Jump to content

Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Another ext lk re her naming

This has been removed form an ==External links== section on a Dab page. (Ext lks are in fact unwelcome on Dab pages.)

I have "evaluated" only to the extent of checking that the URL is different from the analogous one already on the accompanying article.
--Jerzy•t 09:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good call. DurovaCharge! 10:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No wonder people denounce wikipedia as unreliable

[1]. Was in here for nearly a whole month. Freedscouser (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, that's a glaring error. Unfortunately, there are errors in all encyclopedias. I read an article a while ago that said the rate of errors in Wikipedia is roughly the same as in Encyclopedia Britannica. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The most publicized such study i've noted said we were abt 25% worse in technology articles, and the EB spokesperson's sneer about our weak coverage of oriental art is probably sound, whether (not sure it was clear) it refers to probably much higher error rates in areas where trolls and PoV warriors are likely to take a special interest, or cursory coverage (and perhaps higher error rates) in cultural topics that aren't currently hot.
    This is one of many reasons we continue to need concerned users willing to become editors (at least on talk pages) when they see a problem.
    --Jerzy•t 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Eva Peron article?

I'm one of the primary editors of the article on Eva Peron. An editor suggested that I attempt to use this article on Joan of Arc as an inspiration for the Eva Peron article. I was wondering if anyone here has any suggestions for improving the article on Eva Peron. Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

section on visions

I realize I myself am somewhat biased as a skeptic of the supernatural, and I'm not an expert on this subject or matters of mental health, but it seems to me that the section labeled "visions" is sometimes inaccurate and sometimes fails to consider certain possibilities. For instance:

"Among the specific challenges that potential diagnoses such as schizophrenia face is the slim likelihood that any person with such a disorder could gain favor in the court of King Charles VII. His own father, Charles VI, was popularly known as "Charles the Mad," and much of the political and military decline that France had suffered during his reign could be attributed to the power vacuum that his episodes of insanity had produced. The previous king had believed he was made of glass, a delusion no courtier had mistaken for a religious awakening. Fears that King Charles VII would manifest the same insanity may have factored into the attempt to disinherit him at Troyes. This stigma was so persistent that contemporaries of the next generation would attribute to inherited madness the breakdown that England's King Henry VI was to suffer in 1453"

The argument, if I understand correctly, seems to go something like this:

1. Charles the VI was clearly insane and this was a huge disadvantage to the French during his reign. 2. Therefore, the no other insane person could gain favor in the court of Charles VII. 3. Joan did gain favor in the court of Charles VII, so she couldn't have had a mental illness.

However, 2 hinges on the assumption that the court of Charles VII would have known if Joan was mentally ill. According to the article of Charles VI, he sometimes forgot who he was and attacked his companions. Joan apparently didn't do this and never claimed to be made of glass, and the one strange thing she did claim was something the people around were perhaps willing to believe, so if she were mentally ill, how would the court have known that?

Anyway, the French were losing badly at that time, so they might have decided, in desperation, that they might as well give her a chance even if they did think she was insane. Upon discovering that her leadership was apparently beneficial to them, they might have come to the conclusion that she couldn't be mentally ill or that it didn't matter if she was. If there is historical evidence against this possibility, it should probably be in that section of the article.

"Besides the physical rigor of her military career, which would seem to exclude many medical hypotheses, Joan of Arc displayed none of the cognitive impairment that can accompany some major mental illnesses when symptoms are present. She remained astute to the end of her life and rehabilitation trial testimony frequently marvels at her astuteness"

Aside from the use of the words "can" and "some", it also says "when symptoms are present". If cognitive impairment and visions were both symptoms of the same mental illness, doesn't it make sense that someone with that illness might only have the cognitive impairment when having a vision, and function perfectly normally when not having a vision? Besides, what little research I've done suggests that a person can be astute and even ingenious in spite of being mentally ill. Why then, would her astuteness mean that "if her visions had some medical or psychiatric origin then she would have been an exceptional case"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, 98.209.65.16. Please start new threads at the bottom of the talk page. If you wish to resume the conversations from February-May, then we're back where we were before: please bring citations. DurovaCharge! 22:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What things should I have citations for? Most of what I've said can be verified by other pages in wikipedia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. DurovaCharge! 21:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of what I said about Charles VI is based on wikipedia's article on him. Some sources that say the French were losing badly at the time:

