Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Joan of Arc. 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

→

joan of arc

Why is she called Joan of "ARC"?

Good question! I may expand the Joan of Arc facts and trivia page to include it. The citation to Pernoud and Clin (footnote 1) gives a good explanation. Here's a short answer: d'Arc is probably a nineteenth century corruption of Darc. Another editor here has strong views to the contrary, so you may get more than one reply. Regards, Durova 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova's concern is the use of the 19th century apostrophe rather than the overall linguistics of 14th century and earlier. The name predates Joan of Arc. There are several stories. The name "Arc" bares a coat of arms. — Dzonatas 05:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dare I take the bait? My concern is to provide a brief answer for a reader. The reference I provided gives an in-depth discussion. If the other editor has an alternate citation he's welcome to provide it. Durova 14:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I place a redundant statement made before. The apostrophe is not significant. However, it is obvious this is where research about Joan of Arc focused by Durova's citations, for example:

"Never in the fifteenth century do we find an apostrophe. 'Dalebret,' 'Dalençon,' and 'Dolon' were written as unbroken words [in French]. Modern spelling introduced 'd' [with apostrophe, unreproducible in Wiki markup] with the connotation of local origin or membership in the nobility." [Pernoud and Clin], p. 220.

Instead, we find marks for a glottal stop, which existed well before the French language, on into early Latin, and before with a more vowel sound a the letter 'A' (as in a sharply said "ox" -- the representative picture of the A upside down) also noted as a likewise tick mark. Sources for this are scattered in the talk archives. Other research already done can be googled. There is evidence that "de Arc," "d'Arc," and "Darc" (with the glottal stop) sound the same. Consider that less then 10% of the population of the entire region now known as France actually knew how to write French in the 14th century, the sound of the name is more significant then any actual version of the name found written. Because the spoken version was much more significant and we do not have an actual spoken record of her name, any claim to how her name is actually spelled by evidence of how it was written is probably false. — Dzonatas 21:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dzonatas, you are a member of the harmonious editing club and you have read my essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Please do not put words in my mouth by selecting one quote out of twelve and pretending that is the sole concern of the author I referenced. Your hypothesis about French spelling and glottal stops is interesting. However, it has been months since you first asserted this and you have yet to verify it through any historian or linguist. At best this would provide only a partial refutation of Pernoud and Clin's comprehensive thesis, which I doubt you have read in its entirety. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your original research. Durova 22:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The citations are in the archives - look further before you ever started to edit (at least under the name of Durova) this article. I gleaned over several sources if you want to call that original research. If the information is used in context, its a primary source. I'll go back and get word-for-word context quotes. As a member of HEC, I also, however, know how to take a break and not revert 5 times in one day. — Dzonatas 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actual citations would be footnotes within the article in standard format, not obscure mentions in dead archives. Even so, the archives contain no obscure mention in support of your view, only the names of opposing scholars in a long and fruitless dialogue that stretches to April 2005. You seem never to have read those opposing works and provide no support for your claim.

Also, there's a wise old saying about people who live in glass houses. As User:Dzonatas you began editing this article a month after me so your referral to previous archives constitutes an admission that you are User:Jhballard. I welcome scrutiny about my own actions. Given your recent block history, I'm surprised you raise the subject.

It isn't particularly hard to cite a reliable source in standard format. You would save a lot of trouble by doing so. Various editors have been removing this assertion from the article for a year. You seem to have a strong belief in it - you keep putting it in - so cite the academic source where you adopted this opinion and other editors will leave it be. Otherwise, if you don't have a source, then the place for it is your own website where you control what happens. Durova 01:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Dzonatas, it is simply unacceptable to revert a footnote three times in one day and obliterate a proper citation to a leading historian. As a gesture of goodwill I have retained the link to your addition at Joan of Arc factes and trivia. However, the material you inserted there is inadequately referenced. The version of Christine de Pizan's poem you use is not the original text but an edited edition published in 1977. No versions are given for the other three documents. You are attempting to conduct original research about fifteenth century linguistics without access to the original material and presenting yourself as a better authority than the conservator of the Archives of France. These violations are actionable under Wikipedia policies. Please to not push this to the point of administrator intervention. Durova 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The context of the citation itself is not clear. It seems you have tried to use the citation of the book to challenge the other information. However, the context of the book is more useful. The footnote was redirected to another article as we discussed in talk section, now archived. The proper step would be for you to add your relavant information to the other article instead of your revert on the footnote. — Dzonatas 23:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The context of the citation was sufficiently clear to all editors at peer review and FAC. An administrator warned you today about WP:POINT. Durova 08:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, please keep your comments related to the article

I left you a message on your talk page as a more appropriate forum for non-article related issues. — Dzonatas 16:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You can hardly expect another editor to remain silent after you accuse them of things they haven't done. This is a form of baiting. Please refrain from it. Durova 20:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

