Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.112.178.231 (talk) at 04:56, 20 January 2005 (→NPOV). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPOV

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" 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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" , 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 Misplaced Pages), I have footnotes citing the documents which were used as sources, but since I had never seen anything similar used in any Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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))

Various

The old pages Joan of Arc (cross-dressing) and Talk:Joan of Arc (cross-dressing), which have a lot of history and disucussion (respectively) have been archived into Talk: space subpages here, as Talk:Joan of Arc/cross-dressing and Talk:Joan of Arc/cross-dressing-talk (respectively). Noel (talk) 16:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hearing voices is a sign of psychosis. How is Joan viewed by advocates of the "hearing voices means psychosis" schoold of thought? --Ed Poor

No, hearing voices that aren't there is a symptom of psychosis. You demonstrate that Joan's voices weren't there, and then we'll have a basis for discussion. -- isis 3 Sep 2002

The burden of proof surely lies with those who support a divine version of the story. They should demonstrate that there is a plausible mechanism for hearing voices (from where?!) that "are there" but have no external manifestation. -- Ashley - May 30 2004

See comments on this subject farther above.

Regards,

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

The article says that different plays offered very different interpretations on her life. Could this point be elaborated on? For instance, what interpretation did each play use, or how did each portray her? Wesley

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark has two songs the subject of which are Joan of Arc: "Joan of Arc" and "Maid of Orleans." --Daniel C. Boyer

"Eventually, the Roman Catholic church canonized her as a saint on May 16, 1920."

What about a List of Catholic saints burned by the Church? ;-) --zeno 22:48, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

PS: Just kidding - I did not want to offend anyone's religious feelings ...

Formally, the Church didn't burnt them. At least with the Inquisitions, sinners were "relaxed to the secular arm", the civil (or militar) authorities. "The Church does not shed blood". But I don't remember another case of a Christian saint martyrized by a same-confession Chutch. Maybe Thomas Beckett? Have some repressed Jesuit or Templar become saint? -- Error 00:13, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Samuel Clemens wrote a fictional autobiography of Joan of Arc under the pen-name of Sieur Louis de Conte, forgoing his usual pen name of Mark Twain.

Somewhow, I don't think "autobiography" is the word that's wanted here.

- - - - -

Some years ago, an article (sorry, no reference) appeared in the popular press, claiming that documentation had been found to show that a peasant woman was burned in Joan's place. Records of the execution are said to mention that the prisoner was shrouded and therefore not identifiable to the crowd. Joan was claimed to have been taken to The Netherlands, IIRC, where she lived a long life with no further involvement in politics. Evidently she was convinced to shut up and drop out, in return for which she was allowed to live. This claim seems to have sunk without a trace. I cannot recall the credentials of the people behind the story. Anyone?? TIA --LBlake

Trial question

I have heard that during her trial, Joan faced a question on heresy designed to trip her up, and I would like confirmation or refutation of the story. She was asked by the inquisitors whether she was in a state of grace. Answering "no" would mean she was a heretic and worthy of death. Answering "yes" would be presuming to know the mind of God, in itself a heresy also worthy of death. Joan neatly evaded death by replying, "if I am in a state of grace, I have only God to thank for it, and if I am not, I pray to God that he help me achieve it." I always thought this story a good example of her intelligence, which she must have also exhibitted in her battle tactics (if she in fact led the battles, of which I am also uncertain). Can anyone confirm this tale? --zandperl 01:59, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can confirm the question and answer. From an English translation of the transcript of her third public examination:

"Do you know if you are in the grace of God?"

"If I am not, may God place me there; if I am, may God so keep me. I should be the saddest in all the world if I knew that I were not in the grace of God. But if I were in a state of sin, do you think the Voice would come to me? I would that every one could hear the Voice as I hear it. I think I was about thirteen when it came to me for the first time."

-- Paul Murray, 6 Sep 2004

Picture thumb

I put that in as an easy way to get a caption. The picture does not currently show what it is of. Mark Richards 16:15, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Hello everyone. Switisweti and AWilliamson have been having an edit dispute over an external link to a controversial reconstructed painting. I'd like to propose that the link be left in the article. It does say that it is a reconstruction, and as such that automatically means to me that it is likely not to be 100% historically accurate. I see it as a harmless enough inclusion for people interested in such things. For example, in the T'ai Chi Ch'uan article there are several external links to schools that I know personally to be run by fraudulent, incompetent hacks, yet I suffer their presence because they are relatively well known fraudulent, incompetent hacks with hundreds and thousands of incompetent students and therefore notable. The reconstructed painting may or may not be fraudulent, but it is well known to Joan's aficionados, apparently. I will put in that it is a controversial reconstruction, will that do? A discriminating person should be able to make up their own mind on the issue if they have sufficient information. Regards, Fire Star 17:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Fire Star, I totally agree with you. This is a good solution. As I already proposed to AWilliamson, a few critical comments concerning this link shouldn't do any harm. Something like "the views displayed on this site are on debate", but just "controversial" will do too. And indeed it's a controversial painting, as is the text. But still, all relevant links should be included, devotive ones as well as critical or even controversial ones. Again: this is alright. Switisweti 00:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

----
First of all: the problem isn't with the portrait so much, but with the falsification of another historical issue in the accompanying text. I already covered this point when it was brought up on my talk page.

