Talk:Joan of Arc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleJoan of Arc is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 16, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 3, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
August 31, 2006Featured article reviewKept
September 4, 2022Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 29, 2004, July 7, 2004, July 7, 2005, July 7, 2006, May 30, 2007, May 30, 2008, May 30, 2009, May 30, 2010, May 30, 2011, May 30, 2013, May 30, 2015, May 30, 2018, May 30, 2019, May 30, 2020, and May 30, 2023.
Current status: Featured article


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

Change Charles to King Charles VII Popsiclestyxs (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Charles is referred to as Charles VII in the first mention of the lead. For the remainder of the article, he is called by his given name as per other articles on nobility (see
WP:surname and the Elizabeth II
article for example). He is sometimes called Charles VII in the article when there is the possibility of confusion with Charles VI.
Wtfiv (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling convention

Why does this article use American English when the subject concerns a French national who liberated her country from British control? English is formally taught and used in France with British English, not the American variant. This makes no sense and should be rectified for accuracy’s sake. 172.98.147.167 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is like asking why don't we use more of the french wikipedia page on joan of arc here on this version. Sinking into reality (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A better argument is that she has
"strong national ties" with England, having fought against the English, and been executed partly by them; of course she has no ties with the Americas. I'm fine with changing this, if we can reach consensus. There don't seem to be many changes required. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with this. I am an American myself and this article has no connection to the US at all. This should be changed. CharlieEdited (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to leave it in American English as it reflects the editorial history of the article. Wtfiv (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wtfiv. 69.117.214.206 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MoS, given the connections to England as opposed to the USA it seems like British spelling would be preferable. XeCyranium (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the front page uses Oxford English. That can be improved to American English. The editors settled on such a hybrid result. Sinking into reality (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's really odd to have US English for an article that has no connection to America. I would support English English. Anna (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd when a single book on here can amass authority. By that same logic, most of the things about this family originates in France. I haven't seen compliance. Sinking into reality (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the creator of the article is American and wrote it using American English. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. There were consistently three editors and two are American. Sinking into reality (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love that in this entire debate, nobody once checked if there is a Style Guide for EU English, a document that doesn't use -ize once. Sure, it's mainly for EU institutions but there are "Use so-and-so language" templates that don't seem to have any style guide other than the one Wikipedia made, if any that is, and there are more English speakers in the European Union alone than many of them combined. Perhaps someone should make a template? Vive la France! The Education Auditor (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024

Change “(aged c. 19)” in the Death field to something like “(aged approximately 19)” or “(aged ~19)”. The use of “circa” or “c.” is incorrect here. 69.117.214.206 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Wtfiv (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne

she was 19 years old when she died on my 30 1431, and born 1412 the day and month is unkown. 184.96.216.24 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Dworkin is NOT a reliable source

The passage in the article in the Clothing section previously stated:

"Cross-dressing may have helped her maintain her virginity by deterring rape[1] and signaling her unavailability as a sexual object;[2] scholars have stated that when she was imprisoned, wearing men's clothes would have only been a minor deterrent to rape as she was shackled most of the time."[3]

First of all, the initial claim about male clothing being a deterrent to rape is laughable. Rape of women is not facilitated by the fact that they wear skirts or dresses. (Sources: [1], [2])

The peculiarity of this claim is explained by the fact that it cites as a source author

radical feminist
, according to the introductory sentence of her article, who believed that all intercourse was coercive, or as it was interpreted by her critics, "all sex is rape," This is how her article presents her book, Intercourse, which is the source for the claim made in the Joan of Arc article:

In Intercourse, she...argued that the sort of sexual subordination depicted in pornography was central to men's and women's experiences of heterosexual intercourse in a male supremacist society. In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform".[4] Such descriptions are often cited by Dworkin's critics, interpreting the book as claiming "all" heterosexual intercourse is rape, or more generally that the anatomical mechanics of sexual intercourse make it intrinsically harmful to women's equality. For instance, Cathy Young says that statements such as "intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women" are reasonably summarized as "all sex is rape".[5]

Upon Dworkin's death, Young described the ideas that Dworkin promulgated thus in a Reason magazine article, in which she called Dworkin "a preacher of hate", and dissected Dworkin's "bizarre claims", which were clearly fringe beliefs, and not reflective of mainstream historical scholarship.

