User talk:AWilliamson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:


ClockworkTroll 03:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Greetings

Hi AWilliamson. Thanks for your vote and welcome to Wikipedia. You are interested in a period of history which also interests me, if only as a hobby in my case. Please let me know if you have any questions about Wikipedia at all. Myself, I've studied a somewhat later period, 1450-1500, the Wars of the Roses and Henry VII, but as you know they have their direct causes in the reigns of the Lancastrian Henries IV, V, and VI. I have to confess to being a bit of a Yorkist (not that they were Boy Scouts by any means), fortunately there isn't much white rose/red rose bickering here! Thanks again, Fire Star 00:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Now I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. Fire Star 14:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bickering, VfD, Joan of Arc, etc.

Hi AWilliamson, first off I'd just like to welcome you to Wikipedia. You certainly seem to have gotten into things here already, hopefully I can help you on your way a bit. I guess in your Joan of Arc (cross-dressing) article, you stumbled into a bit of an unfortunate trap of Wikipedia, known as Votes for Deletion, or VfD. As you can imagine, many newcomers are directed there early on in their Wikipeian careers, since the newcomers are the least likely to understand many of Wikipedia's conventions. I'm guessing the main reason your article was nominated for deletion was because its name is very awkward. Unfortunately, it takes all kinds to make up an open content encyclopedia, so some people take a while to realize that the information you provided is factual, verifiable, and certainly important (or notable). I have no doubt that it belongs somewhere, probably the Joan of Arc article. Also, have no fear of adding as much to that article as you want. If someone complains you added too much, and its all factual non-trivial information, they're argument is flawed. If that article does get to be too long (it'll say on top when you edit it, if its getting too long), then talk with people on the page for the best way to split it up. Perhaps Joan of Arc's dressing habits or Joan of Arc's clothing is a better title for a sub article, if that is ever needed. So go ahead, be bold and expand Joan of Arc with the information you put in the cross dressing article.

That said, you might wish to read a couple things, to familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia itself works. The manual of style is very helpful, for any contributor, and a well formatted article always attracts less negative criticism. Also, using proper naming convetions can make it less likely that a good article will be outright nominated for deletion.

Anyways, I hope your first Wikipedia experience wasn't too sour, bickering does exist, but as you see, the encyclopedia is excellent already, and only continues to grow and improve. Many times the bickering is fruitful in making the encyclopedia better, even if its sometimes just annoying. If you need any help, message me or any experienced user.

—siroχo 15:41, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking

Sorry about catching you in the net by accident—we've had a persistant vandal bouncing all over that IP range. I'll try and be more careful and targeted in the future. Postdlf 22:31, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] AlexR

AlexR has had a go at my recent edits, and he seems to have had a fairly restrained reaction. I tried to keep my comments about his talk page contributions concise and on the subject, but I couldn't not answer some of his public assumptions about NPOV and myself. Cheers, Fire Star 22:02, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello, it's me again. I've left another note for you and AlexR on the cross-dressing talk page. To my mind, the main thing is the article, and it may finally be in a shape that we all can live with, I hope! AlexR hasn't done anything actionable from my point of view, as tendentious as this all may seem. Wikipedia just gets this way sometimes, strong opinions, strong personalities and a lot of knowledge are volatile in combination.
Off topic, I have a question for you that has been bugging me since we started this discussion, who was Henry VI of England's lieutenant in France when Joan was executed?
Regards, Fire Star 05:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Henry VI's regent in France was Duke John of Bedford, the man who orchestrated Joan's trial. The other regent was Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, who normally governed England unless Bedford was in London at the time (Bedford was the senior regent for little Henry). AWilliamson 01:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Arc (cross-dressing)

I could see no consensus in favour of deleting this article. If you feel the situation has changed or the first vote was in some way improper feel free to relist it on VfD and see if the result is different. - SimonP 03:28, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