The paragraph at http://www.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_life_summary_visions.html that begins with the words "During this period the Dauphin Charles was cobbling together a government" and later says his domain was "shrinking" and that he was surrounded by the enemy. Also another wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War_(1415%E2%80%931429)

For the claim that mentally ill people can be astute: "A Study of Hallucination in Normal Subjects" (Personality and Individual Differences 2:5; November, 1996; pp. 739-747) and this page of the Canadian Mental Health Association: http://www.cmha.ca/bins/content_page.asp?cid=3&lang=1

Note also that the article doesn't cite any source for its implication that there is any conflict between being astute and mentally ill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Dude I thought it was bias the other way; the aritcle sees to imply that it had to be a mental illness and couldn't have been supernatural. -Lea (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Oh never mind it's been made better! It seems to take a point of view of "we must find a natural way of this happening", though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lea the Firebender (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I suggest the IP register an account and request a mentor. There are several problems here, not the least of which is that one of the proposed sources is not only unreliable--it's run by someone who was sitebanned from Wikipedia after 2+ years of vandalizing this website. DurovaCharge! 03:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which source is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.joan-of-arc.org is the site. Now he disclosed his real life identity at Wikipedia just a couple of times four years ago, and out of courtesy we don't broadcast this sort of information beyond what's needed. Mr. or Ms. IP, it has been half a year since I began requesting that you bring reliable sources to the table. You have not done so on any occasion and you have not registered an account or sought formal mentorship. I have been tolerant about unfounded accusations of bias against myself at the article talk page, but now this turns toward someone who is not at liberty to respond. I will be archiving this page in one day. If your interest in this article is serious, please register an account and seek a mentor though WP:ADOPT. DurovaCharge! 00:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How do I do that? When have I ever accused you personally (as opposed to an article) of bias, and why does the Canadian Mental Health Association not count as a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you already have a registered account, if I infer correctly from the post in first person in the thread below. Use the link to WP:ADOPT and follow the instructions there. Your mentor will provide answers to other basic questions. Now that you have acknowledged that my post regarding the banned editor has been read, I will be archiving this talk page. DurovaCharge! 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to when I ever accused you of bias, though I have a guess. Please note that other unsigned comments in archived discussions accusing this page of "religious propoganda" or being the product of the evangelical christian right are not mine. If I ever said anything that you found hurtful, I apologize. I am also curious as to why the Canadian Mental Health Organization is not a reliable source. I am frustrated by what seem to me like unjustified conclusions in this section of the article as I want wikipedia to be the best it can be and this is one of the only articles where I've found these statements that don't seem to make logical sense. The last three sentences not including the quote seem to imply that astuteness and mentall illness are mutually exclusive, yet it doesn't cite sources for this idea and I have found what appears to be a trustworthy source denying it. It also seems to assume that the court would have known if Joan was mentally ill but doesn't justify this conclusion. I realize I've said these things before and have sometimes trusted sources too easily, but it frustrates me that nobody seems to acknowledge these problems with that section or even answer my point when I bring them up. Do you at least have any response on these particular issues (astuteness and mental illness and how Charles VII's court would have known if Joan was mentally ill)?

Durova seems to have have deleted all the external links to the most comprehensive sites about Joan of Arc on the internet. Is this because of his previously stated bias against anything supernatural? An encyclopedia should be a starting point for learning and having pertinent external links to direct people to greater levels of information is what external links are for. Compare the ones left with the ones deleted and you will see the best sites are now gone.


Wikimedia Commons has media related to Joan of Arc/Archive 11.

This is inexcusable and should be restored to the previous list above.Sharisyl (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please start new threads by posting to the bottom of an article talk page. That keeps discussions in chronological order. I've moved this one for convenience. There are a couple of relevant policies here. Please review the what Wikipedia is not policy, which specifically states that Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Also, the assume good faith policy is relevant: open accusations of bias ought to be one's last conclusion as an editor, not the first. External links sections tend to grow over time and it's normal practice to cull them when they become excessive. If you'll refactor your post to remove allegation of bias and impropriety, we can discuss your list. DurovaCharge! 18:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's any different from putting "the neutrality of this article is disputed" signs on articles, but I've removed the accusation of bias. If there are other changes I need to make, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to bed, but the first site I clicked on tried to sell me a book! Some may be ok, but others are personal websites and I think fail WP:RS. Definitely maidofheaven.com is not a reliable source (and by the way, it looks as though RLK Press is King's way of publishing himself). Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