Why don't you just put a more elaborate comment next to the link to explain why that certain detail is a falsification in your opinion? Maybe others could respond to that and something like a consensus could grow from that. That's more worthwile than just ignoring and deleting.

Please see my comments on this farther below.

Secondly: the painting is not "well-known": it's something that was just recently made and put online by the site's owner. If you're implying that it has a historical value in its own right, then that certainly isn't the case.

But that's just your personal opinion as a self-proclaimed historian. Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this farther below.

Finally: If we need to include links to fraudulent information of this sort, then it would also be necessary to add links to sites claiming (for example) that Joan was English (which is an actual theory, believe it or not), or that she allegedly never played any role in the Hundred Years War, etc. Applying this principle to other subjects, the Napoleon article would need to be revised to reflect Charles Philipon's theory that Napoleon never existed, and so forth. The end result would be an "encyclopedia" which is merely a list of every conceivable absurd idea, with little or no educational value.

If all these so-called "absurt" ideas and theories were included — (naturally) well commented, that would be nice. That would in fact enrichen this encyclopedia! Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Given that 99% of the many thousands of sites on Joan of Arc are already being excluded from the "External Links" section, I have to ask why this specific site needs to be listed, especially given that it's one of the least accurate?

Please ad those 99%. The current list is one I too worked on, and I couldn't find any other sites (except for exact doublures). Switisweti 07:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC))

----------
To respond to Switisweti's comments:
Firstly, In answer to your edit comments on the article itself: The version promoted by the website in question was rejected by not only myself, but also Quicherat, Champion, Pernoud, DuParc, etc (... break by Switisweti, continues below)

I seriously thought Quicherat lived during the nineteenth century, but maybe I was wrong. Obviously Quicherat himself visited that particular link and he must have told you his findings. Maybe he still tells you his opinions from the afterlife. I guess you mean that Quicherat (as well as Champion and Pernoud, etc.) share your vision on your beloved Joan of Arc. Or even better: you agree with them, when you read their writings. You can't be serious about exactly knowing what these people would have thought about a particular web site. Anyway, your point is clear. You feel supported by these "friends" of yours. It's very funny and sweet in a certain way. I rest my case. I respect your persistence. Switisweti 23:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) (Why not include articles about those historians, BTW? I already made links: just click and write!)

As you know, the point was that since this site merely repeats an old and long-discredited version which was rejected by past as well as present historians, these experts debunked the old piece of fiction that the site's information is based on. This shouldn't need to be explained. AWilliamson 04:01, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(..)- the latter group being the chief historians who did the seminal groundwork on the subject, or who otherwise made important contributions. This wouldn't need to be explained to anyone who had researched the subject in any depth, since the above persons are recognized as among the most important scholars in this area, and their view is in fact the dominant view among reputable historians - a consensus has already been reached by experts. This website's version, on the other hand, is a variation of a fictional idea that was popularized by people such as the playwright George Bernard Shaw.
Secondly: A full explanation of the site's errors would be far too long for an external link entry. I already posted a summary of the evidence when this came up on my talk page.
Thirdly: the painting in question was, according to the site's own information, made by the site owner himself, rather than being a painting with a long and illustrious history in its own right. This isn't my "opinion", but rather the author's own description.
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 04:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Epilepsy theory

User Jehannette Why are my changes being deleted regarding Jehanne's epilepsy? I have documented why this may be so! Please stop deleting my edits! Joan of Arc COULD have had epilepsy. I have documented PUBLISHED RESEARCH on this!

Greetings, and welcome.

Aside from the reason already given by Switisweti, it is also the case that - as I believe other historians have pointed out before myself - the epilepsy theory is based on an erroneous or incomplete conception of how Joan's visions are described in the documents, thereby resulting in an erroneous theory. I'm currently writing up letters to send to the sites you listed (plus the academic journal which had a similar article) in order to correct their information: once given accurate information about Joan's case, I'm sure they will agree that epilepsy is not a feasible explanation, and will hopefully change their pages accordingly.

If necessary, I can also expand Misplaced Pages's article so that it gives a fuller accounting of what the evidence is on this point (without citing any specific explanation or personal interpretation of this evidence).

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 05:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC))

User Jehannette This is just nuts! The journal Epilepsia is a PEER-REVIEWED journal and the article that I list in the "links" section was written by two prominent neuroscientists from one of the most prominent research academic institutions in the world. Since I have cited published research for my claims, the edits should stand until you can provide evidence from the neuroscience community to the contrary. Again, I use the word “possibly”. Can you provide evidence that Jehanne’s experiences were NOT the result of epilepsy?? Sounds like a POV to me!

