Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Unverifiable Paragraph on Intellectual Decline, and Other POV Issues

While there is evidence of a connection between intellectual deficiency and schizophrenia in the general population, the apparent absence of such a deficiency in any given individual is not evidence that that individual was or is free of mental illness. That is, if a psychiatrist were presented with a patient showing normal to high intelligence, the psychiatrist would not interpret this intelligence level as counting AGAINST a diagnosis of schizophrenia or any "major mental illness." Conversely, if a patient showed a below-average level of intelligence, this would not be interpreted as counting FOR a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Put simply, level of intelligence is not a diagnostic criterion for mental illness, unless you consider mental retardation and other developmental disorders to be mental illnesses, which is not generally done and does not seem to relate to the case at hand.

As relates to this article, Jehanne d'Arc may not have been mentally ill at all, or her ideas may have been pathological in origin; however, her intelligence level as recorded (unempirically) in the trial records does not support either case. The only reason to include the paragraph I deleted is unverifiable in nature, namely to create the subjective impression that Jehanne was "too smart to be sick." Wikipedia should not reflect unverifiable viewpoints or arguments, as the guideline I am looking at right now cleary states.

Furthermore, the section titled "Visions" contains several POV statements, such as the assertion that the people who have been interested in Jehanne d'Arc's visions "all agree that her faith was sincere." I don't, for one; it seems more likely to me that she framed her accounts of her ideas in religious terms because these would be the terms most readily understood by her society and peers. However, I would not put my POV into any Wikipedia article, and I do not expect any Wikipedia article to promote anyone else's POV, especially on an issue as ridiculously subjective as "whether or not Joan of Arc believed sincerely in her religious ideas."

"Visions" needs a complete overhaul to be appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia, but I'm not going to do it because this is a topic of religious significance and I don't want to participate in a chest-thumping contest. 68.35.223.245 21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Concern about use of liberation

Although as of April 16th 2005 the Joan of Arc article is now a well detailed, correctly updated piece, i feel there is still a concern in the opening paragraph with the word use 'liberation'. This is rather an over emotive, one sided word for a war that saw French support on both sides of the conflict. No one was essentially liberated as that would mean that upon liberation, a section of the populous in support of the losing side suddenely found themselves in need of liberation from the new lords?!?! surely?!?!? Liberation never truly happened if people were still not at liberty. The word merely serves to suggest that the fashionable, less-educated view that the English were the all domineering aggressors, and furthermore completely undermines the fact that it was as much a French Civil War as it was a war between English and French.

Someone put thought to this and if agreement, or at least a better way of explaining my point, be found please edit the article appropriatly.

fantmax--71.232.13.49 06:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, liberty and liberation have the same term but different uses. One focuses on the state of freedom, which is what you seem to lean upon above. The other focuses on the removal of something, which does not imply the result is a state of liberty. For example, a manager that chooses to use "nice" words will usually help "liberate" an employee from their job if the employee doesn't like the work place. — Dzonatas 20:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead

It's my understandable that she's particularly notable for having achieved so much as a woman, and at such an early age. Yet neither of these points are really mentioned in the intro. The opening paragraph really needs to state the bleeding obvious. Stevage 12:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That her fame/importance is due to being young and a woman rather than (or more than) because she is a saint and a national hero, is wrong, even if it is your 'understanding.' Also, noting that she's particularly famous because she's a woman is redundant. Squanderdalfast 08:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you feel that the fact of a young woman leading troops into battle during the middle ages was insignificant, commonplace or otherwise unremarkable? Stevage 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the subject of much controversy. Some want to show a more religious side and others want to show a more remarkable performance for a teenage lady. It seems to not settle. There were many more facts in the opener that have been removed. Today, she is a symbol by a diverse many more than a saint for a single religous group. — Dzonatas 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Execution

Excuse me, but if a sexual assault in prison is not a rape, what is? Bcameron54 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The distinction between sexual assault and rape seemed unnecessary and contrived. I took the liberty of removing the offending line. Cwiki 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

to you guys who like to change it back to whatever: the issue is not whether she was raped in prison, it is what you are going to call it. alleged attempted rape by an allegedly english possibly lord? please. Bcameron54 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

United France

This article implies that there had been a united France occupying a territory similar to modern day France, but that the English had invaded and split the country. Can someone point out when this former united France existed and who led it? Alan Pascoe 11:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Western Francia was the land under the control of Charles the Bald after the Treaty of Verdun of 843, which divided the Carolingian Empire of the Franks into an East, West, and Middle. It is the precursor of modern France. Cwiki 12:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Brittany? What about Norse, Norman and Plantagenet control of large parts of the region? Before the start of the 100 years war was France any more of a national concept than the region called Benelux is a nation today?--Philip Baird Shearer 13:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And so the English invaded Western Francia sometime after 843? I don't think so. There wasn't a united France in the late 1100s, when Henry II was King of England, but his kingdom included a large part of what is now France. Henry was born in that territory, died there, and was buried there. Was he English or French? Was his kingdom England or France? The concept of England and France was still evolving and not set as it is today. Alan Pascoe 15:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I went through this article to find what you are objecting to. Sorry, but I couldn't find anything that I would change to address your concern. Could you elaborate please? Cwiki 03:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see the next section --Philip Baird Shearer 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