DesIsles family tree

After a careful review, it appears thet the DesIsles family tree can be used as a source for this article. It is, however, limited to just a primary source. I haven't released it to the public domain, so that step needs to be finalized. To complete it, it would be best for me to leave out any descension added since it was last traced since there was attempts to use personal information from it. With all the arguments against the document, there has not been any that would not let it be a primary source. It's been published on-line and in local academic work, but I do not plan to publish it in some mainstream book where I have to pay for such publishment. Any other advice to help keep it a primary source is welcome. Perhaps, somebody would like to use it to create a secondary source. — Dzonatas 18:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary section header

Who conducted this review? The strong consensus has always been that this violates WP:V, with you as the sole dissenter. If you insist this remains an open issue I'll initiate an RfC.Durova 19:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a review of guidelines about primary sources. There was a notion against it in usage for original research on here. Surely, I did not put original research into this article based on the document as a secondary source. If anything, you have tried to use your sources to disqualify other sources from this article. The disqualification attempt itself is original research. I've always said I've heard many stories about Joan of Arc. I even like the one where it doesn't even envolve saints or sainthood, which is pretty neat. However, I doubt such a story will find its way into this article. Primary sources still can be cited -- just like the testimony. — Dzonatas 05:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case I'd like to go ahead with RfC. That way we'll get fresh opinions and you'll know they're not biased. You mentioned editing the family tree to remove the most recent generations. Let me know when it's ready. We can link to it from the current talk page and get a fair response. Durova 23:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What would be your statement to open the RfC? — Dzonatas 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Brief and neutral: "Is an editor's family tree an [['''''''''''''appropriate reference for editing Joan of Arc?" Durova 01:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That puts the cart before the horse. Consider that we can use diaries and testimony as a primary source, your''''''''''''']] question is already answered. Your question could be made more neutral: "is a primary source an appropriate reference to use in Joan of Arc?" — Dzonatas 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't agree that this constitutes a primary source. We do agree that it is your family tree. I see you haven't edited it yet. If you prefer not to, then this can go forward as it is. Durova 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, that is not helpful. The intent was to help it stay a primary source, not to question it as a primary source because you don't agree with it by your own original research found in this talk page archive. I've already edited out additions made after the last author and republished it (not on my site). As for you intent to question a primary source, there is already a thread on the mail-list about primary sources. — Dzonatas 14:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is another about sources, too. — Dzonatas 14:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than speculating about my practices and motives, please elaborate on your objection to my version or offer another proposal. I fail to see how my wording "puts the cart before the horse." We both agree it is your family tree. Durova 15:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You can join in on the discussion that already exists on wikien-l. It's not just a family tree, its purpose was to trace historic information related to nobility. It is useful as a primary source. Besides your original research found in the archives of this talk page and the motive for an RfC experiment, what is your simple objection for it to be a primary source? — Dzonatas 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This page is the place to discuss how to edit this article. No consensus is needed to initiate an RfC, yet I sought agreement as a gesture of good faith. Earlier you had stated that you wanted to remove the most recent names from the record to protect your family's privacy. I provided you a full day to do so. Rather than removing those names or agreeing upon a neutral wording you insisted upon a rhetorical statement of your own POV and made repeated accusations against me. The RfC is now open. Durova 22:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You could not state a simple objection, so you started an RfC. Just state your point. — Dzonatas 04:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I just didn't think you'd believe me. Durova 23:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New image

Someone added this to the article yesterday. As a photograph it has several problems: composition, underexposure, color balance. It also needs a better caption. This looks like a candidate for Wikimedia Commons unless somebody wants to put it through photoshop. Durova 16:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears very sharp and clear on my screen. The words under the statue are "Jahaune an Sacre." — Dzonatas 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree the focus is fine. The editor hasn't answered my message on user talk. If you'd like to crop it, adjust the gamma and excess yellow, and write a better caption then go for it. Durova 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No rush: they loaded it to commons and categorized it pretty well. Durova 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to change it. The yellow is from the spot. An increase in gamma would flood the specular, which would change the appearance of material. The details in the background are visiable. There is only a very small area under the arches and flag where the darkness blurs the shadow, which was most likely a limitation of the camera. The gray in the front and top suggests the color balance is fine, and that the yellowish orange light is from a spot. If it wasn't for the shadow blur, the lack of depth makes it almost appear computer rendered. — Dzonatas 02:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you like it then let's put it at Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. The sculpture list there could use an image. Just crop it and tweak the histogram. I'll write the caption. Sounds fair? Durova 03:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What would be fair is to request a software change to let ImageMagick (the software that modifies the images on the fly) to also crop and tweak as you see fit for the thumbnail. That could be done by extra parameters in the image tag. The original is fine; there is no need to change it. — Dzonatas 14:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This photograph itself is a masterpiece of lighting and tone, which recalls the true setting of the piece in the gloom of a cathedral. Leave it alone. Bcameron54 02:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Request: Dzonatas asserts he has a document that should be used for editing this article. It claims his family is descended from Joan of Arc's brother. He has transcribed it to Wikifamilies at DesIsle Family Tree. He has said his relative traced this around 1958 and the research was done at the Smithsonian and the New York Public Libarary (Talk:Joan of Arc#Tone (revisited)). Dzonatas attempted to introduce this document as an encyclopedic source months ago when he edited under his old username Mr. Ballard.