It can, and has, been proven that she did not have epilepsy - among others, Judy Grundy wrote a piece rejecting the notion, and (more importantly), the people you cited were basing their theory on entirely erroneous historical information about the person they were analyzing - they certainly may be experts on epilepsy, but they are not historians and their conception of the historical facts concerning their "patient" was based on misconceptions, resulting in a flawed diagnosis. I'll be sending the websites you mentioned the correct information, as well as sending a letter or short article submission to the academic journal in question. If any doubt remains after they see the valid evidence, I will discuss it with these people, not here at Misplaced Pages.

Regards,

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 03:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Removed debate between Mr.Williamson and me below, since it became quite illegible -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, Jehanette, do sign your entries properly, that is with -- ~~~~ , and two BR tags are completely unnecessary, too. And if you answer to something, use the appropriate number of colons in front of your answer. You are more likely to be taken seriously by others if you stick to established conventions. And those are not that difficult to learn, either :-) --AlexR 16:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well lets not get too testy here. As someone who enacted one of the reverts, in my defense, let me say that they really do look like vandalism (initially anonymous edits, overwriting seemingly valid parts of the article, etc.) However, at this point I will leave it up to people more knowledgeable than myself to decide whether or not to include this information --Cvaneg 18:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Write a seperate chapter about this epilepsy-theory with a lot of "may" and "could" etc. and incorporation of the information is fine. Not just a short remark between brackets in a section that covers a completely different subject. That's just to easy and looks like vandalism, especially when the edits are anon. Switisweti 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, fine, but why did you delete the entries that I added in the "external links" section? I will write a seperate chapter and submit it in a week or two. --Jehannette 21:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A debate about "evidence" and "style"

I removed this debate from above, because it rips the epilepy debate apart. Also, I move parts of the debate to the left again, because it has become quite illegible. No other changes are being made. -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh well, that's Mr Williamsons favourite way of dealing with view he does not like. Delete in the hope that the other side will give up, and if they don't, drown them in denial of facts. The usage of words like "possible" does not help, his pet saint has to remain unblemished and pure. And of course his edits are NPOV by definition, while everybody who does not completely and utterly agree with him is clueless anyway.

Alex, I'm not going to deal with more of your behavior in here as well - one admin has already suggested to me that you could be banned as a "troll" if you continue with this sort of thing, and I can certainly ask the arbitration committee to do so if necessary. AWilliamson 03:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh come on, even I have refrained from calling you a troll so far, so do yourself and everybody else a favour and don't start name calling. Also, I don't know which admin dreamed up that information, but to get a user banned that user has to do a bit more than trying to keep articles NPOV and to the point. I might mention that I know a few admins who rather think that it is your behaviour that is a triffle odd. (And that is a very polite way of putting it.) As for the arbitration commitee, you can certainly ask for it (just as I can) but so far we have still one minor issue in mediation, so I wouldn't expect the arbitration commitee to move one finger until that is finished. You'll also want to keep some options open, as I am seriously considering whether this article here doesn't need a bit more NPOV information. At least we already had the debates, might as well have the edits in the appropriate place, too. -- AlexR 04:24, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since anyone familiar with the issue will recognize that the above is another deliberate mischaracterization of the subject, I will leave it at that. Moreover, the above threat to extend the current business into yet another article is a further indication that we are in fact dealing with a classic "troll" here. If you want anyone to believe otherwise, Alex, then you need to finally cease and desist. AWilliamson 03:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you were the one that started a debate about many points about Joan of Arc on Talk:Cross-dressing that had nothing whatever to do with that article, and I said from the very beginning that these matters belonged here, not there. I also don't know what "mischaracterization" you are refering to, and after all, that is really a subject you are an expert in. As for the trolling, actually, there are already quite a few people who don't really think that it is I who is trolling, so thanks for your kind concerns about my reputation, but they are needless. Maybe you ought to think about yours, though. Calling people "troll" without any reason (any reason other people can see, that is) won't make you appear as somebody who is interested in meaningfull debate and NPOV articles. -- AlexR 05:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was an admin who first suggested to me that you could be banned as a "troll" (hence the use of the term), and I suspect that the many people affected by your numerous other "edit wars" would agree to jointly ask the arbitration committee to ban you as such. If you wish anyone to believe otherwise about you, then please finally stop this behavior - I have asked many times that you do so, especially given that the matter is supposed to be in mediation. Instead, you have now brought it into yet another article. AWilliamson 03:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you wish to try to get me banned, well, try. Just don't be disappointed by the results. As for "bringing the debate into another article", as I stated, the debate on Talk:Cross-dressing was, from the beginning, and I said so, also from the beginning, for the most part not about anything that should appear in Cross-dressing, but only appropriate for this article here. As for the "troll", well even if indeed an admin said so, I am rather surprised you of all people would use this word, and the associated threat of banning me, without checking what's behind it (in that case, nothing). You know, I certainly didn't think you were a person who mindlessly parroted what other people told you; you certainly never listened when I said something. And what please shall I stop? Trying to make articles NPOV, so that self-styled "experts" can write whatever pleases them? I somehow don't think this would agree with the principles of the Misplaced Pages. Oh, and one reminder: People who resort to name calling are usualy regarded as having run out of arguments. -- AlexR 03:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since you didn't reply to my responses yesterday and instead reverted the attempt to relocate the debate, I suppose I'll recopy my responses here - although this personal dispute really belongs elsewhere.