French bias

"which inspired French troops to win the liberation of her homeland from English dominance". France as a nation was probably forged as a concept during the 100 years war. But the "English" nobility came from families which had been had been lords in areas, which are now part of France, for at least as long, or longer, than they had been Lords in England. One can equally argue that the 100 years war was a civil war, in which one side had a power base in England, so to use the term "liberation of her homeland" is a patriotic French POV. Also "A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy" but no mention of politics in "Pope Callixtus III reopened Joan's case; a new finding overturned the original conviction" can equally be seen as a French POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

One could argue anything, but are there any reliable sources which do so argue ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Show me your sources for this: "She had visions, claimed to be from God, which inspired French troops to win the liberation of most of France's former territories that had been under English dominance in the Hundred Years' War." Alan Pascoe 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My sources ? The footnotes to the article were enough for me. Visions, referenced; inspired, referenced; libertation, dicdef; former territories, not specifically referenced, but a sketchy knowledge of the Hundred Years War tells me its right; English dominance, ditto. The sentence is a reasonable summary of the article content, which is what I'd expect in an introductory paragraph.

If you want to get into a discussion of whether "liberate" is appropriate, that's fine. Gauvard's La France au Moyen Âge (pp. 472ff.) has a discussion of nationalism in this context, so it seems to me that liberate (even if it is not the word I'd use; expel is shorter) is admissible for the parts of France Henry V had conquered. "Nationalism was particularly fierce on the periphery of the kingdom, Tournai in the north, in Normandy and the frontiers of Brittany ... and above all in the east, near the Empire. Around 1412, at the time Joan was born, the inhabitants of Vaucouleurs, near Domremy, showed the same attachment to symbols of the Crown [the fleurs de lys] when faced by the predations of the Duke of Lorraine. They fought to keep the fleur de lys plaques which decorated their walls. As the annals say, 'the Duke could do nothing against them, for they had the king in their hearts'." (Gauvard, p. 473)

The trials seems almost adequately referenced to me, just about in line with WP:V, although I would like more refs for the retrial. I'm not familiar with Regine Pernoud (and what little I do know doesn't encourage me), and would have liked to have see the Dubys book in there. But, with those caveats, I don't think that you could dispute those parts unless you'd made a reading of the cited refs and could show that they were being misrepresented. Or if you'd found something which disagreed with them. If the article cites refs, I'd expect critics to do the same, otherwise we'd be letting POV be injected by the back door. For what it's worth, I thought "Legacy" was the weakest part of the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Postscript: Having said all that, on a closer look the sentence appears to be misplaced. At present it puts "liberate French territory" (to which "and conquer Gascony" could be added; I had a whole paragraph about that which vanished from the above) before leaping back in time to Orleans and Reims. It doesn't address post-execution affairs until para 2, which is where "liberate French territory" should logically appear. However, "She had visions, claimed to be from God," needs to be in para 1 along with "The then-uncrowned king" and his otherwise inexplicable faith in her. Not that it is explained at present, we're left to assume that Charles VII's confidence in her and the visions are linked. It seems that para 1 needs redone from "She had visions" onwards. Para 2 should have the "liberate" stuff but it doesn't seem on first glance that it can be added anywhere as is without having the same problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not have to provide sources because I am not suggesting putting anything into the article. I am suggesting that the words be altered to take out the French POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism was not an issue

This article gives the impression that Joan of Arc fought and died for the cause of Catholicism against a non-Catholic foe. This is a false impression because the English were also Catholics. Alan Pascoe 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were, for over a century after Joan's death. Henry VIII didn't come to the English throne until 1509. Fsotrain09 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't give me that impression.Cwiki 09:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It implies, both in the article and in the categories, that Catholicism was an issue in the Hundred Years War. It was not. Alan Pascoe 18:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to labour the point but I don't see how the article implies that Joan fought against a non-Catholic foe. She was Catholic and she had some sort of religious vision about ridding France of the English. That doesn't mean she thought, and the article doesn't seem (to me) to imply, that the English were non-Catholic. Could you indicate any lines where you infer otherwise? Cwiki 01:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

For her to be of Catholism is only by a popular belief. There are evident history that shows she did not follow catholism. However, it was and still is the dominant church, and many legislative acts were done by the church at the time. Catholism was something new to many of france, as they had their beliefs follow whatever the royal family believed. There is controversial issues with protestant of what century they actually started. Officially it is stated a century after Joan. You might find some of the earlier evidence to in aligned with protestant behavior. Being charge with heresy, it is the strongest evidence against the catholic church and they turned it around against Joan. It is obvious the church could not handle protestant behavior. More evidence of this is follows later near the French Revolution. Those that were overthrown left to other countries... like America. What is the dominant church there now? — Dzonatas 20:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Care to show this evidence of her not being catholic? Thats a pretty outrageous claim to be making.

