child who knows arithmetic can unmask it. Yet you insist that the Des Isles Family Tree is gospel and the world must believe it with you. Anyone who casts doubt must be conspiring against you. The more scholarly and reasonable the doubt the more you misinterpret it as a personal threat. Something other than rational thought is affecting your priorities.

Of course you frustrate the other editors. We have stalled progress for weeks, hoping against hope that you could be brought to reason so the work could proceed from consensus. We have tried to show you the basics of historical method and research techniques. You spurned our goodwill efforts. You refuse to cite your claims. You refuse to read citations offered to you. From that state of willful ignorance you insist that every difference is a mere matter of opinion. When you seem to be losing one point you shift the terms of debate, often to some treadworn position that was refuted days or weeks before. This is not the way an intellectually honest person behaves.

An encyclopedia read by millions is no place to act out your delusional fantasy. No one was ever out to get you, Mr. Ballard. The damage to your reputation is what you have done to it yourself. Durova 18:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Durova, we can assume you'll continue to attack the reputation until you have it your way. "No one was ever out to get you..." is a sure statement one tries to attack insecurities. You still have entertained the quackpot/crackpot idea, I see. Then, you try to center blame on one person (to get others to join in on the hype, and so). If you feel like the issues above really need to be addressed, take it to e-mail. Please, let us know when you have calmed down. ---- Dzonatas 02:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ten days have passed since I posted my list of suggestions for further revision. You have responded to none of them and you now make unilateral changes yourself. Have you anything to say before I proceed? Durova 02:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it needs to be stated that Dzonatas = mr. Ballard. Unfortunately he didn't make that clear himself. If you should use a sock puppet make it clear it is you. — Switisweti 09:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit Notes

A vandal deleted the entire Context section a week ago. I restored it and undid most of AWilliamson's recent damage. Fixed image titles for NPOV. I think I've got Joan's name changed to the English version in the main text now.

Can anyone provide a complete citation for the in-text note "(see Deborah Fraioli's "Joan of Arc, The Early Debate")?" We should standardize it and move it to the footnotes if we intend to keep it. Otherwise I'll cut.

Do we have a volunteer to tackle the Visions section? It's really not my favorite subject and the current heading has POV problems. Yet it's popular with many historians and readers so it deserves some space.

The current page is 35k. Some browsers will cut off the end of any page longer than 32k. I haven't started to insert the proposed additions yet. The more I look at this the more I think the right solution is to break this into a list page and a text page. Noisy's against it. Mr. Ballard is for it. Switisweti, could I get your vote? 208.54.14.65 04:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote for reducing the "in popular culture" part. I like it, because you can read about stuff you've never known, but it is too large and people keep adding minor facts. Not every reference to Joan of Arc is interesting. We should keep the important ones. Lose the rest. The article as a whole is too large indeed. I can't edit it, because my browser won't let me (probably since it's more than 32k). — Switisweti 11:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that section will regrow if we trim it. Guest editors have been active there. Above a certain level of fame a historic figure may merit more than one Wikipedia entry as long as the content doesn't duplicate. Durova 18:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created Joan of Arc in art. Added additional images and a translation from the French Wikipedia about paintings to the new page. Moved redundant images to the new article and substituted photographs of surviving landmarks from Joan of Arc's life. Durova 20:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Improved the account of strategy and tactics in the aftermath of Orleans. Durova 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Replaced the image of an equestrian statue with an image of Joan of Arc's birthplace. Moved the former to the newly translated statues section on the art page. Durova 23:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

To the anonymous editor who joined us

Thank you again for the correction on the Rheims cathedral caption. Things have been contentious on this article. One editor was banned from Wikipedia and caused trouble via anonymous IP addresses until recently. The remaining editors have been in mediation for several weeks. We have only begun to achieve a working compromise. Please discuss your modifications and wait for input before editing. Equally important, please log in to your primary user account. Durova 12:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Most of the external links you reverted are redundant with Joan of Arc in art. Those no longer belong on this page. The other was to the site of the banned editor.

2. Wikipedia policy is to use English language sources. If we bent that rule I would add Monstrelet before another Pernoud. I'm not in favor of bending the rule.

3. What are your reasons for the other two bibliography additions? The page is running into size problems. Please explain your choices.

Durova 12:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Finally I'm smiling. It's been a lot of work. I hope this satisfies everyone. I searched without success for the sculptor of the Notre Dame de Paris image. Anyone know? The Joan of Arc in art page could use some help, especially internal/external links and artist credit for the sculptures. Durova 06:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Another branch article?

The French wikipedia has a separate article for its Joan of Arc bibliography. She has been the subject of more biographies than any other person of the middle ages, male or female. There's been some conflict this week regarding bibliographical sources. We're space limited on this page. I suggest following the French example. Please post your feedback. Durova 17:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead! It worked for the art bit too. — Switisweti 18:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I've added links to downloadable books about Joan of Arc and set the information into table format. I've also worked on a lot of peripheral pages related to this article. Translated the lengthy Pierre Cauchon biography from the French Wikipedia in place of the two line English stub. Created articles for Georges de la Tremoille and Battle of Jargeau, Battle of Meung, Battle of Beaugency. You'll see my influence elsewhere. Many of these articles could use images. If you locate GNU license or public domain images please add them. Durova 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)