- - (yesterday's reply recopied below) - -

I think I've been reasonably patient with this, but at some point this nonsense needs to come to an end. Any attempt to insert erroneous information into another article will be reverted as the vandalism that it is; and any attempt to continue bickering without having first read the original testimony will be an additional confirmation that you are in fact just someone trying to cause problems. AWilliamson 03:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all, you wrote nothing worth a reply. Second, it is not exactly good manners on Misplaced Pages to move debates to personal pages. Thirdly, I never tried to "insert erroneous information" into any article, I merely want to report that a controversy exists, which happens to be undeniable. And fourth, I do not have to read the whole testimony to report that controvercy, and, four-and-a-halfth, so to speak, in ignoring even things that have been laid right at your feet you are a lot better than I am. You have, after all, done it for weeks now. As for me "trying to cause problems", well, I'll let people judge that for themselfes. As far as I (and those people whom I asked for their opinion) see it, I am trying to make the articles NPOV, while you are defending your pet saint from any notion that she might be anything, well, what do I know what you think it would make her. As if that would take anything away from her as a person or her achievements if she had possibly been gender-variant, intersex or epileptic. That notion is truely nonsense, and NPOV into the bargain. -- AlexR 05:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AlexR:  Up until today, you had been arguing that some of these theories are allegedly valid, rather than merely pointing out that they "exist"; and you had been basing this argument on the allegation that I am misquoting the testimony in the appellate transcript - which is false. As I stated in the main debate at Talk:Cross-Dressing: since you cannot read the witness testimony which is being discussed here, what makes you qualified to say that I (and the other historians who have made the same point) are allegedly misquoting what is in these depositions? 

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability
Yet another misrepresentation of what I said, I wonder why I still bother to correct them? Oh well, somebody else might read that. I have never claimed that either the theorey that Joan was gender-variant or intersex was necessarily correct, merely that they have not been proven to be incorrect. (And "not proven to be incorrect" is not quite the same thing as "proven to be necessarily true".) What my personal opinion on these theory is, is simply, as you well know, that I consider the first somewhat possible and am decidedly undecided about the second. Not quite the same thing as "having subscribed to these theories". And I only said that your claim that many of the arguments for the intersex theory are simply and plainly are made up sounds very fishy to me; I did, as you very well know, never say anything like that about the first. It was, BTW, you who flatout refused to consider evidence for the first, while you dodged the issue of the second by claiming that the evidence was "made up by pop-book authors", both not exatly reactions that make your statements very trustworthy.
Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Alex.... in your response above, you are again claiming that I'm allegedly making "very fishy" statements about the testimony. If you would read the testimony, you would see that most of the alleged "Intersex" evidence you've found in a few modern books is, in fact, not actually in the testimony  - it is fictional, and therefore the theory is proven false by virtue of being based on fiction. Since you can't read the Middle-French and Latin of the original documents, what basis do you have for claiming that my version (and that of other historians who have made the same point) is allegedly "untrustworthy"?  AWilliamson 04:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

That is simply based on a) your behaviour in the debate that do not exacly make any statement by you appear even remotely trustworthy, and b) on the fact that it seems quite unlikely in the first place that somebody would make up any such statement. Why should they? -- AlexR 05:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

They invented such "proofs" for their theory for the same reason that something similar was done by the many authors who claim that Joan was English or Italian: typically, it starts with one author inventing such information in order to provide the illusion that there is a factual basis for their theory, then other authors will copy these ideas until you have quite a number of books all repeating the same bits of fiction.  More importantly: you can confirm that these ideas were in fact invented by looking at the actual testimony - again, the material in question simply is not in there, and it's truly astounding for you to claim that historians are "wrong" about this given that you haven't looked at the testimony yourself. Try similarly telling a physicist that his views are wrong because they are "contradicted" by the fictional theories featured in "Star Trek", and see how he responds. AWilliamson 03:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

I said I find your claim hard to believe, i did not flatout state that it was wrong. And I still see no point in inventing that particular theory, but should I ever argue for the merits of the theory, I will check the evidence. Then again, WP is not the place for arguing the merits of any theory, so for merely stating that a theory exists, that will not be necessary. -- AlexR 11:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Since your second reply below implies that you might be finally willing to let this drop, I've made only a brief reply, consolidated in my response to the other note below.  AWilliamson 03:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