The only articles that can be deleted without consensus are those that meet the speedy deletions criteria. If you feel this article meets one of those then explain your case and list it there. - SimonP 03:47, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't look like a consensus to me. You could merge the relevant material into the Joan of Arc article and redirect it. RickK 04:51, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Greetings AWilliamson. AFAIK, if a mediator (which I am not) volunteers to help and you both agree to the mediator in question, then they will consult with both of you, take your main points and propose behaviour guidelines for an article which will attempt to satisfy both sides. It is a frustrating process and is the primary disadvantage of a public forum such as this one. To my mind, it is a perfectly simple thing to have Joan in the Cross-dressing article in a way that would be respectful and satisfactory to everyone, but I think we are seeing evidence of a classic world-view difference of approach and timbre in disquisition. Based on what he has said to me, I do believe that AlexR is going to be someone that you will be able to eventually work this out with, despite the bad start. It is going to require much careful consideration of each other's feelings, restraint, discretion and diplomacy, but it really should be possible. You two will probably never have to be pals or anything, but we want you to be able to agree to disagree at least. Compared to some others I have had run-ins with here, I feel assured he is a reasonable person (as odd as that may sound to you now) and that reason can win out. Many well-meaning people leave Wikipedia as a result of situations such as this. My optimism in this case is based on AlexR's comments to me, in which I detect a sincere desire for understanding. There has been some damage, however, and that is what the mediator may be able to smooth out. This probably isn't as helpful as any of us would like, to be sure, but they do warn us that our contributions will be edited mercilessly. Hang in there! Fire Star 16:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Allen. Cimon avaro had volunteered to mediate, but he is having problems with his email at the moment. Would you be available to talk with him and Alex on IRC? Angela. 20:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think a real-time chat format is likely to promote thoughtful, restrained discussion (it rarely does); and there might also be some scheduling difficulties given our respective time-zones. Isn't there another alternative? AWilliamson 01:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. I will try to find a different mediator who might be able to help instead. Angela. 01:23, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Useful content

Hello AWilliamson, Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't remove content that may be of value to others. Especially weblinks to external sites should be accessible to all, even though you may not share their point of view. As long as they relate to the subject, they are worthy content. Greetings Switisweti 11:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I second that. You should always edit with a NPOV in mind! Completely removing stuff because you don't agree is not a NPOV. 81.94.170.137 15:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As a historian who specializes in Joan of Arc and her time period, I think I'm qualified to judge which sites are inaccurate. The site by Marco Bakker contains information which falsifies history on certain basic points, and therefore is not useful for educational purposes - this is not a matter of personal opinion or "bias" on my part, but rather a matter of documented historical fact.
If Wikipedia is ever to serve any useful role as an "encyclopedia", then it needs to refer people to information which is at least reasonably factual.
Concerning the spelling of her name (which Switisweti has also taken issue with): "Jehanne", "Jhenne", and "Jeanne" were all 15th century forms of the name. Since the previous versions of Wikipedia's article had used "Jeanne" (which is now the modern form), my revised version simply stuck with this (my own biography uses "Jehanne", but it makes very little difference which form is used).
Regards,
Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 22:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))

-----

Following what I believe is the usual procedure, I'm removing messages from accounts determined or suspected to be "sockpuppets" - to wit, "Switisweti" and "JohnBaptist".
Concerning a subject that might be relevant to other readers, however, I will make the following comments:
I have removed the Marco Bakker site because its version of the subject, at least on some crucial points, is based on misconceptions popularized by people such as George Bernard Shaw and other pop writers. For instance, it entirely mischaracterizes the central fact of the trial: the tribunal was selected and controlled by the English occupation government, as attested even by English government records and described in detail by a number of the men who served on the tribunal itself. These admitted that she was convicted on deliberately false charges for purposes of revenge, not because "the Church was troubled by her claims of a divine calling" as Bakker's site claims - needless to say, the approval of Joan's visions by both the theologians at Poitiers and by prominent clergy such as the Archbishop of Embrun, Chancellor Gerson, etc, had already provided the clerical judgment which the Church required in such cases. The clergy who opposed her were people who are well known to historians as pro-English partisans - e.g., the judge, Bishop Cauchon, had long served as a salaried counselor for the English occupation government and had likewise received his episcopal position as a favor from the Anglo-Burgundian faction. We know that he was, as Joan herself said, her "capital enemy", a point which by itself would invalidate the trial under Inquisitorial guidelines. This formed the context for her alleged refusal to submit to the "Church": the eyewitnesses confirmed that she only refused to submit to a tribunal of her enemies, rather than refusing to submit to the "Church" as a whole, as Cauchon claimed: in fact she asked to be brought before a non-partisan tribunal of the clergy. The above has always been the view taken by previous specialists on the subject - Quicherat, Champion, Pernoud, etc - and is not legitimately in dispute, regardless of the version presented in popular books, movies, and plays.
My own writings on the subject - translations, biographies, and other such material - has been designed to present extensive excerpts from the original manuscripts so people can see what the original evidence is; material which is being gradually placed online to make it freely accessible. Given that many people have said that they can't determine what my "bias" may be, I think I've done a reasonably good job of presenting the facts, unadulterated by undue editorializing.