The family tree itself states that none of the American branch of the family speaks French so his relative Ms. Bearwald was unable to read in the original language. The extent of her research is unknown since she recorded no references. When this first came to my attention I reviewed it, mainly for his benefit, and I also gave him links to French archivists who could help investigate his claim of descent. Two points from that discussion are relevant here:

Joan of Arc was born a peasant. The practice of parish registers for non-noble births did not begin until several generations after her death.
The chronology has large gaps. Between 1436 and 1580 it records only one event, a marriage in 1485.

When this matter was under discussion last fall other editors protested that the family tree had never been peer reviewed or published in a reliable venue. A few days ago Dzonatas returned and asserted that this is a primary source, hence appropriate for an encyclopedia without review. I have a university degree in history and I believe he misunderstands the definition of a primary source. Additionally, a French forensic investigation of Joan of Arc's reputed remains began in February 2006. Lead scientist Philippe Charlier told the BBC that, "no DNA comparison with possible descendants will be carried out because Joan of Arc's family tree is probably false." [1] Dzonatas is unreceptive to my feedback so I invite the opinions of other editors. Durova 23:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

Responses:

(1) The DesIsle Family Tree is based on research conducted in the 1950s. It is not a primary source for 15th century French history.

(2) The DesIsle Family Tree hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal or other reputable source, so it's not verifiable.

(3) In fact, now that the wikifamilies page has been blanked, the family tree is entirely inaccessible to wikipedia editors. This is another violation of the verifiability policy.

(4) In any case, the family tree doesn't seem to add any relevant information to the article.

Conclusion: The DesIsle Family Tree isn't an appropriate source for this article.

--Akhilleus 18:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Being that it is known that the page is blank now, it simply isn't verifiable by that path anymore. The rest of the comment above is based on Durova's research, which is hardly neutral in the first place. This is Durova's attempt to disqualify a certain document rather than a primary source. The real question is above, under DesIsles family tree, with help for it to stay a primary source. Despite the confusion that Durova has caused, thanks for your reply. — Dzonatas 02:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my comment is based on a reading of the talk page and its archives. Please don't assume what I have and haven't read. If the "primary source" isn't the DesIsle Family Tree formerly reproduced on the now-blanked out webpage, what is the "primary source"? If it's verifiable, where can we verify it? Thanks, Akhilleus 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest. My point is to simply make the document a solid primary source. Its main purpose was to trace the relationship, not to be a genealogy. It also contains notes. There are expired reviews, as not verifiable by standards here, of it. Edna (who wrote the last hardcopy edition) also reviewed the earlier traces. Consider how Durova has acted here, I do not want to release the new address right now on this talk page. Durova's claims are false. I have already started to send out requests for peer-review -- just not directly to Durova or for Durova's supervision of the review. Despite Durova's peer-pressure, I do busy myself with other aspect of life and not just focus Durova's demands to rush and get this done. Durova has only proven one thing about the document; that it is "testable," which is a major factor for a primary source. Do you want me to update you when I have completed more progress on the document? — Dzonatas 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm still unclear on one thing, which is really what's most important for this RfC: does the document date from the 1950s? If so, it's not a primary source for 15th century French history. It's possible that it would be an appropriate secondary source, but only once it's been reviewed, verified, and made openly accessible to wikipedia editors. Thanks, Akhilleus 23:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That date of the document edition is a good question as if that is final to determine it a primary source or not. It could be a secondary source because it uses information from earlier family. It's not intentional, but some bits are unclear because of more complicated issues found by a simple review. For example, the trace was done for a family member who lived in the early 1800's, which was around the time of the French Revolution. It is unclear if the trace successfully continued the family's status of nobility, or if the French Revolution influenced access to previous sources like the reference to the preists' booked records of births in the 14th-15th century. I could do my own judgement, but I believe a proper peer-review would be able to help sort out these issues. It's notable because it does seem to time-capsule a primary source (this is not just my opinion) -- even if the "entire" document is not a primary source altogther. Thank you. — Dzonatas 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

Durova, your RfC is a futile experiment. Look at WP:V, please.