DId I say I wanted to drop anything? I already stated from the very beginning of the debate about the intersex theory that I was decidedly undecided about it, and was asking you about actuall points regarding it. All I got was a "All made up" from you, which, as I might have mentioned before, find not exactly easy to believe, but I will check some sources before adding it. That however means not that I will let your POV additions in cross-dressing stand, or that I will refrain from adding a remark on the gender-variant theory here. As I have also stated numerous times before, you ought to appreciate the fact a little more that I am aiming for an NPOV addition, not one that, for example, categorically states that Joan was a "Transvestite" or a "Lesbian". Those are in fact quite numerous, but I see no point in adding a highly questionable variation of it here, when a more neutral one is available. -- AlexR 04:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

I had truly thought, given your previous reply, that you would accept my offer to finally drop the endless bickering in here, but instead you responded in the opposite manner.

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Excuse me, but it is you who keeps bickering here, claiming that you are able to decide matters about which you are, by your own words, are completely clueless. The only way to stop your bickering would be for me to withdraw and let you do whatever you please. That is hardly an alternative. -- AlexR 05:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

For heaven's sake, Alex... you know the above is not true. For instance, the "clueless" rhetoric is loosely based on Benc or Fire Star having once said, in a much earlier discussion, that _they_ were not knowledgeable about that particular topic: I never said anything of the sort about this _current_ discussion, and the subject we are discussing now is what I specialize in. AWilliamson 03:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability
Oh, and when did you become an "expert" on matters related to gender-variant people and behaviour? Until now, you have only claimed to be a historian. If you were speaking about the intersex-theory, so far we have nothing but your word that the arguments in this debate are "made up", which is not, by now, anything remotely like a reliable source. Also, I doubt that you are a specialist regarding intersex questions, too. And you cannot make statements about matters that you know nothing about, even if they touch a subject about which you claim to "specialize in". Regarding the intersex question, however, I already stated that I will not attempt to bring it into this article until I have at least an original source for this in my hand, and preferably having checked what that source gives as its source. So what exactly are you talking about? -- AlexR 04:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

The topics we've been discussing in this article have been directly related to Joan of Arc: the only time I have commented on transgender / intersex (etc) issues is to point out what the original manuscripts actually say on the matters you've brought up.

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

If you're not going to accept what historians say concerning the testimony, then you had better be able to read the testimony yourself and be able to cite which deposition (by name and date) this alleged evidence is supposed to be in. If you can read the Middle-French and Latin in which the original manuscripts are written, you will find that no such evidence of this sort is in there (except the one point about menstruation in Jean d'Aulon's testimony). AWilliamson 03:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

We already covered that question so often, I really don't know what the difference between repeating your nonsense again and plain trolling. Besides, how about mediation? Don't want to take the discussion there? -- AlexR 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would gladly drop the discussion in here, but in the past whenever I've tried to avoid repetition by noting that I had already covered a certain point, you have often accused me of dodging the issue - hence the repetition. So long as you'll allow me to simply refer you to previous replies, however, I would be more than happy to handle this through the mediator instead. AWilliamson 03:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously your idea of "dropping the debate" consists of another round of claiming that I said things I never said. Like "dodging the issue". Don't you think that you might look a triffle more convincing if you stuck to the truth for a change? But be that as it may, let us move that to the mediation. -- AlexR 04:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alex, you know better than that. I guess I'll have to cover that issue as well in my next note to the mediator. AWilliamson 03:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Concerning your statements (again) above: I have already told you what the verdict of historians is, and ultimately these matters are not decided by bickering with some editor at Misplaced Pages. Any attempts to modify this article will be reverted as the vandalism that it is. AWilliamson 03:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Unfortunately, the vertict of your alleged historians is hardly sound, if they, as you do, flatout refuse to even look at any evidence. And any attempt to remove NPOV information from the article, as you are threatening before it is even inserted, is indeed vandalism, and since you seem to have already decided that no matter what the outcome of the mediation will be, you will insist on your personal opinion (and that of your "historians") being the sole content of the article, I think you might have to learn quite a lesson about Misplaced Pages. Namely, that being nothing but obnoxious won't get you anywhere. And don't you forget one thing: You are the one who started that non-debate, not I. -- AlexR 05:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Alex, this is really very simple: since the alleged evidence you have seen in a few books simply is not in the original documents, I and other historians reject it as the fiction that it is. If you were similarly promoting fiction in articles dealing with any other field - let's say you were promoting an imaginary animal in a biology-related article - I think any editors who happened to be professionals in that field would have lost all patience with you long ago.  AWilliamson 03:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability
What exactly are you refering to, the intersex question, or the gender-variance question? Those are two distinctivly different questions. And you only made your statement about "the evidence was made up" about the first, not the latter. Now, you reject the second theory as well, but that happens to be the one where you flatout refuse to consider the evidence, and where you are in no position to do so. But, since now mediation has started, I propose we take that debate there. -- AlexR 04:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