These are the external links that have been retained:

  • Catholic Encyclopedia: Bl. Joan of Arc
  • The Jeanne d'Arc Centre biography and research.
  • Jeanne-darc.dk Various materials including a complete English translation of the rehabilitation trial transcript.
  • Joan of Arc in the First World War by B.J. Omanson, covers interest in Joan of Arc during the First World War.
  • Joan of Arc Museum in Rouen, France.
  • Britannica article on Joan of Arc

DurovaCharge! 00:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone tried to fake a response by me above but I sign mine Sharisyl (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC). My response is that this is either a case of bias or gross incompetence. You deleted the two largest sites on the net about Joan of Arc and kept links to brief one page sites that provide no additional information not already included in this wikipedia article. If this is simple a case of "culling" links, as you called it, then why not get rid of the ones that provide no additional information on the subject. Please, anyone who honestly looks at this can only conclude it is bias or incompetence. Sharisyl (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Joan of Arc, French?

The article is very well researched, and deserves its acclaims but I stumbled upon this article because I followed a link from the QI wiki-article, in which it is mentioned that Joan of Arc was not French. To be honest I am not sure of the exact details behind the claim, but I think that some may wish to use wikipedia as a way to end an arguement. Either way it would no doubt be a interesting research subject for anyone interested in history.

82.13.44.243 (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the answer really depends on what it means to be French, in the context of Western Europe in the early fifteenth century. Domremy was in the Duchy of Bar, at the time a state of the Holy Roman Empire (see Counts and Dukes of Bar). However, as the section 'Life' of this article states, it was an enclave loyal to the French Crown. Perhaps someone who has sight of Pernoud and Clin, p. 221, can tell us whom Joan's father collected taxes for? From another perspective, did Joan and her parents consider themselves French? There cannot be much doubt that they did and that's probably the important factor. Anyway, as interesting as I find QI, they tend to oversimplify complex issues for the sake of entertainment, so I'd recommend taking their scholarship with a pinch of salt. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe the situation is that she was born in Domrémy-la-Pucelle, which is East of the Meuse River, and at the time she was born the East of the river was part of The Holy Roman Empire, and the West part of the French Crown. Also, it may well have been loyal to the French Crown, but it was official part of THRE, so if we are being picky she is not French. And whether her parents considered themselves French really isn't important as she was born and raised in a part of the world which didn't become French until the mid to late 18th century. Really, I'm not all that bothered, but this "ca. 1412, Domrémy, France" really should read "ca. 1412, Domrémy, The Holy Roman Empire". Alan16 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
One other question to consider: was her mother language French, or one of the patoises that later became absorbed into French? Pirate Dan (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Feast Date

On the Joan of Arc page, the date is listed as May 16, while on the Canonization of Joan of Arc, the date is listed as May 30 (same as her death). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpostwvu (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agincourt

Hey, I had a suggestion for the Joan of Arc page, but I do not have access to edit it. In the third paragraph of the Background section, after the second sentence, it may be useful to add in a sentence further explaining why the battle of Agincourt was such a dramatic victory for the English. The English appeared defeated but instead demoralized the French army by decimating a fourth of its ranks as well as three dukes, five counts, 92 barons, and hundreds of lesser lords. This was a major turning point in the French army. The battle of Agincourt resulted in the loss of much of the leadership of the French army. This may have contributed to Charles VII's willingness to entrust her with as a commander in the French army. My source for the French body count during the battle of Agincourt is: Allen Williamson. “Biography of Joan of Arc (Jehanne D’arc)” http://joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_biography.html Dlask (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace

Peace now Britain doesn't know what peace is. We need to stop all the killing,wars and threatening. America is probably thinking oh their out of their minds and we are we need to settle down and be peaceful . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexa908 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

JOAN OF ARC WAS NOT A LESBIAN!!!! Shas thought to be because she wore mens clothes but that was to proect her, the time she did put off womens clothes she got molested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.207.75 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE TAKE NOTE of the banner at the head of this article which states:

Saint title in name

I was wondering if it is alright to changed the title of the article to 'Saint Joan of Arc' instead of just 'Joan of Arc', since it is that way with every other saint. thanks. -(User talk:Tarheelz123) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Good question. Not quite all the saints have 'Saint' in the title of their Wikipedia biography. For instance, Thomas Aquinas and Thomas More. They were famous scholars in addition to being saints, and Charlemagne was a monarch. When a saint is also remembered for other reasons in addition to religious reasons, we don't include sainthood in the article title. DurovaCharge! 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, that makes sense. User:Tarheelz123 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

Joan of Arc was a historical figure long before she was canonized by the Roman Catholic church. There are others such as Thomas More who fall into the same category. Those persons who are renowned as saints, first and foremost i.e. for their importance in the history of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other churches, may have the title "saint" in their names. To do this with persons who are more famous for their significance in other areas of history, would not meet the Wikipedia rules of neutrality as only a minority of the readers of Wikipedia regard these persons as saints. This applies to any historical figure who is held sacred by any of the world's faiths. It is not appropriate, in an encyclopedia, to give any article a religious bias even if that person is Christ, Krishna, Buddha etc. Incidentally, on French Wikipedia (where she came from) she is not called saint although they refer to it in the article. - w:fr:Jeanne d’Arc- Mike Hayes (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Armour vs armor

Please correct spelling of armour. One or the other--pick a side. She depended on donated items for her armour, horse, sword, banner, and entourage. Her armor was said to be white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahjane901 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the catch. This article uses U.S. spelling; someone came in and altered a single instance. It's fixed now. DurovaCharge! 08:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just completed a reading for Librivox.org of Mark Twain's best book (he said), "Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc". Can a link to this be placed in External Links???

Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc by Mark Twain - Audio recording of the work Mark Twain considered to be his best. http://www.archive.org/details/recollections_joan_of_arc_0903_librivox


John Greenman jgreenman@gwi.net

216.195.173.245 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That link is already provided at a subordinate article. DurovaCharge! 01:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

sainted

I'm new to this and I do not yet know how to edit things. We should add a note that Joan was beatified April 18, 1909, and officialy cannonized May 16, 1920; 500 years after her death.

source: http://www.maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_timeline_history.asp Dreamberry86 (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already in the article. In, among other places, the lead. Dendlai (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently, Reference 76 Link does not work. If it is changed to http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/full/446593a.html it will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.98.39 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Will update. DurovaCharge! 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Edward Lucie-Smith

Reference to Edward Lucie-Smith should be hyperlinked to his page.

Done F (talk) 09:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

St Ivy

Can anyone tell me a little more about St Ivy please? TRAC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.52.92 (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

French language of wikipedia

I noticed the french version of this article has much more content. Text and images. Perhaps someone with better language skills than me could draw from that article? --Charizardpal (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The movie

I think the right link for the movie is http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040491/ as that in the article is not valid

hope some one could edit that as it is semiprotected Dr B2 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

it's actually http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0421212/ - I've fixed the article. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be serious !

"and was indirectly responsible for the coronation of Charles VII."

This is wrong : Joan of Arc is "directly" responsible for the coronation ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.225.15.26 (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

questions about vision section

I hate to be a pest, and I know I've brought this up twice before, but nobody really responded to these specific issues. The section of Joan's visions says Charles VII's court would have been unlikely to accept Joan if she were mentally ill but doesn't explain why they couldn't have failed to realize that she was mentally ill. At the end it implies that her astuteness is a sign of her sanity but fails to cite any source showing that mentally ill people can't be astute. Does anyone else see these as problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IP editor, your comments and questions were answered half a year ago. You usually raise several issues at once, then change the subject once any of them has been answered, and eventually re-raise the same questions from the same starting point. In addition to receiving replies to your questions you have been given several suggestions, such as to register an account and seek a mentor, and bring reliable sources to the discussion. Instead of doing any of those things, you have reposted one of your initial questions shortly after page archiving. DurovaCharge! 05:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I annoyed you. I didn't mean to. I was never really clear on how to seek a mentor but I've figured it out now. Still not sure how to register an account, but perhaps my mentor can help with that. However, I can't recall my questions ever being answered, unless by answered you mean ignored by people who would rather ask me for citations to claims that are already in the article. The last time I brought up these issues I cited the Canadian Mental Health Association. When I asked why the CMHA wasn't a reliable source, that question was ignored and the discussion was archived. Perhaps there has been a lack of communication and that's why you think you've answered my questions, but to me the pattern seems to go more like this