Bottom line: Dworkin is not a

reliable source
for an article on history, or really for anything beyond her fanatical ideas. She was a hate-monger who was obssessed with rape and victimhood in a way that went far beyond that which is espoused by good faith victims' rights advocates.

Moreover, the passage presented her claim without attributing it to her, which gives the appearance of being presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. This is not how speculative claims should be presented in Wikipedia, especially on controversial matters like this. In addition, the paragraph was self-contradictory, in that the very next sentence contradicted it, separating the two opposing statements with just a semicolon: f

I made both of these points in the edit summary that accompanied my removal of the Dworkin claim, but Wtfiv didn't bother to address this when they reverted my edit. I subsequently added attributive wording to it, pending a review of that material's conclusion.

A look through the artice's edit history shows that Wtfiv was the one who first added citations of Dworkin to the article on January 24, 2022, though not in the passage regarding Joan's cross-dressing and rape. Wtfiv later added a citation of Dworkin to that passage on March 7 2022, despite the fact that Pages 125 - 126 of Intercourse, which Wtfiv cited as the source for the claim, makes no mention of male clothing helping to prevent Joan's rape. So in addition to the above, the source failed verification.

Wtfiv also argued "But section uses other sources too." This is a non-sequitur. Wikipedia'as

Reliable Sources
policy requires us to restrict ourselves to only sources that have a reputation for reliability. Dworkin is not one. Whether there are "other sources" in the passage is irrelevant to this. "Bothsidesism" is not a remedy for citing a clearly non-reliable source. Omitting it is.

I would appreciate you thoughts. Nightscream (talk • contribs) 04:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Johnbod that Dworkin can be removed from citations and sources if she is unreliable.
    The focus of this section is about explanations of why Joan wore men's clothes. Dworkin was just one of the sources cited (BTW: I think the citation is verified, but doesn't use the word rape [Joan's] clothing was both symbolic and functional....It protected her body even as it declared it...Her body was closed off and covered...between her legs was inaccessible...) We can replace the citation with Pernoud pp. 219-220, one of the major Joan of Arc scholars, who cites the same point being made by people in Joan's time.
    The wording of the section on Joan of Arc's use of male clothing was the subject of negotiated consensus with other editors in the feature article review who pointed out that some authors have made the claim that Joan's clothing was to prevent rape.
    To the other point. I don't see the two halves of the sentence contradicting each other. Can't a person attempt to protect themselves from sexual assault even as they signal they are not available as a sex object? To give a modern example: a person could carry pepper spray while wearing loose clothes that conceal their gender. If the sentence is confusing, I'm open to wording that makes the point more clearly. Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    nightscream. Dworkin citations removed from sentence. One replaced with Pernoud, pp. 219-220. Wtfiv (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nightscream, I get that you don't like Dworkin, but I wouldn't dismiss the main points so lightly. WP is not concerned with personal preferences but with sources. I have not been much involved with this article, but re the feature of male dress I would explore what many sources have to say and what material they use to suppport their views. Of all figures in history you will find a vast array of scholarly perspectives on Joan.
"Cross-dressing may have helped her maintain her virginity by deterring rape[1] and signaling her unavailability as a sexual object;[2] scholars have stated that when she was imprisoned, wearing men's clothes would have only been a minor deterrent to rape as she was shackled most of the time."[3] "The initial claim about male clothing being a deterrent to rape is laughable. Rape of women is not facilitated by the fact that they wear skirts or dresses."
I don't agree at all. But I am not in a place at the moment (re personal health) to explore the study of this point. NS, you seem angry. Don't let any feelings about second wave feminism cloud the article. Anna (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, can we please keep the argumentation here, and the "votes", for want of a better word, below, which is why I created that subsection?
As for the points you raise:
The passage you cite, "[Joan's] clothing was both symbolic and functional....It protected her body even" does not exhibit any sort of empirical clarity, as it is a flowery, poetic bit of wording, which is was befitting Dworkin's area of study, which was literature. Not history. What does "protected her body" mean? Simply put, it's too vague to form the conclusion that she wore it to prevent rape. You say there are other sources for this assertion. So why the hell cite Dworkin, of all people? Why weren't those other sources cited for this passage?
"Please see the featured article review here for how Dworkin got into the article, search for 'rape'." I have. It makes no mention of Dworkin, so your pointing to that discussion to justify citing Dworkin is a non-sequitur. If there are reliable historical sources for the stated reasons for Joan's cross-dressing, then you should have cited those sources. Not Dworkin. As for your subsequent comment pertainign to another discussion, see my previous statements on why Dworkin is not a reliable source for anything pertaining to history.
"I don't see the two halves of the sentence contradicting each other. Can't a person attempt to protect themselves from sexual assault even as they signal they are not available as a sex object?"
Assuming that this a good faith error on your part, and not willful mendacity, I would point out to you that you are ignoring or missing whcih two passage are contradictory, despite the fact I quoted it at the top of this section. Need me to point it out to you again? Here it is. I'll color-code the two disparate parts of the passage to make it easier for you:

"Cross-dressing may have helped her maintain her virginity by deterring rape[1] and signaling her unavailability as a sexual object;[2] scholars have stated that when she was imprisoned, wearing men's clothes would have only been a minor deterrent to rape as she was shackled most of the time."[3]

The first two sentences assert -- without citing where the assertion came from --- why she wore men's clothing, and the next sentence after that relates that scholars have stated that this would not worked. If the passage had read "Source #1 says that she wore those clothes for this stated reason, while Source #2 has disputed this, saying this would not have worked", and attributed both parts of that passage to reliable sources, that would have been perfectly valid. Instead, it presented ideas in Wikipedia's voice, without acknoledging the contradiction. Am I making this clearer now? Let me know.
"Dworkin citations removed from sentence. One replaced with Pernoud, pp. 219-220."
Well, the one you cited above does indeed support it, but that isn't the one you added to the article itself. The ones you added are of pages from books that make no mention of this. Why did you not add the one you just mentioned above?
Also, I notice that that source explicitly attributes the stated rationale to Joan herself. Why was this not in the passage in the article? Don't you think this is kidna important? Nightscream (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted the statement to address the point that the citation didn't support the statement. It sounds like this could be disputed but it is moot because Dworkin has been removed as a source for this statement.Wtfiv (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are cited in the sentence and accompanied by convenience links. Wtfiv (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought the concern was the first sentence only. Yes, the second sentence was to balance out the perspective of the first. I think the first sentence could be qualified by something like "Some scholars argue..."
I'm unsure why you are stating that sources are not given. They are there with convenience link. It is the case that we are discussing scholarly conjecture, thus my suggestion that something like "Some researchers argue..." Wtfiv (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add Pernoud and Clin. I added Pernoud. You may have missed an earlier edit correction. I first put Pernoud 1966, because that's the edition, but I corrected it to Pernoud 1962, which is the original date of publication and creates the link to the source. The convenience link to the page was not corrected, and it goes to the cited page. Wtfiv (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning this statement could be a good addition, but I also think the cited scholarly consensus could be cited too. Wtfiv (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, please do not break up my messages by inserting your comments in the middle of them. If you want to respond, I ask that you do so in a separate message. It's easier that way to discern, at a glance, who is speaking.
I quoted the statement to address the point that the citation didn't support the statement.
By citing another source that doesn't do so either? You don't address a non-supportive source by adding another non-supportive sourt. You address by adding a supportive one, by fact-tagging it, etc.