In the specific comment you're replying to above, I was referring to the Intersex theory. I addressed the other one in my third comment, which you replied to below. AWilliamson 03:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again: I oppose these various theories simply because they have been proven false. For you to promote manifest falsehoods is not "NPOV"; nor is it reasonable to demand that, out of the many hundreds of such rejected theories, only those few that you personally happen to subscribe to should be represented. Nor, alternately, would it be feasible to include all such theories, as the article would then become nearly book-length. I think most articles at Misplaced Pages do, in fact, merely give the accepted version - for instance, the article on Albert Einstein doesn't include the discredited "theory" by Luce Irigaray which claims that Einstein's equation E=MC^2 is "sexed" and invalid because it "privileges the speed of light" over other, slower speeds (therefore Einstein was "biased", etc). Nor is there any need to include a theory like this.

If you think it's reasonable to ask me to include some of these similarly discredited theories concerning Joan of Arc, then I would ask you to try the following experiment: demand the inclusion of Irigaray's theory in the Einstein article and see whether any editors will be willing to support this as a reasonable and helpful attempt to insure "NPOV". AWilliamson 03:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability
None of these theories have been proven false yet, and as for me subscribing to them, see above. Also, I am not familiar with the Irgaray theory, but if it were of any potential relevance, somebody probably had included it in the appropriate place - or would include it in the future. Whether the people who keep an eye on the Einstein article (which, incidentally, would be the wrong place for that theory anyway, the correct one would be the one about Einstein's theory) would behave the way you do, well, I doubt it, no matter what they personally think about the theory. Besides, WP articles are supposed to grow over time, that includes controversial theories as well. The fact that something is not included yet is no reason to assume that it should never be included at all. Not to mention that I somehow don't think that there are "hundreds" of such theories out there. And nobody asked you to include these theories, since it is most obvious that you completely lack anything resembling NPOV about this article or anything remotely related to Joan of Arc. -- AlexR
Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Firstly: Again, these theories you want added, and which you deem "plausible", are based on fiction, not historical fact - you don't realize that because you've never read the documents yourself to see what the facts are. 

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Secondly: there are, in fact, numerous discredited theories concerning Joan of Arc, ranging from the idea that her visions were the result of Bovine Tuberculosis (or Tinnitus, Bipolar Disorder, etc, etc) to the notion that she was able to survive her fall from the tower at Beaurevoir due to a disorder that gave her "rubbery bones"; or the idea that she was a member of the Royal family, or that she was English or Italian, etc, etc. These probably do number in the hundreds - are you really going to demand that all of these be added? If so, why aren't other biographical articles at Misplaced Pages similarly based on every piece of fiction or rumor about the person in question? Most simply summarize the accepted view among historians.

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Finally: if you're going to defend your view by likewise claiming that it's perfectly reasonable to represent something like Irigaray's theory in an article dealing with Einstein's work (i.e., Irigaray's notion that the equation E=MC^2 is invalid because it's based on "male bias"), then go argue for its inclusion with the editors there and see how they react - I suspect they'll react much as I have.

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

In any event: until you have demonstrated that you can and have read the original documents concerning Joan of Arc, you have no basis for rejecting the views of historians and hence no justification for interfering in this article. AWilliamson 04:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Needless to say, I entertain a different view on that matter. Firstly, the "possibly gender-variat" theory is based on facts, not what you claim is fiction. Secondly, the theory that she might have been gender-variant are not exactly rare, in fact, most of these make a definite statement about that; something that I do not support though. And this theory was never refuted, either, at least not with what you seem to think of as your arguments, but which are really nothing but a flatout refusal to look at evidence. And finally: It is rather nice for you that you by now can come up with the "argumente" of me not having read the court transcripts, but this is completely and utterly unnecessary for the inclusion of the "gender-variant"-theory in the article; for reasons I stated already multiple times. Something about which you yourself cannot, by your own reasoning, make any statements, because you refuse to consider the evidence that might speak for the theory in the first place. You are in the wrong place in the Misplaced Pages if you think that you can come here and occupy any article you like on a claim that you are, after all, a "historian" and an "expert" and furthermore, that "every respectable historian" (would you call any historian "respectable" who does not agree with you? I doubt it) also allegedly agrees with you. Three unproven and highly subjective claims that won't buy you anything here, and which are certainly not the basis for an exclusion of information from this or any other article. (And no basis for adding pointless non-information, either.) -- AlexR 05:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

First of all: as stated many times before, the "gender-variant" theory is refuted by Joan's own words and those of the eyewitnesses: the only "evidence" you have offered to the contrary is the purely speculative idea that Joan's words are not reliable because she may have been confused about her own identity, etc - which is not evidence. Secondly: the "Intersex" theory is based largely on fiction, as explained once again above. Thirdly: if you read the works of other historians who have specialized in the subject you will, in fact, find that they make the same statements about the documentation that I have - the fact that many transgender-oriented authors give a different view is merely due to the fact that they were unaware of Joan's statements and the other testimony on this point, since they haven't read the documents any more than you have.  Most of these books garble even the basic points of her life, to say nothing of the "transgender" related topics.