Allen Williamson, Joan of Arc Archive (AWilliamson 00:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC))

--
(Once again, deleting edit by account suspected of "sockpuppet" activity)

--
While I briefly replied (above) to some of the points posted by the names "JohnBaptist" and "Switisweti", these are suspected of "sockpuppet" activity and their posts are therefore being deleted. The statements farther above cover some of the general-interest issues they brought up, but there's no sense arguing with duplicates, in here or elsewhere. AWilliamson 02:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am curious as to what authority, exactly, grants you the ability to declare someone a sockpuppet, or even say they are "suspected of sockpuppet activity"? As a self-proclaimed historian I would think you would have some appreciation for the requirement of concrete evidence backing up a claim, particularly a claim that is harmful to others. Reene (リニ) 09:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The matter of suspected sockpuppet activity is being discussed elsewhere right now, and I'm asking that action be taken. I'm not going to argue about it in here. AWilliamson 03:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Joan of Arc and Sockpuppetry

Greetings AWilliamson. I have left a note for you and Switisweti on the Joan of Arc talk page concerning reconstructed paintings and suspicions of sockpuppets. Regards, Fire Star 18:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Graysville

Have you ever been to Graysville, Allen? Moonwolfe 19:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Different content

Hi, Why is it that the content at [your website] seems to be more complete than at http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/. Probably both sites should be the same, but they are different. Did you know several links are dead and some images are missing (at both sites)?

[edit] Relocated debates

------------

I've moved the following two debates here, from Talk:Cross-dressing and Talk:Joan of Arc, respectively, for reasons described on those pages.