"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

— Dzonatas 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." WP:V#Sources Durova 06:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've removed the information and blanked the page history you've conceded WP:V. You asked why I dispute your family tree as a primary source. The reason is very simple: it was compiled from other sources. Durova 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important." -- WP:V

Conceded? Perhaps, that is what you did with the original question that you turned around into an RfC. There was nothing to concede from what you attempted. The original question was for help to keep it a primary source. However, you attacked it and me. What you started was a waste of time. It doesn't follow the original path for the question of primary sources. You could have simply stated that reason. You have stated before a very high standard of publishment of secondary source. Do you imply, with the "compiled sources," that the document is a secondary source and needs to be published as such to be accepted? — Dzonatas 14:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You make many odd presumptions. The fact is, your family tree cannot be treated as a primary source for an encyclopedic biography about Joan of Arc. Your family tree was compiled more than five centuries after she died. As you have stated, and as the family tree itself states, the early entries were derived from other documents. It's unfortunate that you take this so personally. Durova 16:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is clear evidence that you made it personal. Your argument is illogical and continually misinforms. Other editors have started to respond to the RfC based on your original research alone. Consider, you just made that research. — Dzonatas 03:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Durova that this family tree is not a primary source as it was written in the last century. I don't see how we can include this information in an encyclopedia article, or indeed why it is relevant. The article is about Joan of Arc, not her descendants or ancestors. If this is accepted it doesn't matter whether the family tree is primary or not it has no place in an article on Joan of Arc --Hahaandy1 17:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply despite the fact that Durova has confused the issues, which led you to create an opinion over a non-issue. — Dzonatas 03:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually they're addressing the primary issue: before anyone can study a document as a primary source it's necessary to determine whether it is a primary source. Yours isn't, which closes the subject. You had plenty of opportunity to explain your position. Instead you took down your family tree and made several ad hominem arguments. I'm sure it's frustrating to hear people tell you no, but remember I also located professionals who could help investigate your claim of descent. Would I have done that favor if I had a vendetta against you? Durova 18:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

If we can put the wiki-egos away for a second, I think its pretty clear that someone's family tree cannot be used, and even if it could, we probably wouldn't want it. Vanity, definitely my favorite sin. Please do not comment on any issue here other than content of the article. No one cares about who started a dispute, etc. As for that, I can safely say that its not original research to say that your family tree is not a primary source, and is, in fact not published by any reputable process. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

Conversation moved from Wikipedia_talk:Tomorrow's_featured_article#Joan_of_Arc.

Joan of Arc also Jeanne d'Arc (1412 – 30 May 1431) is a national heroine of France and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church. She believed she had visions from God that told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence when she overcame the light regard of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Rheims and settled the disputed succession to the throne.

The renewed French confidence outlasted her own brief career. She refused to leave the field when she was wounded during an attempt to recapture Paris that fall. Hampered by court intrigues, she led only minor companies from then onward and fell prisoner at a skirmish near Compiègne the following spring. A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy. (More...)

How'd this thing get featured so recently? When I first read the lead section of the article (reproduced above), I thought it must have been one of the older FAs, considering how stilted and poorly-formatted the writing is. Was this written by non-native English-speakers? -Silence 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me while I apply Calomine lotion to relieve the sting of that comment. Responses were 12-1 at FAC with the only dissenting vote about the bibliography placement. If you feel so strongly then I'd welcome your assistance in making it better. Durova 21:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you. My standards are higher than most editors, so it's completely understandable that noone else would have yet objected to these problems, but there are nonetheless many nagging errors, poor wording choices, and code bunglings that should have been relatively easy to fix. And since usually the best part of an article is the first couple of paragraphs, and articles get progressively worse the further down you go (since fewer and fewer editors will have bothered to read and edit those lower sections, especially for the really long articles), such silly mistakes and faux pas in the very first sentences of the article are dreadfully inauspicious. I'll just list off the obvious and simplest problems solely in the above pink text:

No need to apologize: the real goal here is to make the article as good as possible. I appreciate the time you've taken and the challenges you've posed. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Joan of Arc" is neither being used as a word nor is she a work of literature or art; she should not be randomly italicized, as Joan of Arc.

Do you have a specific example? The only places I see this is in a caption where it is the title for a painting and as part of an internal link where the whole line is italicized. Durova 20:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

All of my comments are based on the text that was suggested to appear on the main page, which is not exactly identical to the text of the article itself. The name of this article was unnecessarily italicized in the box -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In English, "x also y", without even the benefit of any commas, is ungrammatical and stilted, and is one of the main indicators to me of foreign-language influence. I recommend "Jeanne of Arc, or Jeanne d'Arc (1412 – 30 May 1431), is", though there are other options.

In this case it's an example of Robert Heinlein's observation, "A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain." I've added another comma. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Works. Make sure to make the same changes to the pink box before it appears on the main page, though. Same for the other changes. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. Since none of the anniversary dates are around the corner, mind if we work through your recommendations first? Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"She believed she had visions from God" - Patronizing tone, and misleading (suggests the ravings of a lunatic, not a phenomenon that a significant number of people believe in). I realize this is a difficult sentence to get in line with NPOV, especially with the large number of Christians influencing articles like this, but I recommend at least changing it to something like "She had visions, which she believed were from God," (or perhaps replace the verb "believed" with "said", either in the original sentence or in the revised one I just suggested, for even more neutrality of tone), since that mutes the unintentionally condescending tone and makes it clear that it's the divine origin of the visions, not that she had visions or hallucinations at all, which is chiefly disputed.

