Talk:Joan of Arc/NPOV

Pulled text from Talk:Joan_of_Arc

NPOV

Jhballard 08:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) wrote:

I like this article. I appreciate the work being done about my family, for I am a descendant of Jacques D'Arc, Jeanne's father. The article does need much work for further clarity and a balance between objective and subjective statements. I'm open-minded about the history, but I'm concerned about the statements that are in passive voice or similar. A statement like "the fire killed Joan of Arc," is passive, for a clearer statement is "Joan died in a fire that was lit beneath her while she was tied to a stake." Much of documented testimony becomes an implied subject; moreover, to promote that Joan stated such-and-such when actually the testimony, the documents themselves, stated such-and-such explicity reveals an obvious passive voice usage, unintentional or not. After I read this article and the discussion, I felt it strongly implied that much of the written testimony of the trial of Joan is not a strong source of facts, but this does not mean to forget them. They obviously contain pieces of the complete puzzle. To gather the pieces, is this not a motive behind wikipedia? Let's put them together; share the knowledge. Good work!

---

Jhballard 06:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) wrote:

This article still compells us to improve it, obviously. By the consensus on this talk page, the article is still in a very POV state which must change to NPOV. I didn't mean to put three edits up there with the same edit summary about pov/npov on Pro-English, for it was a network error that made it appear like it didn't save. The body text of the article, not the first paragraph, is the best place to put all the details to convince the reader that the clergy was pro-english. When I read the first paragraph, and many other statements, I such words spoilied critical points. The point is more clearly made if you let the reader decide how to catagorize the individuals written about. I've read other stories and watched movies and had no problem that there is evidence that the trials were biased. To continue to point out the biased view makes it appear that you have another objective besides than to relay the facts. As a descendant of her family, I have received good and bad reactions from those who have known. If I have an objective on this article, it is to relax some ideas and "end the war" for good, for it still has had an affect. Well, actually I rather see it well-written at MLA standard, being well respected. I like the article, but if I turned this article in with its current state to the English professors I've known, it would fail on clarity, sequential support and use of passive voice. I know news articles and journals tend to let passive voice slide, but MLA has become a means to communicate very effectively. This article would mislead an academic writer. It does not provide a bases an academic writer can use. Therefore, it wouldn't be used. Academic writers that must write in MLA style tend to choose sources that follow MLA style. If the sources aren't in MLA standards, the academic writer risks expository assignments with creativity.

To Allen Williamson:

I fear that this otherwise wonderful article will NEVER see the front-page of Wikipedia. It is entirely too one-sided. And despite your skillful and adroit deflections what you are doing is obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain. Preventing this article from containing any shred of neutrality dooms it to the nether-regions of Wikipedia.

Threatening others with "banning" is not your say either. Perhaps you, like everyone else here, should be held to the standards of this encyclopedia. In fact perhaps breaking one of the fundamental rules should be grounds for a ban. --Wjbean 23:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, while I do perfectly agree with your statements - and I have been in mediation with User:AWilliamson, too (with not results) - it seems that by now any appeals to him might be somewhat pointless, since his last edit is from 18th of January 2005 (not couting one edit to the Sandbox) [1]. So there is some hope that he is gone for good, and therefore, the article has a fair chance of becoming NPOV and more complete after all.

Actually, it is a shame that somebody who so obviously is knowlegeable about a subject is so utterly useless to WP, but given the debate at Talk:Cross-dressing and others I obviously won't cry too much if I never have to have a single exchange with him again. Should he not be gone, I might point to the decision of the ArbCom regarding Everyking, who showed a very similar attitude to other articles, especially [2]. That decision prompted me not to go for arbitration after the failed mediation, simply because there was a fresh decision about the same problem, so it was unnecessary.

However, if he is indeed gone for good, I would very much appreciate if the article indeed becomes more NPOV, and does not fall from one extreme into the other - many WP editors have an atheist bias, and there is no more proof that any of the "mental illness" theories is correct than there is for the "mission from God" theory. (In fact, the two are not even mutually exclusive; nor are they the only possible explanations.) -- AlexR 17:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have added a variation of Wjbean's suggestion (on the 14th), since it's similar to what I had already said I would add some time ago (and yes, I hadn't gotten around to it yet). I would prefer to add more historical detail, but since this is what was being asked for, I hope that we can finally put this issue behind us rather than initiating another "edit war".