1. I raise several issues at once 2. Everyone ignores my questions and asks for citations, even though I am questioning implications in the article that are themselves uncited. If I cite sources, everyone decries them as unreliable but won't explain what makes a reliable source. 3. The discussion is archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The last thing you did at the talk page whose early archive your actions compelled was to ask how to seek a mentor. Shortly after receiving an answer, you instead reopened a line of discussion from square one that had been discussed at length months ago, and strongly implied that your previous queries had gone unanswered. The matter isn't whether you suppose you annoyed me; it's whether you have any intention of learning and following the site's core policies. If you regret your previous actions then please remedy the problem by registering an account and seeking a mentor. Increasingly, this is taking on the appearance that you are not engaging a dialog so much as 'playing to the crowd'--misrepresenting previous discussions in order to give passersby an impression that you have been treated unfairly. No one said the Canadian Mental Health Association wasn't a reliable source; your post was too problematic to address on every point--that one simply wasn't pertinent. This was one of the reasons I pointed you to the mentorship program. I've linked to it repeatedly; you've asked for clarification and received it. Now if you don't take that seriously, I will assume that you are not interested in building and encyclopedia but attempting to use this article talk page as a discussion forum about mental health. DurovaCharge! 10:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there have been misunderstandings on both sides, but most of it is my fault. I apologize again most sincerely. The reason I implied that my previous queries had gone unanswered is because, in most cases, I feel that this is true, but I realize now that in at least one case I wasn't clear enough. I also didn't understand how to get a mentor even after following your link, but that's because I didn't read the page you linked to clearly enough. I have registered an account and put out an adoption request. I hope to become a better wikipedian. Web wonder (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for opening an account. We've had problems from time to time with actual trolls at this article, and I apologize if that's worn upon my patience. You have a very good mentor and I hope things take an upswing. Some of the points you raised seem to be worth examination, and over time featured articles often suffer from edit creep that drifts the tone away from the version that passed featured article candidacy. It isn't always easy for a primary editor to spot subtle alterations on a passage that one has already read a hundred times. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind, civil response. Best wishes to you as well. Web wonder (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi; judging by the above discussion, it sounds like the 'Visions' part has been discussed at length before, but I would like to bring up a criticism I had while passing by: It sort of reads like an argument. While I was reading it (the visions part only), I felt like I was trying to be convinced of something (though in all honesty my interest in Joan of Arc is really only passing.) Take it or leave it, that's my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.96.173 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

People give all reasons for the visions except one, that the demonstrably intelligent and aggressive Joan realized the need for an irrational intervention to win the day and created it from her own imagination to serve the purpose. Much as the 'luck' in battle is referenced without considering the possibility that she managed that luck, maybe even to the extent of arranging a friar to advise the planting of beans. She may even have used the fact of her illiteracy and peasant background to evade suspicion of her abilities, that only come to view in the transcript of her trial. Instead of recognizing her brilliance all manor of reasons from mental illness to dumb luck are contrived to explain her.

I'm greatly disappointed that this possibility is absent from the article, I'd write it myself but I don't feel I could give the idea the justice it deserves.

E Guano (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you'd need sources for those inferences, some of which I don't recall seeing in any of the sources I've read. DurovaCharge! 22:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
"Hearing voices", on its own, is not grounds for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - DSM). Regretably, many professionals ignore this and will readily declare anyone who says they "hear the voice of God", insane. If this were indeed so, it would make numerous modern personalities with no history of mental illness insane such as Tammy Faye Baker and Pat Boone, among many others. In modern times, a number of religious visionaries have been tested for other symptoms of mental illness and when none were found were declared healthy by examining psychiatrists. Yet somehow, a pervasive ignorance of these matters remains entrenched in our society which refuses to believe that healthy people talk to God. In the United Kingdom, in the nineteen-seventies, (white Anglo-Saxon) British psychiatrists were found to be diagnosing disproportionate numbers of persons from Carribbean nations with schizophrenia. It was only when these (white Anglo-Saxon) psychiatrists were publicly humiliated for their cultural insensitivity that this malpractice stopped. In the voodoo religion, hearing voices and seeing visions is accepted and normal. It was the psychiatrists, victims of their own social ineptness and ignorance, who were sick and not the West Indians. Mike Hayes (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to start a fight again, but couldn't it have been mania? According to the link below which says it is copied from the DSM-IV TR, the mood may cause social/occupational impairment, neccessitate hospitilization or have phsychotic features (emphasis mine), which would seem to imply that if the patient has phsychotic features, they can be diagnosed with mania without having any impairment or needing to be hospitalized. Unless I'm misunderstanding the definition of the word, hallucinations would be phsychotic features, right?