See below. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"that told her to recover" - In the context of this sentence, smoother language if changed to "telling her to recover".

Changed as requested. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"The uncrowned King Charles VII" - Uncrowned is a quite unusual word (at least in my experience; this may be a dialectic issue), and is also ambiguous in that it can mean either "not yet crowned" (which I think is the meaning here, but can't deduce from this sentence) or "with crown removed". A slight clarification, while keeping this sentence as brief as possible, is merited (at least in the article itself, if not in the snippet that will appear on the main page).

Still thinking about this suggestion - see below. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

siege of [[Siege of Orleans|Orléans]] - You spelled Orléans correctly in the text that appears on the page, but not in the piped link, which must go through a redirect to arrive at the correct page, Siege of Orléans. A trivial error, but one that reflects a certain measure of sloppiness, to appear in the very first paragraph. More importantly, I see no reason why "siege of Orleans" should only have "Orleans" linked, which will mislead readers into thinking that the link will go to an article about the place, rather than about the siege. As such, you should most certainly simply link siege of Orléans directly; no piping whatsoever is needed in this case, as the full article title is stated exactly in the text.

Changed as requsted. The other article was renamed recently. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. Most older articles used fewer accent marks; the other redirect is probably also a relic of the article's original name. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"when she overcame the light regard of veteran commanders" - this line makes absolutely no sense to me. The first time I read it, I mistook it for being some sort of obscure military terminology (which I'm still not sure it isn't!), but the more I read it, the more I think it's just a remarkably poorly-described attempt to convey something like "overcame the low expectations (disregard?) of veteran commanders" (I'm not wording the concept especially well myself). I can't be at all sure that that's what you mean, though, because "light regard" is just so alien a phrase to me. I can only find it attested on one page with a Google search: a poem, Ode On The Poetical Character, by William Collins. So perhaps it's an obscure early 18th-century archaism. Regardless, it can't go on the main page like that.

When Joan of Arc first arrived in Orléans the regular commanders put her on parade in public but excluded her from serious discussions. They valued her only for morale. The captains were unable to disregard her. At one point they locked the city gates and declared there would be no battle that day. She led a mob of citizens and soldiers and compelled the mayor to open the gate, then rode out and conquered a fortification. There were 62,000 Google hits for "lightly regarded."[2] Is this a question of verb tense? I found 672 hits for "light regard," including a 2004 newsletter [3], a 1983 lecture by the dean of Claremont School of Theology[4], and a 1998 letter from a professor at the University of Texas [5]. It was good enough for Edmund Spenser [6] and remains in use in modern biography [7], teaching material [8], and even an article for performance Chevrolet enthusiasts [9]. I'll give this point some more thought. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

From your description, it sounds like what you mean to say by "was lightly regarded" is the much more common phrase "was not taken seriously" (or something similar), which is what vastly more readers of the page will probably immediately understand. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. When I first started editing this article it was so littered with the passive voice that I may have gone too far in avoiding it. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"and lifted the siege in only nine days." - "Lifted the siege" is another idiom I'm unfamiliar with. Sounds like a mix of two unrelated idioms into one strange one, another sign of work by non-native speakers. Very strange stuff. "The siege was lifted" makes some sense (and indicates that the siegers gave up more than that the siege was dispelled or anything like that), but "she lifted the siege" is another unnecessarily unusual formation.

This is a standard idiom that remains in common use. I found 20,000 Google hits for "lifted the siege,"[10], another 20,000 hits for "lifting the siege,"[11] and nearly 50,000 Google hits for "lift the siege."[12]Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I pointed out myself that "the siege was lifted" is a standard idiom, but it's being misused here, is the point. When you "lift a siege" it means that its your own siege, not the enemy's, that's being dispelled, just like when one "lifts a strike" one is cancelling or ending one's own strike action.

Now I see what you mean. Yes, good point. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Rheims is a redirect to Reims.

Both spellings are common in English. On the Google test Reims edges it out. I'll change this to reflect the majority. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. This is a very trivial issue, but when consistency doesn't hurt, it's generally better just because it's simpler. Plus even if we were to use "Rheims" in this article (which I wouldn't object to), I'd prefer that the actual article name (Reims) be piped so as to circumvent the redirect. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it may be better as Reims throughout the article. There isn't much other attempt to anglicize the names so this would be more consistent. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"The renewed French confidence outlasted her own brief career." - This is just weird logic. Comparing the durations of "the renewed French confidence" and "Joan of Arc's career" seems like an irrelevant and needlessly fancy and coy way to segue into the next paragraph.