Hopeless POV

So the heresy trial was political but the rehabilitation was just finding the "truth"? Note that the rehabilitation was ordered by the first of the Borgias, a notorius nepotist and well versed in the politics of the day. It would not have happed if Henry VI had won. --213.122.37.62 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

-Look at the procedures used in both trials. The rehabilitation trial involved the testimony of dozens of witnesses from throughout Joan's life. It also followed the established legal procedures for the court. The trial of condemnation ignored and violated the ecclesiastical rules of the Church. The defense was not allowed to present witnesses, nor allowed counsel, nor allowed appeal. That is what makes it more political than the rehabilitation. -Rob 16:01 26 April 2006

-I think I go along with the hopeless-POV POV. I don't dispute the basic fact that her trial by the English was 'politically motivated'. I bet they hated her guts. 'kangaroo court' would probably be le mot just. However, I rather suspect that was pretty much the norm in them days. It's the tone I object to and the lack of context. The article affects moral outrage that the judge was a partisan appointment. Of course he was: all offices of state were filled by royal appointees. The above statement argues that the absence of defence witnesses or counsel was unfair. Likely so but business as usual at the time. A very quick search of the interweb throws up two interesting facts: (1) English law permitted no defence witness testimony in felony/treason crimes until the 16th century and, (2) No defence counsel for felonies until the Prisoner's Councel Act of 1836. 100 years after Joan's execution the Tudors were gaily chopping English heads off left right and centre after some highly dubious legal procedings. I appreciate that the trial may not have followed the letter of ecclesiastical trials of the time (I wouldn't know) but in terms of realpolitik, so what? And finally, if the condemnation was flawed because of the lack of a defense, who prosecuted in the rehabilitation? Condemnation: all prosecution and no defense; Rehabilitation: all defense and no prosecution. Conclusion: both flawed.217.154.66.11 12:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Article of the day

I seem to remember this article being the AOTD some time ago.Maybe I'm wrong but why repeat it when there are many great choices to have on the front page.

Religious bias in article

Are the people who run Wikipedia all religious evangelists? Seriously. I need to know.

(OK, I have no idea if this is the correct place to post this, but I can't find any other place. I do not know how the arcane and not-very-user-friendly Wikipedia interface works - there are endless links to locked pages and nowhere else to post discussions. I hope this is it.)

Perhaps someone can clear this up for me so I can stop wasting my time. Here are the facts:

1. This Joan of Arc article appears regularly on the front page of Wikipedia. 2. It is barely disguised religious propaganda.

Since whoever runs this site (I don't know who that is and don't have time to wade through the endless pages in this site) keeps putting it on the front page, I can only assume: (a) that person wishes to perpetuate the religious propaganda, thereby abandoning any pretense of Wiki being an actual science and fact-based encyclopeida, (b) someone keeps altering the article to include the religious dogma as fact (which it isn't) and no one stops them. It's an ongoing thing like Scientologists writing letters-to-the-editor and suing anyone who writes articles on their religion, perhaps?

Please tell me if this is the case. I have tried several times to correct this drivel in the article, but to no avail.

If I need to site references, I refer you to the dictionary definition of the word "logic."

I am referring specifically to the sublimely ridiculous section on the hearing of voices by JoA. Anyone with a working sense of reason knows that she either (a) made it up and didn't hear anything. This is called "lying". Or (b) she really heard voices, in which case she had a mental illness. There is no other rational explanation. There is not now nor has there every been any scientific proof of anything supernatural such as deities, and certainly not of the deities doing anything concrete, such as speaking in someone's head.

So, if the powers that run this site continue to allow this JoA article to say such patently illogical things such as: "Those who argue the opposite position consider the visions themselves to be proof of mental illness, by assuming that they were hallucinations (a symptom of mental illness), which therefore proves that she was mentally ill. The medical community does not consider this type of argument to be valid grounds for a diagnosis, however, as it is an example of circular reasoning."

Uh, hellllooooo? So apparently this article was written by "the medical community?" How can this go unchallenged? This is like saying "the medical community does not consider committing suicide as a symptom of suicidal tendencies..." If someone says they hear voice, they are either lying for some reason, or they are mentally ill.

Other dogmatic religious nonsense (I mean that word literally) in the article include: "Psychiatric explanations encounter some difficulties." Do I REALLY have to explain how unsuitable this sentence is for inclusion in a supposed encyclopedia? If so, then Wikipedia is hopelessly mired in the religious right and I will stop wasting my time trying to correct it.

The fact that I even have to point out the illogic of this article and its Sunday School delivery is a danger sign that the Wiki system has failed.