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 18:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Allen: Please DO add more historical data. I find that there are some articles here that are far more wordy than other subjects that could be twice or three times as long.

Any argument can be made as to her state of mind or state of grace. Any argument can also include a sentence or two that has a mediating effect upon that argument. The point, I'm sure, is not to slander the maid, but to present her in such a way that non-Christians can appreciate her without taking offense.

The anniversary of Joan's death falls on May 30th. It would be great if this article was front-page ready by that date. --Wjbean 00:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits to "Visions" section to break up long sentences and wikify the terms hallucinations and mental illness --Wjbean 00:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV: In regards to the NPOV tag, see below on some of the debates: it seems that every time an argument or some scientific explanation has been but forth for Joan of Arcs visions, it is quickly deleted (see also the article's history). There has been abundant and considerable research into scientific explinations for Joan's visions, none of which is suggested in the text, or in any of the external links (which are predominantly pro-catholic). While there is considerable use of "weasel words" [WP:AWT] there seems to be a pro-religious attitude to the text by the error of intentional omission, which can be easily rectified by allowing inclusion of other points of view on Joan's history and visions - something that, to date, has been consistently excised. A good exapmple of a page that looks at all sides of an issue, religious, scientific, and secular, is the page on Jesus Christ. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 16:00, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The issue is as follows: all attempted explanations of Joan's "voices" have been based on the common misconception that her visions were described merely as auditory sensations which only she could hear - a false notion based (loosely) on only one small portion of what is described in the documents. She herself, as well as other sources, said bluntly that other people (e.g., the Count of Clermont, Guy de Cailly, etc) could simultaneously experience her visions, which sometimes took a concrete physical form which she and occasionally other people could see, touch, etc, rather than just "voices" that were internal to her own mind. It could also be noted that the predictions she relayed from these visions are in some cases recorded even in enemy diplomatic correspondence dated prior to the fulfillment of these predictions (e.g., the (pro-Burgundian) Rotselaer correspondence). This is the actual evidence we have to work with, and if there's a natural explanation for this type of thing, it certainly cannot be any of the various mental disorders that have been proposed.

Stating the above is not "POV", it's simply an explanation of what the documented evidence actually says, as opposed to popular misconceptions among non-historians.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for replying. In regards to your answer, you state facts and "misconceptions," and that is fantastic. But, the nature of this encyclopedia dictates that you should reserve that for the article: specifically, allow another point of view, other than your own, and rebut it; and allow others to rebut your statements in the article. I'm not saying take a discussion to the main page (that is what this is for), but simply allowing other points of view in - not just the pro-saint, pro-catholic point of view this article represents. If the psychological argument for Joan's visions was a fringe theory, than it would be understandable - however, googling the subject shows that quite alot of people ascribe to this theory. Simply allow the point to be made, then make a counterpoint, "other people (e.g., the Count of Clermont, Guy de Cailly, etc) could simultaneously experience her visions." Another argument to the NPOV tag is that there are few cited sources, and most of the external links are to religious organizations or sites that asribe to an entirely holy Joan. Once again, the Jesus Christ entry is a prime example how to do it: clearly, Christians would not aggree with the secular and scientific arguments on Christ's life, but there is also the religious view that is provided for balance. It should be the same here - but it isn't, because you and a few others simply have not allowed it, which is a diservice to the wikipedia, the wikicommunity, and to Joan of Arc, who was an amazing human being (holy or not). Please consider letting others contribute, regardless of their argument, and let Wikipedia's proven process elevate this entry to the heights we know it deserves to be. Thank you for your time. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 09:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First of all: I would gladly include a section mentioning some of these psychological theories so long as I'm allowed to cite what the historical evidence actually says on the relevant subjects.

Secondly: most of those sites are not particularly "religious" in orientation: you are interpreting any citation of the accepted documentation as having a "religious" motivation, when in fact it is simply the evidence accepted by historians. Even anti-Catholic historians such as Quicherat stated the very same facts; and indeed Quicherat went out of his way to note both Joan's well-documented piety and orthodoxy as well as to point out that the evidence frankly attests to the apparent accuracy of her predictions. Quicherat was anticlerical, and was therefore not motivated by any "pro-Catholic bias" on his own part: he was simply stating the documented facts. Likewise for any site which mentions the same evidence.