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Finally: if you really want your "NPOV" arguments to be taken seriously, you should (as I said twice before) also try promoting the similarly fraudulent theory by Irigaray for inclusion in the Einstein article and see if the editors there react any differently than I have - I suspect they will not. Try it and see.  AWilliamson 03:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

We have been through this umpteed times, anybody who wants to read my arguments (and Mr. Williamsons constant "Because I say so") should have a look at Talk:Cross-dressing. And the "argument" about the Irigary theory is fraudulent and pointless - I do not even know who this guy was, but if anybody thinks it is relevant they will insert it into the appropriate article (which Einstein would probably not be). I do not really see why I should do that. Not to mention that the people defending Einstein's theory probably do not refuse to even look at the evidence the same way as Mr. Williamson does. BTW, I have no intention of wasting my time with further repetitions of replies I already made umpteen times. So if I do not bother replying to anything he says in the future, that reply has already been made, most likely several times. -- AlexR 11:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Yes, we have certainly argued all these points many times before, and I'm perfectly willing to stop. Just for the record, though, my point about the Irigaray theory (which claims that E=MC^2 is allegedly based on "male bias") was that it's the type of baseless theory that no one is likely to want to include, just as I don't want to include similar theories in this article. My points on other issues have been stated many times before, and if you're willing to let this finally rest, I would certainly be glad to do so.  AWilliamson 03:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Dream on, Mr. Williamson. Scaring people away from your pet articles might work with some people, but it has never worked with me. The comparison with the Ingaray theory is actually an insult, but hey, what else to expect from you. I have stated in more than sufficient detail why the "gender-variant"-theory is a perfectly valid one, while in all those weeks you have not been able to discredit one iot of it. Instead, you were busy with slander and constand misrepresentation of what I said, so the non-arguments you kept repeating might look better to a casual reader. So there in only one person who should rest the debate here, as would be appropriate, since you started it as well. Also, everybody is awaiting your answer with regard to the change of mediators, or are you too scared of the thought of mediation by now? -- AlexR 04:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

You know perfectly well that I refuted all these theories by presenting the verdict of historians and the information that is actually in the documents (as opposed to the fiction or speculation these "theories" are based on). Given the patent absurdity of basing theories upon fiction, the analogy to the Irigaray theory is perfectly valid, and the challenge still stands: try getting that theory included and see how the editors react.

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

You mean that you are perfectly willing to remove any bit of information that does not happen to conform to your opinion as you have done before? It is not very difficult to see how you will react to attemtps to make this a decent article, instead of one man's propaganda. However, chances that you are successfull in doing so are minimal. I might also add that the only theory that is - according to you, anyway - based on "fiction" is the intersex theory, which is not exactly the only one you are unwilling to accept. -- AlexR 05:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

All the theories you are promoting are either: a) based upon a rejection of the documentation in favor of speculation, or b) based upon fiction; and as such they are all invalid, by definition. This shouldn't need to be said.  AWilliamson 03:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability
First of all, I am not promoting anything, I am merely reporting what others said. Misplaced Pages is not for promoting anything. (Not your theory, either.) And no, the gender-variance theory is not invalid by definition, after all, your steadifast claim that the documentation tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that any interpretation that might be based on concepts that came into existence later is invalid "by definition" is not exactly scientific, or befitting a historian. It is far more reminiscent of people claiming that the earth was created 6000something years ago, because "the bible says to". And of course merely reporting that such opinions exist has nothing to do with these opinions being valid or invalid, and merely reporting these claims is all I intend to do, and that is certainly something that is perfectly appropriate. -- AlexR 04:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

First of all: historical theories are supposed to be based upon mutually-corroborating documentation, not the type of speculation you have been using to reject all the documentation we do have. Secondly: you have, in fact, been promoting a specific viewpoint - namely, that all the documented evidence should be dismissed based upon supposition.

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

I never said that the documents should be dismissed, something I have so far repeated so often that I should have written a macro for it. So why don't you just stop claiming things that are obviously false? -- AlexR 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's a test of whether you'll allow me to merely say that I already explained why you're rejecting the documentation (i.e., refusing to believe it based on the mere supposition that it "might" be wrong). Rather than repeating the arguments all over again, I'm hoping you'll allow me to simply state the above and leave it at that.  AWilliamson 03:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, then I will also just state that I answered that "argument" from you already more than a dozen times probably, and it's not as if one could reasonably expect you to listen now. Besides, it is not as if you needed anything from me to start another round of false accusations, either. -- AlexR 04:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think I'll take that as a "no": you won't allow me to simply refer you to previous comments without making more inflammatory statements.  AWilliamson 03:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