http://counsellingresource.com/distress/mood-disorders/manic-symptoms.html

And if schizophrenia only causes impairment "For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance" (http://counsellingresource.com/distress/schizophrenia/dsm/schizophrenia.html), which would seem to imply that it doesn't happen all the time, couldn't Joan have had schizophrenia with all of her battles taking place during the times of non-impairment, or couldn't it have impacted a different part of her life instead, like self-care (though admittedly my understanding is that standards of self-care were lower back then then they are today).

What about schizoaffective disorder? (http://counsellingresource.com/distress/schizophrenia/dsm/schizoaffective.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't even really explain what symptoms of epilepsy, migraine, tuberculosis, and schizophrenia conflict with what aspects of Joan's life. Web wonder (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Her final signature.

I'm just wondering is it true that, when Joan of Arc signed away her rights, that she signed a circle and inside the circle a cross in it, because she did not know what she had signed (false confession) instead of signing what she would usually sign 'Jehanne' in other letters, she confessed that she did not know what was said, and when she found out what she had signed, she recanted? is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.16.174 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC) She was burn at the stake.

I think i am allowed to ad on to discussion pages, if not please remove this but, what makes you think she was mentally ill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobgreen35 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Durova

Could you have a look at this previous conversation "Debate over sexual assault" based in Archive 10 and give your final statement? As it is on the article, it still does sound like a rape. I continue to believe that there is a modification to do about the sexual assault sentence of the article, in order to respect the wikipedia neutrality. 86.206.185.143 (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

'sexual assault' is a modern contrivance. People were more robust in that era and likely what ever took place would have to be substantial and intrusive to be worthy of comment. E Guano (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's not much more to be said, as things presently stand. An editor inferred rape from article text that doesn't say rape, and attempts to cite a very unreliable source in support of the editor's objection to the erroneous inference. DurovaCharge! 22:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Raises the interesting question of how much common sense a wikipedia editor is allowed to bring to bear. Sometimes I think we are expected to be as ignorant as old-fashioned English judges were expected to be. English soldiers had a young enemy woman, utterly helpless and without protection or recourse in their power. In private for several days.....did they rape her? Duh....oh, please. They brought her flowers of course and it was her natural protest at that sexist gesture that lead to reports of her being "sexually assaulted". Oh, please. -(Jeremytrewindixon just passing through) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.162.94 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

his famous words (I'm an idiot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.107.103.151 (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

One of her captors later reported that he had once put his hands on her breasts 'playfully' as he put it, and that she had shoved him away with all her might. Wikipedians are welcome to bring common sense to bear: what is it that leads certain readers to choose the words 'utterly helpless' for a soldier and a battle veteran? Could this be the voice of gender prejudice speaking? DurovaCharge! 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The "sexually assaulted in prison" part is not cited properly. As im holding the book in my hands right now, p220 is about her name. Nothing to do with a sexual assault. The "sexually assaulted in prison" part should be removed until a proper cite it found (if any exist.)Zodmafa (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Tom

Why does this article continue to have a religious bias?

I see there has been some discussion about mental health and hearing voices, yet the obvious is ignored. There are only three logical possibilities when someone claims to hear voices:

1. She actually heard voices. In this case, another human being was speaking to hear. This is how voices are normally heard. 2. She genuinely "heard voices" yet there was no one else speaking to her. (I put this in quotes because you cannot *hear* voices unless sound waves are transmitted through the air and received by the hearing mechanism of the human ear.) 3. She simply lied.

In the case of #1, then she was deceived by someone who was speaking in her vicinity and made themselves hidden, fooling her into thinking she heard voices. Not difficult to accomplish.