Am I missing something? How can such poorly written articles continue to appear? And on the front page? And with such obvious logic flaws? And with such an obvious religious agenda?

Or am I laboring under an illusion when I think that this is supposed to be a fact-based site? Please tell me if it isn't, so I can give up and let the religious apologists and fanatics continue with their fun.

Or is Wikipedia simply a place where people consantly change articles back and forth in a never-ending war?

What's next - an article called "Creationism and the Science to Support It" on the front page?

Oh, and there are many, many other similar problems with the JoA page, too many to list. Why? Especially since a casual reading reveals so many... I am confused and frustrated.

Note that new comments are put at the bottom of the Talk page, not the top. Note also that it is not acceptable to put comments on article pages; if you have an objection to the article, either fix it yourself or discuss it on the Talk page.

"Are the people who run Wikipedia all religious evangelists?" - No. Wikipedia's editors have a wide variety of different backgrounds and world-views. There is also a very significant population of irreligious, atheistic, agnostic, skeptical, etc. users on Wikipedia; overall, I'd say that although there are definitely some deeply religious editors, they are in the minority.

"I do not know how the arcane and not-very-user-friendly Wikipedia interface works - there are endless links to locked pages and nowhere else to post discussions." - I sympathize with your confusion. Wikipedia is indeed a complicated place for new users; you should be able to get used to it with a little more time, but until then the text-heavy layout and non-intuitive links may befuddle you. If you have any specific questions or requests regarding how to navigate this site, or anything else for that matter, please feel free to bring them up on my personal Talk page, User talk:Silence.

"This Joan of Arc article appears regularly on the front page of Wikipedia." - This is not a fact; in fact, it is completely false. Joan of Arc appeared on the front page of Wikipedia for a single day, and only because it was selected, after several months of editing by a group of editors, to be featured on the main page as an example of Wikipedia's better (though certainly still imperfect and deficient in several ways) works. This is the first and last time Joan of Arc ever has and ever will appear on the main page, and it's only because of the hard work that was put into this article, not because of the subject matter. Indeed, if you look at the last few Featured Articles of the day, it becomes immediately clear that Wikipedia does not have an excessive focus on religious subject matter: the last few articles to be on the main page were Equal Protection Clause, Efdell, Samuel Beckett and Canadian federal election of 1993, and today's article is Sverre of Norway. These articles were selected more or less at random from the full stock of Featured Articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles. There is no secret agenda or conspiracy theory, just some editors who happened to want to work on an important historical figure, Joan of Arc.

"It is barely disguised religious propaganda." - This "fact" is also untrue, and you have not supported it with any quotations from the text that are "religious propaganda". You are overreacting, probably because you are unused to Wikipedia's style of writing. Wikipedia does not state its own opinion on anything, even on cases where it's pretty obvious that one side is right and the other wrong. For example, the God article does not say "God does not exist", even though there's no evidence supporting God's existence; all it does is cite and quote sources on both side of the issue of whether or not God exists, provide all the available evidence, and let the readers decide what to believe, rather than shoving it down their throats. This policy of non-involvement is one of the core policies on Wikipedia, and is called neutral point of view. Although it may sometimes lead to rather circuitous explanations for controversial topics, in the end it is the only thing that makes it possible for Wikipedia to fairly treat the thousands of divergent significant viewpoints that exist on numerous issues and ongoing controversies in the world.

"Since whoever runs this site (I don't know who that is and don't have time to wade through the endless pages in this site)" - That would be Jimmy Wales. His talk page is at User talk:Jimbo Wales, if you want to leave him a message. However, he has had nothing to do with this specific page personally.

"someone keeps altering the article to include the religious dogma as fact (which it isn't)" - You have yet to explain where this actually occurs. Why not calm down, take a few deep breaths, and just tell us exactly and specifically which portions of the article you object to, and why? We will then probably be able to address your objections, and can work together to improve the article to your liking, or at least resolve the misunderstanding which is clearly at work here. In this way, we can turn this into a positive and constructive experience by which, even if misinformation existed in the article before, it will be expunged so that future readers will receive a properly neutral and realistic account. However, simply ranting about "dogma" and "propaganda" and making pointed insinuations about the personal beliefs of Wikipedia's editors is not the best way to begin such a collaborative process.

"Please tell me if this is the case. I have tried several times to correct this drivel in the article, but to no avail." - No, you haven't. According to your edit history, you only edited the page once, and that edit was just to complain about the article on the article page itself, rather than to try to in any way improve what's already there.

"If I need to site references, I refer you to the dictionary definition of the word "logic."" - You do need to cite references, but simply giving the definition of the word logic is obviously insufficient, and amounts to an empty rhetorical tactic to characterize your point of view as "logical" without actually providing any evidence or reasoning to back it up. Please refrain from the inflammatory, melodramatic uncivil language; a calmer, more level-headed and open discussion forum is what we prefer here, not back-and-forth accusations and rhetorical barbs.