On a final point: Yes, there are many websites which claim that Joan had literally every mental disorder known to medical science, and there are many people who will claim that historians are "biased" if they point out why these ideas are wrong; but there have been an even greater number of published books which claim that she was a member of the Royal family rather than a peasant, or English rather than French, etc; and the people who believe in these theories will make the very same accusations of "bias" against any historian who points out what the facts are. Over the years, I've even been accused of bias for stating that Joan lifted the siege of Orleans, since there are authors (e.g., Roger Caratini) who claim that Joan allegedly never led an army at all.

In any event, I can add a section dealing with the "mental disorder" theories you think should be mentioned, so long as I'm allowed to cite what the documentary sources actually say.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 04:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC))

The problem with starting with an argument ("mental disorder" - your words, by the way, not mine), and then work your way to the evidence while putting in the other side of the argument favors the other side over the first. Additionally, the "documentary sources," such as they are, if taken literally will automatically favor a holy over human viewpoint. What needs to be done is to start out with the known evidence - then look at the arguments which can be derived. For instance, a simple example could read: "Young Joan had visions. Many believe (for such and such reasons) that they were holy (then provide evidence, cite sources). Others believe (based on such and such) that there are psychological or physiological explinations for said phenomenon (provide evidence, cite sources)." Folowing that formula will give a truly neutral perspective that is needed. It is also important to not downplay an argument whether or not you believe in it.

Re Site Bias, a full quarter of the sites listed in the external links are overtly Catholic - either being listed as such, or in content. Of note is this site by a Norman Boutin. The site's title ("Joan of Arc Information") and description ("deals with several misconceptions") gives the air of neutrality, but a casual stopover on the page reveals it to be [dubious.

Now, the inclusion of overtly religious links would not be a problem if there were a comparable listing of resources in favor of scientific viewpoints of the evidence. But there are none. At all. A good place to start would be to find (or allow) competant sites exhibiting that viewpont to be posted.

I think there are. There is at least one non-religious link. For example the (between myself and mr. Williamson) much disputed link to the reconstructed portrait and accompanying biography. It's now in the list of links, despite mr. Williamson's objections. Switisweti 15:31, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally (at least in regards to external links), I would urge you to remove your website from the list. Your site may have an impressive amount of content, but it gives the (deserved) air of self promotion, as much of the Joan of Arc entry has been written/rewritten/edited/kept up by you.

No, I don't agree. Although the site's content may be somewhat religious, it's still a great source and it should be mentioned in the list of external links. That has nothing to do with self-promotion. It was me who added the link in the first place, not mr. Williamson. Switisweti 15:36, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article, as it now stands, contains no cites of websites (etc.) from which specific info is derived, reducing transparency. I recommend, for anyone adding to this (or anything) that a visit to Wikipedia:Cite_your_sources is a great step forward.

So. Here we are. Where to start, to bring this article to neutrality, aside from the points above? Foremost is restraint. Don't automatically remove content because you disagree with it (which equally applies to those wanting to make a scientific argument). The perfect first step would be to allow the epilepsy view in - I mention that because that would be the easiest to do as the relevant links and content is stored in the history. If you (specifically) don't wish to start the scientific threads, than Let the comunity know what needs to be done.

Most important, remember it should remain as EVIDENCE then ARGUMENT with cites, then ARGUMENT with cites. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 11:09, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Jeffrey O. Gustafson: First of all, most of the history-related information given at sites such as the one by Norman Boutin (which you dismiss as "dubious") is confirmed,

While certainly dates may be accurate, the dubiousness is in the commentary, which is decidedly biased, and frankly troubling in it's blind devotion to a preconcieved notion of divinity. On the first page alone, under what, um, someone might consider the acedemic header entitled "Was Joan of Arc schizophrenic? NO! Psychiatrists need their heads examined," the author asserts that it simply cannot be because, "no psychiatrist ever talked to Joan." Yeah.

And then, astonishingly, directly under that, the author asserts that Joan had an IQ of "300" [sic], based on Twain's account. The author ignores the fact that Joan was never given an IQ test...