Actually this type of observation is commonplace among historians and biographers. The article quotes several to that effect. It's one of the points of scholarly consensus. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. But I still don't like it. It's a valid segue, but the tone is almost flippant or coy in its allusion to her trial and death, and is one of those comparisons that works best with further analysis (i.e. in the detailed article text itself, rather than the lead section) so the proper political context and significance can be conveyed. But I won't push the point. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got me thinking about it and I'll see if there's a better way to convey this. One of the obvious questions about someone who died so young is whether she had any lasting influence. There's an agreement among scholars, even those who consider her - to be blunt - a schizophrenic teenage runaway: she awakened something in popular sensibilities. Nationalism has become such a pervasive idea that it's hard for modern readers to imagine a world without it, but in Joan of Arc's era the concept was new and electrifying. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"during an attempt to recapture Paris that fall." - Which fall?! No year has been mentioned except the years of her birth and death. Why does it abruptly matter, only now, what the time is, and only enough to mention the season? What does the fact that this event happened in autumn have to do with the rest of the lead section?

That's a good point. I'll clarify it. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again.

"Hampered by court intrigues," - An even more coy allusion. Acceptable, but not ideal.

Unfortunately this introduction (or even the whole article) is too small to do the subject justice. She went from commanding an army of perhaps 10,000 men to leading companies of just 300 or 500. The numbers themselves are disputed and Medieval armies seem tiny by modern standards. That is just background for the real question of why she lost so much authority immediately after an a successful campaign. Analysis normally delves into biographies of other courtiers. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I wasn't necessarily expecting all of these issues to be resolved now, but I wanted to point them out just so we'd keep them in mind in case a better solution or wording arose at some time in the future. Wikipedia is a slow process, after all; there are no deadlines. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The solution that comes to mind is to expand some related biographies. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"from then onward" - "from then on" will ring better in the ears of 95% of our readers. "from then onward" sounds like a call to battle. This could be another dialectic issue, though, even though I've never heard this formation in my life either (and since I'm a copyeditor by trade, I see a lot of word formations, both strange and typical).

Changed as recommended. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"and fell prisoner at a skirmish" - More odd mixed idioms. You fall prisoner to someone, not at something. Recommend rewording this to simply "and was taken prisoner during a skirmish" (or just "in a skirmish").

Changed to "during a skirmish." Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[[Compiegne|Compiègne]] - More ridiculous piping. The correct link is the one that appears to readers; the backdoor-redirect is completely unnecessary and could confuse easily readers and editors alike.

Changed as recommended. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy." - And? Did she die? Did she live? Lead paragraphs, especially ones that are being featured on the main page, are not supposed to end in cliffhangers. I'm surprised that you managed to fit in so much trivia about whether certain events happened in the fall or spring, yet you didn't even include one of the most important facts in her life and a key facet of her later legends and impact: that she was burned at the stake. Again, very strange.

I'll change that. Durova 23:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There. Y'asked for it. Put Joan on the main page if you want; I'm 100% certain that much, much, much, much worse articles have been Featured before, and rarely has a big fuss been made about it. I simply thought it might be of interest to some editors that some rather mediocre writing is about to appear on the main page; in retrospect, it was probably presumptuous of me. I apologize. Seeya! -Silence 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your complaints are right or wrong - but either way, they are obviously far too late! This article has already been through Peer Review and FAC - it's now a featured article with a little gold star on it. Surely your complaints belonged back in PR or FAC where they would have carried some weight. By the time an article reaches this point, should we still be debating grammar, wording or other such things? I didn't think this forum was supposed to be yet another quality hurdle to jump. Surely the correct way to deal with this if you feel so stongly is to take it to WP:FARC? SteveBaker 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My comments were not intended to attack Joan of Arc's FA status. I'm sure it's worthy of the honor. They were simply meant to correct a few obvious (though not life-alteringly bad; a lot are just strange expressions and minor errors) mistakes early in the article before the article appeared on the main page. In that sense, I was the opposite of "too late", since I made my criticisms long before the article was given a date to appear on the main page (which it still hasn't). The notion that Featured Articles are somehow "finished" after they become Featured is ridiculous; many Featured Articles that have appeared on the main page haven't even been very good before they received the much-needed attention of appearing there (I'm looking at you, History of Arizona), and all Featured Articles are profoundly imperfect. I've yet to read a single article on Wikipedia more than a few pages long that didn't have at least a few typos, wording errors, grammatical flaws, format and layout problems, etc. This one is only unusual in that reading the ambiguities and problems jumped out at me in the first two paragraphs much quicker than most do (though it's not unique; I've made similar criticisms of past FAs that were slated to appear on the main page, like white's tree frog). The only purpose of my comments was to help improve, and to explain the problems (rather than merely editing them myself) so any similar ones throughout the article can easily be dealt with by this article's talented editors. I didn't realize I would get this drawn into the process of working on the lead just because I happened to point out a deficient pink box on an FA page; I'm sorry if my recommendations were "too late" for your taste, but today's too late is tomorrow's just-in-time. Articles do not exist in a vacuum. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Silence made very good observations. On the notion of "far too late," they were pointed out months ago. Some of the suggestions above actually revert to an original passive sentence, wich does not explain the idea any better than as well documented above. The sentences could be made much simplier. However, there was too much argument and people just got frustrated. Simple sentences that fill in the details would work much better. The sentences used are just to complex or ambiguous. I tried to rework some with the facts provided, but there were not enough details to complete the idea. That was awhile ago, and most look like they have been edited.