"Anyone with a working sense of reason knows that she either (a) made it up and didn't hear anything. This is called "lying". Or (b) she really heard voices, in which case she had a mental illness." - Incorrect. When someone claims to hear voices, there are always three options: (a) that person is not hearing voices, and is deliberately lying; (b) that person is not hearing voices, but thinks that s/he is, and is deluded or psychologically disturbed; (c) that person is hearing voices. The fact that option c is extremely unlikely in this case does not make it impossible, and your complete lack of acknowledgment of this fundamental possibility reflects the fact that your preconceptions are warping your attempts to discuss this topic neutrally. Yes, Joan of Arc was probably either lying or deluded, but there's a common belief that she wasn't, so Wikipedia must present all the perspectives on the matter in an unbiased way, without favoring either side, but simply presenting the facts and letting them fall where they will fall.

There is at least a fourth option: a person hears voices without a physical or supernatural cause, but is not mentally ill. I'm only pointing out here that unusual mental experiences might not impair a person or be pathological. There are probably other explanations as well. --71.161.45.93 00:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"There is not now nor has there every been any scientific proof of anything supernatural such as deities, and certainly not of the deities doing anything concrete, such as speaking in someone's head." - I agree entirely. But that doesn't have anything to do with the actual passage we're discussing, which neither states that her visions were divinely inspired nor that they were definitely delusions (or lies), which is a matter of great uncertainty because of the lack of first-hand modern accounts of her that would have been necessary to accurately form a diagnosis. Ergo the page should not make unverifiable claims about the exact nature of her visions, because the simple truth of the matter is that we don't know, or fully understand, her condition. Instead, it should present popular hypotheses and beliefs about them in a neutral way, per Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

"So, if the powers that run this site continue to allow this JoA article to say such patently illogical things such as: 'Those who argue the opposite position consider the visions themselves to be proof of mental illness, by assuming that they were hallucinations (a symptom of mental illness), which therefore proves that she was mentally ill. The medical community does not consider this type of argument to be valid grounds for a diagnosis, however, as it is an example of circular reasoning.'" - Actually, I agree entirely. I think that paragraph needs some rewriting, and some references to support its claims. I would love to discuss with you exactly how best to neutrally present the issue, though you may want to review some of Wikipedia's policy (perhaps start from Wikipedia:Introduction to learn the basics?) before you offend someone in your over-eagerness to fight religious dogmatism—a worthy goal, but a slightly misdirected one in this case; noone has edited this article to push a secret, nefarious agenda, they've just failed to be completely neutral in a few lines. It happens to everyone. :) -Silence 07:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Visions

This whole section needs to be scrapped and started again. The arguments use the following "logic" -

Joan had hallucinations/delusions or really did hear voices from God; therefore she had schizophrenia or really did hear voices from God; she didn't have all of the modern DSM-IV criteria to justify a diagnosis of schizophrenia and surely everyone can tell a schizo when they see one; therefore she wasn't schizophrenic and really did hear voices from God. It is possible to have hallucinations and/or delusions and still function socially and intellectually. Cwiki 05:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cwiki, that is a lot of work though. In the meantime I think its an improvement to delete this section

", usually by .... circular reasoning".

The main point has already been made: If you do not think the visions themselves are sign of mental illness there is no evidence that JoA was mentally ill. The section was to long to make the point. For instance: information about the percentage of scientists that believe in God should not be in this article. Pukkie 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Do look into the history of this sectionl. Most of it was kept because their are significant points. One point is that there is obviously questions of mental illness. There is enough evidence to such that such does not exists. That does not mean she had visions from God. It is not one or the other. There are many more reasons to explain such visions. She could have just lied completely about them. She could have had eaten some form of drug from an advanced civilizations that made her receive visions. Doubt them all is what I do. The bottom line of amazement is her leadership at the age of 19. — Dzonatas 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

getting rid of the circular reasoning bit

In the "visions" section, someone is talking about circular reasoning. It has been removed and then reverted back in. I would like to remove it again and explain why it does not belong here.

The passage talks about a "disputed assumption";ie, "that God does not exist". If you use this assumption to prove that God does not exist, then that would be circular reasoning. If you have a premise that god does not exist, and conclude that Joan had a mental illness; you have not used circular reasoning. (I will use the term "mental illness" here to include both functional and organic brain disorders)

But, because you have a premise that God does not exist, your conclusion would be considered invalid by everyone who did believe in God. That wouldn't get you very far.