Yes, the second sentence was to balance out the perspective of the first.
It doesn't. It contradicts and in a manner that makes no sense as it is written. If you want to say, "A witness claimed Joan said this, but modern scholars say that this idea would not have worked...", then you say that. You don't say, "Cross-dressing may have helped this; scholars says this would not have worked," which makes no sense, because if scholars said this, then who is saying that it actually would've helped??? My edit actually fixed this by attributing the idea to Joan herself, or if you prefer, the witness who claimed she offered this rationale, and I even cited the source that you provided here on this talk page. Why on earth would you then revert it? Because of adding "text"? Putting aside the fact the diff shows less text in your version than in mine, the new citation that you pointed to supports that claim, whereas the prior one (if that's what you're referring to as the "scholarly consensus") does not. Policy is clear on this, scholarly consensus or not. The source you cite has to say what you claim it does in the Wikipedia article. The prior cite did not mention rape deterrant, but the one you gave on this talk page did. Nightscream (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the new section below. I have attempted to address the key concerns there. Wtfiv (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]



  • comment
If there is a consensus to remove Dworkin, it can easily be done. Taking a look, there is only one line, describing Joan as being seen as a valiant woman, that depends on Dworkin. Other sources could be found or this deleted.
I think there is a bigger issue though. Joan is a contentious issue, and I've done my best to try to catch the variety of opinions in the literature that our out there about her. I tried to catch the consensus of the literature based on the broad range of interpretations. They range from Pernoud's careful work which some see as bordering on Roman Catholic hagiography, all the way to Dworkin's radical feminism.
At this point, the argument for the removal of Dworkin is based on the extremity of her viewpoint, that she only has a bachelor's degree, and an opinion piece on her death from a liberatarian magazine. Interestingly, though the author of the article is clearly negative, it mentions her work has been used in college courses and people like Marth Nussbaum find her contributions worthwhile.
I readily agree Dworkin's position is extreme, but I'd like to hear more voices whether the extremity of the position is too fringe to consider within the range of perspectives. Maybe we should reach out to some of the broader communities? Perhaps Wikipedia's libertarian groups or folk interested in feminism. As mentioned, I'm good with the consensus, as long as we have a broad discussion. Wtfiv (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Dworkin's view here is either extreme or original; she is probably just reflecting what she has read elsewhere. But she is in no way a specialist, and where there are better sources there is no justification for adding her. What is the single point that currently relies on her alone? I'm sure better sources are available; if not, leave it out. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, can we please the discussion here, and the "votes" below in the subsection dedicated to them? Thank you.
"the argument for the removal of Dworkin is based on the extremity of her viewpoint."
No it isn't. Nor is it that she is "fringe", although that may be thought of as a separate or related problem with including her. It's that she is not regarded as a reputable source in matters of history, per
WP:IRS. The statements I made above are examples that help illustrate this point. But the underlying point is that she isn't reliable. If you prefer, I can just restrict myself to saying that without elaborating on it. She isn't considered a reliable source in the field of history, as her area of expertise was literature. Do you dispute this, or not? Nightscream (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nightscream, you've made a good argument why you think Dworkin is not appropriate in this article. I don't have strong opinions about whether Dworkin should be cited or not. I have no doubt the arguments can be made both ways. In the context of the discussion here, I'd just like to hear if anyone else has an informed opinion about Dworkin. The conversation is interesting and I can learn more. It's clear from this discussion that Dworkin's own legacy is polarizing. I first encountered Dworkin's work while doing the research in the FAR review for this article. She appeared in citations within some of the works on more women-oriented interpretations of Joan's legacy. What I found interesting and incorporated into the work was originally in the context of legacy, not historical research. I found her feminist interpretation of Joan's legacy an interesting contrast to the religious perspective or the patriotic perspective. As to whether to remove her from the article, I'll go with the consensus. Wtfiv (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, Johnbod. I think Joan primarily functions as an example of Dworkin's larger thesis. She too appears to use secondary sources. The sole point that relies on Dworkin is a minor one. Dworkin made the point that while Joan took on the role as military leader, she maintained her status as a valiant woman. It's a nice point about Joan maintaining her female identity even as a leader, but can be easily deleted without major loss to the article. Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or omit the Dworkin material?