In the case of #2, there are a couple of explanations:

(a) She is speaking of "metaphorically" hearing voices, and is using it as a dramatic technique to convey her strong feelings of religiosity. She is consciously aware that she's not really "hearing" voices, but she wants to convey her strong feelings, and this is the best way to convey how her religious impulses feel. It's similar to when Martin Luther King, Jr. says "I have a dream!" he is not literally dreaming the moment he says it. He is summarizing many feelings. (b) She works herself into a mania and hears voices the way preacher babble in tongues. This is simply mania and nothing more. Any number of churches in the south of the U.S. host these occurrences regularly. (c) She had a severe mental health problem.

Case #3 is the most obvious and likely cause. The lady lied. The same way those of religious fervor lie when they deem it suitable, such as Pat Boone, et al.

The possibility of a 4th explanation: an actual deity contacting her must, of course, be discounted since there never has been any proof of such deities existing, much less stopping here on earth to chat with us.

Hence, the reference in the article on Joan of Arc having genuine contact with god cannot stand as it is. You cannot state as fact something that is clearly not a fact. It's like using as a reference "my cat told me this is so." There is no evidence in all recorded scientific history of any such verifiable contact with any supernatural being.

It needs to be told in context of her own personal experience. In words like "She claimed to hear voices..."

As the article stands, it implies strongly that it is completely acceptable to claim to speak with deities. It may be accepted as a matter of religion, but as a matter of scientific fact, it is not.

To sum up: to be a scientific and rational article, all references to her hearing voices must be couched in rational, not religious terms. You cannot state as fact that she heard voices from deities, since that is clearly impossible. Impossible because deities do not exist in the world, they only exist in faith and imagination.

Or do the admins have a religious agenda? If they are scientifically minded, then the article needs changing (I'm happy to do it). But if the all-powerful admins believe themselves in the faith and myth rather than in science, then there is no point in trying to inject reason into a religious group. I'm not going to bother if some religious admins just delete it. Perhaps they get a thrill pretending to be the Pope and punishing scientists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.239.211 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You said it was most likely that she lied, but why would she have lied about it at her trial by the English knowing that doing so would get her burned at the stake? She could have been spared that if she'd just admitted the truth about not having the visions.Web wonder (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Then again, I suppose she could have done it for the sake of French morale and to keep the English afraid that God was against them. Or perhaps she was so miserable in her imprisonment that she had a death wish.Web wonder (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

There may be an explanation 2d that you didn't mention. Apparently, some people naturally hear voices that don't come from anyone around them without having any other symptoms of mental illness (http://www.livescience.com/health/060915_hearing_voices.html)

You left out option 4 - it was authentic by a miracle of God. I mean - you mentioned it, but offhandedly dismissed it as well. You cannot do that. Just because you haven't seen proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't go acting like a creationist now. :PFarsight001 (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, anyone who doesn't believe in unicorns is "acting like a creationist". Evidence of evolution is available in science textbooks. Evidence of God isn't.Web wonder (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with the last line in the visions section: "If her visions had some medical or psychiatric origin then she would have been an exceptional case." This is highly speculative and should be removed according to Wikipedia's standards. 12.111.29.12 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)unsigned July 9,2009

What about the possiblitly that she really did hear from God? I doubt this was the case, but it cannot be disproven.... I cannot belive I just said that XD Jabberwock xeno (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"I have an issue with the last line in the visions section: "If her visions had some medical or psychiatric origin then she would have been an exceptional case." This is highly speculative and should be removed according to Wikipedia's standards. 12.111.29.12 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)unsigned July 9,2009"

Well, just because *some* have asserted that these visions cannot have had any "medical or psychiatric origin", doesn't mean one can rule out her having been *deluded*. (Hey, sometimes some forms of delusion can work to one's advantage, under extraordinary circumstances. Obviously.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akaner (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are actually only two explanations: Either Joan was crazy, or she was hearing voices from God. If she had been hearing voices from someone else, other people would have heard them, unless the person was whispering in her ear, and I'm fairly certain that everyone would notice something like that. If she had been lying, then she would admit it at her trial; nobody will die for something they know is a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.136.194 (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_of_Arc/Archive_11&oldid=1079018905"