However the premise is not "that God does not exist". The premise is "Even if there was a god, he would not appear before a teenage girl and enlist her help in waging war and ridding France of the English". If you have this as a premise you could conclude that Joan had a mental illness (if you accept the premise that hearing voices that aren't really there is a sign of mental illness). Of course, this conclusion would be considered invalid by people who do believe that God talks to people and asks them to wage war. But it's not circular reasoning. Cwiki 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Also: even if the argument was sound it still should not be here. The section is too long to make a point that does not need to be made in the article about JoA. Pukkie 16:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I see 213.197.202.209 has reverted the text back. He states any argument based on an unproven assumption is, by definition, a circular argument. Sorry, but that's not true. An argument based on a false assumption is called a false premise. Cwiki 22:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And I deleted it again. If you really want to make this argument about visions do it somewhere else. For instance in the "Visions" article but NOT in the article about Joan of Arc. Pukkie 10:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I see 213.197.202.209 has changed his wording a bit. He has misrepresented the view of people he disagrees with, to give them the appearance of suffering from circular reasoning. His logic will take a little longer to pick apart now but bear with me.

He states that people who do not agree with him state that "any described experience of the supernatural must be delusional". That is not true. A lot of people believe all sorts of paranormal things without being considered psychotic. If they start hearing voices then eyebrows are raised. As I said earlier, the premise is "Even if there was a God, he would not appear before a teenage girl and enlist her help in waging war and ridding France of the English". 213.197.202.209 refutes this by pointing out that "the Bible contains many instances of Divinely-sanctioned warfare". If you agree with the premise as stated, you will reject that rebuttal; and probably vice-versa. Of the 40% of scientists that have been (irrelevantly) stated to believe in God, only a small percentage would believe in Bible infallibility. The bit about 40% is irrelevant because it's possible to beleve in God, but still believe that Joan of Arc was delusional.

Even if we allow 213.197.202.209's misrepresentation of his opponents premise; "any described experience of the supernatural must be delusional", to stand, it's still not circular reasoning. The logical argument would be

premise - any described experience of the supernatural must be delusional

premise - Joan had a paranormal experience

conclusion - Joan must be delusional.

But 213.197.202.209 shouldn't confuse a conclusion of a logical argument with a proof. A valid logical deduction only proves something to people who agree with the premise. The above argument is a weak argument as the premise is weak. 213.197.202.209 shouldn't get so caught up in trying to find a logical fallacy in his opponents arguments; he should just dispute their premise. Cwiki 22:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

213.197.202.209's last revert ditched the reference to circular reasoning. However he still accuses his opponents of having circular reasoning using other words. He states if one wishes to include these visions themselves as two symptoms of mental illness (i.e., "hallucinations" and "delusions"), then one would need to prove that these were in fact hallucinations and delusions rather than merely assuming them to be such and then using that assumption as evidence proving the assumption itself. No-one is trying to prove anything. The argument is if you do not believe in divine communication, and consider that Joan's visions were hallucinations and delusions, then you could make an argument for a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. No-one has ever stated, to my knowledge, that they have proved Joan had schizophrenia.Cwiki 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Schizophrenia and the DSM-IV-TR

The DSM-IV-TR, for those who are unfamiliar, is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. It is the manual used to try to classify mental illness. For those who don't believe God really spoke to Joan, Joan satisfies the neccessary 2 out of 5 criteria listed in criteria A for schizophenia; that is, delusions and hallucinations. Criteria B for schizophrenia involves social and or occupational dysfuntion. Joan does not appear to satisfy criteria B. But people who for various reasons argue against a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on her failing to satisfy critera B are a little premature. There is a condition in the DSM-IV called "delusional disorder". This is a category for people who meet criteria A but essentially do not meet criteria B. You often here people familiar with the absence of criteria B symptoms in Joan, diagnosing her as having "delusional disorder"; but they are wrong as well. To satisfy the criteria for delusional disorder hallucinations may be present, but auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent. Scratch that; let's go back and look closer at schizophrenia.

Paranoid schizophrenia (the DSM-IV-TR version, not he Hollywood version) is a type of schizophrenia where delusions and auditory hallucinations predominate, while their affective and cognitive functioning remain relatively intact. (Look it up. Google - dsm-iv-tr "paranoid schizophrenia")

The argument that Joan did not have schizophrenia because (to quote from the article on Joan) Joan's lack of social and occupational decline "represent a lack of some of the identifiable symptoms that modern medical diagnostic manuals consider necessary for a positive diagnosis" is incorrect. Cwiki 00:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV section - visions

213.197.202.209 keeps on reverting my work. He has not addressed my concerns in the above sections - getting rid of the circular reasoning bit and schizophrenia and the dsm-iv. I prefer discussing these things on the talk page to engaging in edit wars but 213.197.202.209 won't respond. I am a physician and I know something about the diagnosis of mental illness. 213.197.202.209 is obviously a christian fundamentalist and reverts anything I edit on the subject. Cwiki 21:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

suggested guidelines for editing the Visions section

The nature of Joan's visions are controversial; I think that's a given. I would like to propose a set of guidelines for editors to refer to when they edit this section. It's not an attempt to commandeer this section, and I will modify it based on any feedback I receive on the subject. It is an attempt to list relevant issues that both sides can agree on, and limit unecessary waffling.