Thirdly: if you truly wish, as you claim, to merely report all the different theories regarding Joan of Arc, irrespective of your own belief in their validity, then you would also have to add a host of others that exist.  AWilliamson 03:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

I am hardly required to insert *all* theories if I intend to add one or two. Not to mention that I am not aware of any that is quite as widespread as the gender-variance theory, in different forms. And again - how about mediation? Trying to drop it after all? Not that I wouldn't understand if you'd prefer to do that ... -- AlexR 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To make a brief point which hopefully won't require any argument:  the gender-variant theory may be the one which you are personally the most familiar with, but it's actually quite rare compared to many of the other discredited theories out there. Far more common (for example) is the one which claims that Joan was a member of the Royal family (which is popular in France for some reason), and frankly even the idea that she was English is probably more common than the gender-variant theory.

Secondly: yes, I had asked that we let the mediator handle these disputes a month ago, and will gladly allow mediation to take over here if you're willing.  AWilliamson 03:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

First: Did somebody do a count, or how can you state that with so much certainty. I somehow doubt that you read many books which deal with gender issues at all. Besides, I don't care very much about what other theories are around - if they are even reasonably well known or published, sooner or later somebody will add them.

And secondly: It's funny, but as far as I remember, I was the one who did the RfC and the RfM. I was also silent on the issue until a third person came around and asked questions, which I answered. You were the one who insisted after that to keep up this debate; although the fact that mediation did not quite work as fast as any of us probably wished for was probably a factor. Now, if you could spend the time you are wasting here with actually answering the mediators mail, instead of slandering me here and leaving her notices that you will reply "later", the mediation might actually move forward. -- AlexR 04:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First of all: I did reply to the mediator's email, giving a summary of the debate thus far and my position. Secondly, the point about the vast number of discredited theories on the subject was as follows: you had previously been arguing that you are just adding those which are the most common, which is not the case - there are many which are far more common than those you want to add, which are merely those which you are personally familiar with or inclined to agree with - and that is not "NPOV".  Thirdly: your characterization of events during the previous mediation will have to be dealt with in a note to the new mediator.   AWilliamson 03:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concerning your comments re: mediation: I only recently received word from Ambi about the proposed change of mediator, and have replied today accepting the change. But given that you reacted to my attempts to finally end this bickering (so that mediation could replace it) by responding with taunts and needlessly inflammatory comments, it's truly hard to see how mediation is going to be possible. AWilliamson 03:05, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

I don't see that either, but I am an optimistic person and I am hoping for a miracle. Nothing short of a miracle though will probably make you understand that this article (and the bit in cross-dressing]] are not your personal property. As far as your alleged attempt to end this bickering is concerned, it consisted of nothing but the delusion that you finally managed to bully me away, something that is not very likely to happen anytime soon. And how you can expect to end it while at the very same time stating that you keep considering this subject your personal property, and will remove any information that does not happen to conform to your POV is a complete mystery to me. -- AlexR 05:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 10 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

I can only assume that you know better than to state the above; but in any event I will explain to the new mediator what has been going on in this debate, and discuss the matter with her. AWilliamson 03:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability
Yes, well, that is the point of mediation, talking to the mediator to sort out things. As to why I stated what I stated, I suggest you read your own remarks again, after that you might know better. But, to give mediation at least a remote chance of succeeding, I suggest we take the debate there. -- AlexR 04:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved 20 ":" to the left for reasons of readability

I suggested that over a month ago, when mediation was supposed to have begun. Instead, you took the liberty of spreading the debate into a second article. Can you at least agree to temporarily drop the argument in here until mediation has been completed for the dispute in the other article?  AWilliamson 03:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I consider this particular debate to be over, since mediation has begun. I would ask Mr. Williamson also to actively participate in the mediation instead of this non-debate. Should any further debate be necessary after the mediation ended, it might be a good idea to start a new thread, anyway. -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This debate is pointless, pointless, pointless. I will therefore leave the last word (or maybe another slander) for Mr. Williamson, who probably would keep this on until eternity if he does not get it, and I will be waiting for word from the mediator. Which, incidentally, would need an answer from Mr. Williamson to actually be able to move forward, so maybe when he has finished his round of non-answers, repetitions and slander tomorrow, he might actually find the time to write that mail to the mediator which I already wrote days ago. EOD -- AlexR 04:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I already replied to the mediator, and she responded to my email tonight. Mediation is going forward. AWilliamson 03:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For heavens's sake and like AlexR said: "EOD"! Go to your mediator.

The "Clothing" section

Needless to say, I do consider Rebroads's addition, in view of the debate that has been going on for a month now, and the mediation currently going going on, as highly problematic. (His edits on Talk:Transsexual and other things also make me wonder about his motive, but that seems a pointless route to pursue here and now.) I will refrain from editing the article unilaterally, though, since that would only hinder mediation as it would most certianly spur a heated reaction from Mr. Williamson. This of course only applies as long as mediation takes place. -- AlexR 00:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)