I also applaud the hard work to screen the text as Silence did above. We need more of this kind of validation. Featured articles have started to become a first step in validation. After that, there is new trend to advance to a stable version. On one hand, we can let it be featured as it exists and hand out the prize. On the other hand, we know there is work that still needs to be done. — Dzonatas 14:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"The sentences could be made much simplier." - I agree. :3

All kidding aside, I appreciate the kind words. Maybe I will try copyediting the article myself, at least a bit. Stopping at the first few lines is kind of tacky of me. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed list. I appreciate the attention. As you suggested, yes, some of the wording reflects careful editorial discussion. Actually there is a serious branch of scholarship that asserts Joan of Arc hallucinated from a mental illness or a physical ailment. "Vision" is not precisely synonymous with "hallucination." It leans toward hagiography. All significant scholarship agrees that she believed these were divine visions so the introduction to this article expresses that consensus. If the faithful find this situation patronizing, then (to be a bit facetious) we could forward their complaints to Edward Lucie-Smith's publisher.

Some of the other points you raise look like matters for minor proofreading and editing. A few of them are artifacts that made sense a couple of months ago, such as the redirect Siege of Orléans. That other article has undergone name changes.

Some other terms that look odd are simply factual statements about an irregular situation. Charles VII spent seven years as de facto ruler of central and southern France after his father died. "Uncrowned king" is what I've seen in biographies. His coronation was the central political act of Joan of Arc's career. The other related terms, "king," "dauphin," "heir," "claimant," and "pretender," all have misleading connotations. I'll see if there's any way to improve the introduction on this matter. Durova 18:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "vision" isn't exactly the same as "hallucination", but it's close. Vision has two relevant definitions: (1) "A mental image produced by the imagination.", and (2) "The mystical experience of seeing as if with the eyes the supernatural or a supernatural being." Thanks to the very convenient ambiguity of which definition we're using, vision is a very good word to describe Joan of Arc's probably-hallucinations without risking people taking it to mean "delusion", as hallucination probably would (which may be somewhat intellectually lazy, but satisfies the POV requirements enough for at least the intro; more detail can be handled lower-down in the article, after all). I realize vision is slightly more spiritual-sounding and hallucination more scientific (with its primary definition of "Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or as a response to a drug.", not its secondary one of "a false or mistaken idea"), but both seem fairly appropriate, as long as there isn't a major dispute over whether Joan lied about having had the hallucivisions. Anyway, thanks for the explanation of the uncrowned word (perhaps a footnote is in order for readers who are similarly confused upon beginning to read this article? better than cluttering up this article's intro with those side-details), and for the help in general. I'm very pleased with the changes, and that you were willing to correct even trivial semantic/dialectic issues like "up(on)"; I owe you one for taking so much time to respond so thoughtfully. -Silence 00:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding a footnote. Regarding the visions I'm still uneasy. Go ahead and try a different wording if you believe yours is better. People tend to be very sensitive on this point. It's odd what strong feelings Joan of Arc evokes: more than four centuries after she died two men actually fought a duel because they disagreed about her. Durova 02:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't the infobox accompany the lead section, with the current lead image in the infobox? (The chapel image currently in the infobox could be moved elsewhere.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The subject of saint boxes came up a few times in the archives. To summarize:

Some editors were concerned that a saint box would give a hagiographic slant to the article. Joan of Arc is important for both secular and religious reasons.
The saint box generates a huge amount of white space when it leads the article. Try it in the sandbox and see for yourself.
The only other way to resolve the layout is to take information out of the saint box.
Joan of Arc was canonized quite recently so it's fair to cover sainthood in the legacy section (and the layout looks much better that way).
Among saints who are also historic figures in a secular sense, this is the first article to have a saint box. There was really no precedent for this type of article.
Discussion on the matter remains open. If you have a better solution, please offer it. Durova 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have raised the same objections as ALoan if I hadn't heard this explanation, but, having heard it, I now fully support keeping the infobox in the "Legacy" section. In light of the fact that she became a saint relatively recently and that her importance is as a historical figure as well as a religious one, this seems like a very appropriate and useful compromise. -Silence 21:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Assorted questions and comments regarding the later text

I'm copyediting more of the article now, but a few lines aren't so clear-cut that I can immediately change them.

"The period that preceded Joan of Arc's career was the lowest era in French history until the Nazi occupation." - This statement definitely needs a citation and/or attestation. "Lowness" is an ephemeral, and very disputable, concept. We may also want to reword this sentence significantly (if not remove it altogether) to use a clearer and more explicit descriptor than "low".
The piped link to The_Fifteen_Decisive_Battles_of_the_World seems out-of-pace and will probably confuse readers who click on "siege to Orléans" expecting to read an article about the battle, not about a tangentially-related book. If the reason a different link was chosen is out of wanting to avoid linking to the battle's page twice, it should be noted that it is not a crime to link to the same article more than once in the course of a single page, if that article is significant enough. In fact, it can be quite helpful to many readers.