1. Whether Joan of Arc herself believed that her visions were from God is rarely disputed

2. it is understood without debate that many Catholics consider the visions to be a form of divine communication

3. many people are skeptical of this notion. even people who belive in God can be skeptical of this notion. (correct me if i'm wrong but i suspect) many Catholics are skeptical of this notion.

4. some people speculate that Joan's visions were hallucinations or delusions, and sufficiently bizarre, even in the context of the 15th century, to be considered evidence of a mental illness. Cite any scholars who make this point

4A. some people consider that Joan's visions were not bizarre enough, especially in the context of the 15th century, to be considered sufficient to consider her mentally ill. Cite any scholars who make this point

5. Joan is considered a saint by the Catholic church. Editors should bear this in mind and try to limit any offence they may cause, and try not to be too disrespectful.

6. people who have a knowledge of psychiatry, who believe that Joan's visions were hallucinations and delusions, consider that Joan had a mental illness and have tried to classify it. Medical professionals with an interest in history, have a long tradition of trying to diagnose historical figures. Sometimes there is a consensus (eg Abe Lincoln suffered from Marfan's syndrome), sometimes there is debate (eg Henry VIII had tertiary syphilis). Rarely is there any proof; but proof is not a necessary ingredient of speculation.

7. Joan was apparently intelligent, and did not suffer from any major social or occupational dysfunction. Both sides agree with this but it does not mean she did not have a mental illness. It is also quite consistent with paranoid schizophrenia. Many people today with schizophrenia (1% of the population) function quite well.

8. the best known classification sytems for mental illness are the DSM-IV and the ICD-10. The manuals have a lot of footnotes which tend to be overlooked by people unfamiliar with them. Disputes about the meaning of the DSM-IV criteria don't belong here unless they occur within scholarship on Joan

9. take care with the term mental illness. The term refers to conditions that cause prominent emotional, behavioral, and psychological symptoms. Depending on one's definition, the term can incorporate mental disorders caused by general medical conditions (such as temporal lobe epilepsy) or exclude these conditions. Some people make a distiction between the terms mental illness and mental disorder; others don't. Using phrases such as hearing voices is not necessarily a sign of mental illness, can therefore be ambiguous.

What doesn't need to be discussed at length

A. suggestions that skeptics suffer from circular reasoning and assume that Joan's visions are hallucinations, and then use this to prove that Joan's visions are hallucinations. (see 4 above) Retrospective diagnoses are speculative only, they are not considered proof of anything.

B. elaborate explanations of how intelligent etc Joan was, and arguing that this means she did not have a mental illness. (see 7 above)

C. deleted

D. discussions about what percentage of scientists believe in god (see 3 above)

I will wait a few days for discussion/feedback before I start applying these guidelines.Cwiki 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good start towards addressing the issue constructively.

However, it still seems to me that the points you lay out fall into the "either she was lying or she was crazy" dichotomy. It's worth stating that people can experience visionary/ecstatic states without being considered mentally ill. Saying this does not endorse the content of Joan's visions (or anyone else's), it just acknowledges that many scholars think religious inspiration and similar ecstatic states are not signs of mental illness or of a mental disorder. (I see that Hoffman is cited for this opinion, but there are probably stronger sources.)

Another point worth making is that this article should be based on citable, verifiable sources; there should be no original research. Therefore, disputes about the meaning of the DSM-IV criteria don't belong here unless they occur within scholarship on Joan of Arc. The article's current editorializing on standards of evidence should not be included since it isn't cited and appears to be original research.

I think point C is worth including, because of the conclusion ("Contrary to modern stereotypes about the Middle Ages, this particular royal court was shrewd and skeptical on the subject of mental health"). This information is surprising and interesting in its own right--as someone unfamiliar with French history, I didn't know that Charles VI was mentally infirm. It at least suggests that Joan wasn't a raving lunatic, though as you point out it doesn't rule out a retrospective diagnosis of mentall illness. point B is worth including simply because it is notable--it's an argument that is made by established scholars.

I have made some edits to the section based on this discussion. It seems like further discussion is warranted, so I tried not to make major changes--just reorganized things to make the structure of the section clearer. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus. I have modified the suggested guidelines to address your concerns. Cwiki 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Science rejects the existence of God, therefore any "divinely inspired" visions must be hallucinations, therefore Joan of Arc was mentally ill. This view also has its critics: since 40% of modern scientists say they do believe in God's existence, the scientific community seems to be divided on this issue I don't think that science rejects the existence of God, rather, science rejects the assumption that God exists, or science has not found conclusive evidence of the existence of any deity. Either way, such a vast generalization bothers me. Also, I wonder if there's a more recent survey that could be quoted. '97 isn't old but there might be a better one. Also, would it make sense to have a section directly about her visions, and then another one specifically discussing her mental health? Verloren Hoop 12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cwiki that the article doesn't need to delve into how many scientists believe in God. Something to remember is that Wikipedia is supposed to report expert opinion on the subject of the article, rather than make original arguments (see WP:V and Wikipedia: no original research. Unless this business about scientists believing/not believing in God has made it into peer-reviewed literature on Joan of Arc, I don't think it belongs here. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