The first page, back to back examples, and you wonder why I think its dubious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I had forgotten about those comments on the site. Nevertheless, as I said before and as you agreed above, the portions dealing with the basic historical facts are accurate. I don't like his usage of Twain's fictional novel, etc, but some sites are based on fiction with regard to even the basic facts (see my next comment farther below). AWilliamson 03:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

on the main points at least, by the original sources: e.g., his information debunking various misconceptions, for example, is mostly just the standard view that historians have stated many times, along with some of his own ideas, granted. You are once again trying to analyze information without reference to the underlying evidence, by assuming that any site which presents Joan a certain way "must" be based on a personal bias - roughly analogous to claiming that anyone who argues that Napoleon won the battle of Austerlitz must be "biased" in favor of Napoleon, although the evidence proves that he did, in fact, win the battle. I already pointed out that even anti-Catholic historians have taken much the same view as these allegedly "biased" authors.

Much the same points can be made concerning many of the other sites listed. Additionally, it could be noted that the fact that a quarter of them are, by your estimation, Catholic, is little more than a reflection of what's available out there: many Catholic sites include a short biography of Joan of Arc and many Catholics have an interest in her, since she's a Catholic saint.

That is certainly logical, and a good point. However, there are also many quality sites that look at the issue from a psychological stand-point. As noted, these have been excised or intentionally ommited. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's because their version is based on manifest distortions or misconceptions on a basic point - i.e., the evidence concerning her visions which these sites are "analyzing". This is therefore a falsification of history on the only issue which these sites address - unlike the site you have been objecting to, which contains much factual information on many issues. AWilliamson 03:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, concerning the sources upon which my revisions to the article were based: the portions I added or modified were based on my research on the original documents. For my own material (outside of Wikipedia), I have footnotes citing the documents which were used as sources, but since I had never seen anything similar used in any Wikipedia article, I had left these out. I can add them, so long as I won't be accused of wrongdoing for citing primary sources -- despite what the official policy may state, in many articles there has been a constant battle whenever editors cite, or demand citation of credible sources, with the result that many Wikipedia articles are based on nothing but internet rumors and outright fiction.

Please qualify this statement. Additionally, your original research isn't necessary. Start with the accepted evidence and then move onto the interpretations, whether or not you aggree with them. You don't need to add anything to the known evidence. What you need to add is a balanced interpretation of evidence. And cites. Because there still are none. (See above) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe I already addressed this before, and it ties into my comments on the next point (see below). AWilliamson 03:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are endless headaches for anyone who tries to follow or demand a higher standard.

A higher standard of research is certainly respectable. But here the higher standard is about inclusion and neutrality. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Neutrality" has to be judged based on whether the original evidence is being accurately quoted, as I've said before. This is, in the end, the crucial point which concerns all of the issues being discussed here. AWilliamson 03:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly, concerning my site being listed: as Switisweti pointed out farther above, I was not the one who added my site, and there's no legitimate reason to delete it.

I aggree. I also feel there was no legitimate reason to delete the epilepsy links, either, from a while ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I explained the reason for that (i.e., the distortion of evidence) in a comment farther above. AWilliamson 03:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Finally: as I said, I can present the evidence concerning Joan's visions, although you're going to have to allow me to state what the evidence actually says rather than dismissing any citation of it as an indication of "bias".

Yes! That is the point: Show the evidence, show what you feel it "says," and also show what others say it says.

I'm also going to have to be allowed to state the contrary evidence against the interpretation that she had various mental disorders,

Which is absolutely fantastic, as long as you do those who hold opposite views to yours to do the same. Allow the contrary evidence against the interpretaion that she was a messenger from God.

Once you have done this, then it will be neutral. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 03:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The nature of the "contrary evidence" you're alluding to has already been discussed (i.e., it's a distortion of the actual evidence). If I'm allowed to simply cite the historical documentation in relation to such theories - which is the only reasonable procedure - then I will certainly do so. I will add it as time permits.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC))

since the evidence is entirely against this view (the complex visual and tactile nature of her visions would alone rule out disorders which only produce very simple visual or auditory distortions, such as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy; and the shared nature of some of her visions would rule out all of them).

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:41, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC))

seems a bit pov when talking about the nature of her visions. Orangetuesday 05:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)