Omit. She is obviously unreliable per above. CharlieEdited (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omit, per her not having been an expert. I don't know about the rest of her beliefs but being an activist writer with no training or education in history makes any inclusion of her statements unnecessary. As a side note the way it's written, with the theory being offered and then immediately discounted by "scholars", begs the question of why it should be mentioned in the first place. XeCyranium (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to french wikipedia page on Joan of Arc. That would be a keep, but not right here. Sinking into reality (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it work on the French Wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia? It being on one Wikipedia instead of the other doesn’t change anything about the reliability of the source. CharlieEdited (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on sources and literal material or origins of both. In my experience, having to constantly translate references does not work well on any wikipedia. Sinking into reality (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is expert sourcing for the statement that doesn't rely on Dworkin, then I see no purpose in using her (a non-expert) as a source. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Dworkin 1987, pp. 125–126; Gies 1981, p. 216; Harrison 2014, pp. 251–252; Hotchkiss 2000, p. 67.
  2. ^ a b Dworkin 1987, p. 126; Schibanoff 1996, p. 52.
  3. ^ a b Hotchkiss 2000, pp. 64–65; Schibanoff 1996, p. 58.
  4. ^ Dworkin. "Occupation/Collaboration". Intercourse. Retrieved February 14, 2013.
  5. ^ Cathy Young (April 19, 2005). "Woman's Hating: The Misdirected Passion of Andrea Dworkin". Reason.com.

Reply to concerns raised in edit summary of recent reversion

Nightscream's concerns raised are in italics.

  • 1. I'm AGREEING with you by adding the source YOU presented on the talk page.
I appreciate that you see the value of this source. When I reworked the previous edit you added, I tried to incorporate the point of your inclusion into the reworking, mentioning that this rationale is supported by statements attributed to Joan. I think we are getting close to agreement and I think your reworking this makes this section stronger.
  • 2. The sources here I'm removing DO NOT SAY what you claim that do. Policy is clear on this.
I think this is where we may differ. The reason for the edit that was reverted is that this view is not attributable to a single scholar, but more of a consensus issue. During the FAR review, we went over the sourcing fairly thoroughly. However, :I do appreciate this conversation because it makes me reconsider the sources: moving some, adding some, and deleting some. There are convenience links to each citation, but I'll put the relevant quotes to the current set in a collapsible section so that you and other interested editors may consider their relevance. Perhaps some are stronger than others.
Quotes from cited sources
  • Crane, 1996 Joan's insistence on God's command that she crossdress even in prison contrasts with the explanations generated during the nullification trial around threats to her chastity... Joan was guarded by English soldiers and kept in fetters day and night. A witness at the nullification trial recalled that one of her guards had threatened to rape her...but it is important not to exaggerate the degree to which it could have protected her chastity from forcible rape.
  • Gies, 1981 Friar Martin Ladvenu...said that he had heard from Joan herself that a "a great English lord had tried to rape her; that is why she had put on male clothing.
  • Harrison, 2014 Joan had taken what measures she could against assault. Period illustrations allow historian to augment the descriptions culled from the trial record...Joan complained she couldn't tie all of her laces tightly enough to defend herself from the unrelenting predation of her guards...
  • Pernoud, 1962 Pierre Cusquel...was able to talk to her...[she] was not wearing this male attire excepting in order not to give herself to the soldiers with whom she was... Martin Ladvenu's evidence is in the same sense...
  • Taylor, 1999 Ladvenu claimed...that Joan had told him...she had been attacked by an English Lord who tried to rape her. She said this was why she was forced to resume wearing men's clothes.
What I've been trying to capture here is that this conclusion is not just from Pernoud, but a consensus of multiple sources. Pernoud does not need to be mentioned in the main text, she is in the citations, one opinion amongst many.
  • 3. If you look at the diff, there is LESS TEXT in your version, not mine. What is the issue here?
I'm not sure length is relevant here. Once we agree that what needs to said is said succinctly, we should be set. Wtfiv (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_of_Arc&oldid=1217727013"