As a psychiatrist reading this article out of general interest, based on what I read here, I do not believe she had schizophrenia, and if she did have it her overall life history suggests this would have been an atypical case. But to the point, I didn't find the emphasis here on mental illness very helpful. Far more useful to me-- and in fact what I was looking for-- would have been a discussion of what actually her visions entailed. How they came will be a matter of endless debate and the possibilities should be briefly listed, i.e. divinely inspired vs. creative fantasy vs. hallucinogen-induced psychosis vs. psychotic or bipolar illness, etc., and then just left it at that, rather than spending the section focusing just on mental illness.

I agree. The touble is this section has been bloated by Catholic fundamentalists. Cwiki 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There is no need for two separate articles. --evrik 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that I would keep them separate. The main article is pretty big as it is, and the focus one on her path to sainthood is probably useful for a Catholic. I'd probably use a different title for the other one: Canonization of Joan of Arc, for instance? Noisy | Talk 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Canonization... sounds about right; There's no duplication as such, and the other article could simply be cleaned up. Mtpt 22:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I am pro merging. (Wikimachine 02:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm against merging. The canonization story is interesting enough to merit a separate article, and the current Joan of Arc article is already huge. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that they should be kept separate as well. --LouiseP 06:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am against merging and agree that the other article should be exerpted and linked from this one. I also agree that Canonization of Joan of Arc would be a better title for the other article. Killdevil 01:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a consensus, so done. Neddyseagoon 16:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon

Jeanne la Pucelle?

I noticed that the Chinese page (zh:聖女貞德) says that Joan of Arc's name in French was "Jeanne d'Arc or Jeanne la Pucelle". Was she in fact called that? Otherwise I'm going to remove it from the page. --Wzhao553 03:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

She was, as a quick Google search will show. "Jeanne la Pucelle" should remain. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Should this page call her that in the lead section then? --Wzhao553 06:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

After long debates about the name, there was a notion to only use "Joan of Arc" and then refer all other instances of her name to another article: Joan of Arc facts and trivia#Name

Original research

The Visions section contains original research and has been tagged as such. The citations of Lucie-Smith, Hoffmann and Larson, far from disproving the claim of original research content, are in fact evidence of it. These authors are not historians, are not cited with regard to the subject, and are thus irrelevant and inadmissible. Any discussion of visions needs to be verifiable and based on reliable sources which are on point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Hoffmann article does talk about Joan of Arc, though she's not the subject of the article:

Hallucinated voices are also known to occur during states of religious or creative inspiration. Joan of Arc described hearing the voices of saints telling her to free her country from the English. Rainer Maria Rilke heard the voice of a “terrible angel” amidst the sound of a crashing sea after living alone in a castle for two months...

Hoffmann is a psychologist, not a historian, but that type of expertise is appropriate for the "visions" section.

I do agree that the section has original research problems, but I think the Hoffmann citation is admissible. As I've said, there are probably arguments similar to Hoffmann's made in specialist literature on Joan, and it would be better to find such and cite them in the article, but until then I think the Hoffmann can remain. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, but such is life — I'll see what I can find which speaks directly to the point. I live in a Francophone country, so I can more easily come up with sources than the average editor. When it comes to dealing with visions, miracles and the like, I like to have the historian's fallacy and its big brother in mind (psychologists and others can fall into the trap, and the biographer's fallacy would have been a better name in any case). And to keep my agnostic, skeptical worldview out of things. My opinions don't matter. There is a useful comment by Daniélou (in L'Église des premiers temps somewhere) to the effect that writing about a religious subject necessitates a degree of acceptance, otherwise it is simply not possible to do so in good faith. Joan and her contemporaries lived in a world where visions and miracles were, if not commonplace, perfectly comprehensible. Any NPOV article has to accept that and move on. That's not moral or cultural relativism, it's how history is done. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the best thing to do is to find something to replace Hoffmann posthaste. Daniélou sounds quite reasonable to me--does that "degree of acceptance" mean that one has to accept that Joan's worldview, and that of her contemporaries, was different than ours? The point I'd make here--which I think is similar to yours--is that you can acknowledge that Joan sincerely thought she heard saints, without believing that the visions really came from god, and without believing that she was mentally ill. In a religious society, states of inspiration are naturally experienced and expressed in religious terms. It's not "religious propaganda" to say that. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Having finished Beaune's Jeanne d'Arc, I can report that she does not devote even a single line to the material of the visions section of this article. She does offer the throw-away remark that Jeanne may have been anorexic, but that's it. Next time I'm in a bookshop I'll have a skim through the Pernaud/Clin book. If it doesn't offer discussions in line with this article, then I suspect that the whole section merits deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)