I'll continue the list as I move down the page; I've only finished the lead section and Background thus far. -Silence 22:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your second comment. Regarding the first, please advise: the statement really is a truism of French history. These were the only two moments in at least the last thousand years when so much of the country was under foreign occupation or when there was real danger that France could cease to exist as an independent power. If you have a better way of expressing the thought, please make the alteration. It's very hard to credit this to any particular authority. Durova 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your own explanation just now is a superb way to minimize this problem. Much better to explain clearly that the Nazi occupation and this period are the two moments in a thousand years when much of the country was under foreign occupation and there was a real danger that France would cease to exist as an independent power. In addition to being less POVed (though I'd still feel a bit less squeamish about it if we can find a citation sometime in the future; cross-temporal historical comparisons are very iffy territory), this phrasing would also give our readers much more valuable and concrete information than simply saying that those two historical periods were when France was at its "lowest". -Silence 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"The trial record demonstrates her exceptional intellect." - This claim in the "Trial" section needs a citation. Ideally, rather than having Wikipedia claim that Joan of Arc had an exceptional intellect, we should quote some expert in the field who has argued this. We should present the evidence, but we shouldn't draw our own conclusions based on that evidence—even if the evidence itself is cited, the conclusions we've drawn aren't. -Silence 07:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a very fine distinction but a valid one. I'll look into it. Durova 20:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a good observation. When I come to such points, it makes me want to not read the article and skip to the references. An encyclopedia is more of a reference than a conclusive story. Also, when I see passive voice used, it create the same point. Passive sentences state an action without reference to a subject, and that can lead to such drawn conclusions. — Dzonatas 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd say most of the article is very well-referenced indeed (though the style of the references isn't my favorite, being that it's a fairly disorganized mix of very brief page-number-cites, fuller bibliographical fields (complete with publisher, title and ISBN), and footnote-style elaborations on the text itself; I'd prefer something a bit more consistent and regulated in style, like the reference/footnote style on articles like Saffron), but an occasional dramatic claim, like the ones I've mentioned above, has no clear citation and thus requires either rewording or referencing (or both). -Silence 19:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of a researcher, our most serious problem is that the article cites two different translations of the condemnation trial transcript. One editor who is no longer active created several notes to an online version that doesn't reproduce the book edition's page numbers. That means a student must hunt through the equivalent of twelve or fifteen pages to locate a single line. I'm going to fix that first. It's a labor intensive effort so I won't edit much else until it's done. Regards, Durova 21:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed those. I also worked on another footnote from an inactive editor and came across an online version of the relevant Adrien Harmand text. The page still has a few other old notes that look odd to me. Durova 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need footnote 21? It emerged last fall as a compromise when one editor wanted explicitly hagiographic statements in the text. Since he never actually cited a published edition of Jean Gerson's treatise this note doesn't add much to the article. Durova 22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Do we need footnote 30? That was another former editor's creation. The dates are probably right, but the specific chronology may be too obscure for this article. It doesn't state a source, which means someone ought to look it up if it stays. Durova 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

About the RfC

Dzonatas, please do not blank out or alter the RfC on this article again. RfC requests remain open for one month. If all participants agree that the issue is resolved then an RfC can be lined through. When you blanked it out your edit note stated that I believed the issue was resolved. I do not believe that, nor is it right for you to act on my behalf. This is the second time you have interfered with the RfC. Durova 14:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You stated the issue is closed. Do not relate my personal information on this website - never. Period. — Dzonatas 15:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You placed it on this website yourself. Durova 15:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm active on the RfC pages and agree with Dzonatas that this RfC could be removed to save time for those responding.

You asked "Can unpublished primary sources be used as reference material?" The question is of course "no". What kind of other comments do you expect?

Fred-Chess 15:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I only placed the link to the document as you requested to see the text. Although the document is placed kinda under the GFDL at that time, I still did not permit you to take that document and spread personal information on this website, which has a strict policy against it. — Dzonatas 15:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll defer to the impartial view of Fred. Dzonatas, you had a conflict of interest in this matter. Your actions compelled other editors to consider it. You made relevant disclosures on this website. Durova 16:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) Durova, just let it go. — Dzonatas 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dzonatas, the RfC can close. What must also end is this habit you have developed of making unsubstantiated claims that I violate site policies, then objecting when I defend myself. I have already invited you to raise your questions with an administrator. Please express your concerns in an appropriate manner or not at all. Durova 20:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears you resulted to an article based RfC as a second attempt to bring up something about a "conflict of interest," which such phrase relates to questions of personal conduct. That is handled by another style of RfC, which you already tried to open on me. You, however, have finally agreed the RfC is now closed. Good. Let's do us both a favor and edit happily. — Dzonatas 19:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)