------------

--From Talk:Cross-Dressing--

I'm moving the intersex part to its own heading, for reasons of legibility. The first question is copied from above, the rest remains as it was, just with significantly fewer colons. How about those indications that Joan might have been intersex? -- AlexR 04:46, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Secondly: there are no indications that Joan might have been "intersex" - that's another misconception promoted by pop authors, nothing more. AWilliamson 03:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Funny, just why I am not surprised to get that answer. If you had read what I said, you might have noted though, that I explicitly asked your opinion, so no need to become insulting. And do you happen to even know what intersex precisely is? Anyway. there are usually quite a few points listed, so since you seem to be familiar with the source material, I thought you might be able to give a somewhat more credible reply than "pop-books". Since I am obviously a very optimistic person, I'll list those two that seem quite clear (since they relate to phyisical features) again, and the one where any input from somebody who claims to be a historian specialising on her would be most useful. Maybe I get something of a reply - this debate must have some use. [AR]
  • She never mensturated, and at 19 years of age, that is quite remarkable. [AR]
  • She had neither public nor underarm hair, something very unusual in healty women of 19, but perfecty common for some intersex conditions. In fact, one intersex syndrom, AIS, is sometimes known as "hairless women syndrome". No public or underarm haif with normal breasts (which she had) sounds very much like AIS, although other conditions can't be ruled out, AFAIK. [AR]
  • And the one which keeps getting cited, but behind which I put a question mark: There were several attempts of rape of Joan in prison, but none ever succeded. The intersex theory has it that this could have been because Joan's vagina was too shallow, which indeed would point to an intersex condition, probably AIS, too - if it can be verified. And don't mention her clothes now, one woman against several men in a situation where nobody would come to her rescue stands little chance no matter what she wears. [AR]
How much of that can you verify or falsify? Just curious, since even if she had been IS, it does not automatically follow from this that there were any cross-gender needs or feelings because of it. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, concerning the symptoms you listed (and yes, I already researched this "theory" and so I am familiar with both the claims and what the medical literature says on the subject), let's take these symptoms one at a time: the idea that Joan never menstruated is based (sometimes rather loosely) on the testimony of Jean d'Aulon at the appeal, who repeated some hearsay he heard from women who had known Joan or conducted the first medical examination on her. Since there are numerous reasons why a woman might not menstruate - quite a number of different medical conditions such as Leydig Cell Hypoplasia, as well as the malnourishment caused by Joan's constant fasting and other deprivations - even if this notion is accurate and not merely hearsay, it would not be proof of AIS. More importantly, the idea that she lacked pubic hair is fictional: there is no mention of any such thing in the actual accounts. The same is true of the idea that she had a "shortened vagina" - there is nothing to indicate that, and it is not an explanation for the failure of her guards to rape her. For one thing, a "shortened vagina" would not prevent some degree of penetration; but more importantly, you've entirely misconstrued the circumstances on several points: 1) The guards would have only been able to take off her sewn-up pants by cutting her clothing apart, which would thereby likely cut Joan as well - and the guards had been forbidden by English commanders from doing anything that might lead to her premature death since they wanted her formally executed as a heretic, not killed in prison. 2) Since they also wanted the trial to be viewed as a valid judicial procedure rather than an illegal bout of abuse, they were bound by law to at least try to intervene if the guards tried to rape her - which is why Joan's laced pants and tunic bought her enough time on at least one occasion to cry for help, to which the Earl of Warwick responded by coming to her rescue. You need to remember that while her guards were abusive, they could not legally be allowed to do whatever they saw fit, and the English commanders knew that. In short: her male clothing was both reasonably effective and (more importantly) the best defense she had available at the time. In any event, there is certainly no indication that she had an abnormal vagina - a point which would have been noticed and reported during the three medical examinations conducted by first the Royal Court, then by the English. There is no evidence of a medical condition such as AIS. AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And the one which keeps getting cited, but behind which I put a question mark: There were several attempts of rape of Joan in prison, but none ever succeded. The intersex theory has it that this could have been because Joan's vagina was too shallow, which indeed would point to an intersex condition, probably AIS, too - if it can be verified. And don't mention her clothes now, one woman against several men in a situation where nobody would come to her rescue stands little chance no matter what she wears. [AR]
How much of that can you verify or falsify? Just curious, since even if she had been IS, it does not automatically follow from this that there were any cross-gender needs or feelings because of it. -- AlexR 14:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, concerning the symptoms you listed (and yes, I already researched this "theory" and so I am familiar with both the claims and what the medical literature says on the subject), let's take these symptoms one at a time: the idea that Joan never menstruated is based (sometimes rather loosely) on the testimony of Jean d'Aulon at the appeal, who repeated some hearsay he heard from women who had known Joan or conducted the first medical examination on her. Since there are numerous reasons why a woman might not menstruate - quite a number of different medical conditions such as Leydig Cell Hypoplasia, as well as the malnourishment caused by Joan's constant fasting and other deprivations - even if this notion is accurate and not merely hearsay, it would not be proof of AIS. More importantly, the idea that she lacked pubic hair is fictional: there is no mention of any such thing in the actual accounts. The same is true of the idea that she had a "shortened vagina" - there is nothing to indicate that, and it is not an explanation for the failure of her guards to rape her. For one thing, a "shortened vagina" would not prevent some degree of penetration; but more importantly, you've entirely misconstrued the circumstances on several points: 1) The guards would have only been able to take off her sewn-up pants by cutting her clothing apart, which would thereby likely cut Joan as well - and the guards had been forbidden by English commanders from doing anything that might lead to her premature death since they wanted her formally executed as a heretic, not killed in prison. 2) Since they also wanted the trial to be viewed as a valid judicial procedure rather than an illegal bout of abuse, they were bound by law to at least try to intervene if the guards tried to rape her - which is why Joan's laced pants and tunic bought her enough time on at least one occasion to cry for help, to which the Earl of Warwick responded by coming to her rescue. You need to remember that while her guards were abusive, they could not legally be allowed to do whatever they saw fit, and the English commanders knew that. In short: her male clothing was both reasonably effective and (more importantly) the best defense she had available at the time. In any event, there is certainly no indication that she had an abnormal vagina - a point which would have been noticed and reported during the three medical examinations conducted by first the Royal Court, then by the English. There is no evidence of a medical condition such as AIS. AWilliamson 04:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, I would ask you to reply to the three points I asked about seperately, otherwise matters do get confused - in fact, you have confused them already. Whether that was an accident only you know. Second, there is no need to assume that I am assuming she was or might have been intersex - I am curious about the matter, and since you were so happy to provide references when they suited you needs, I - maybe somewhat naively - assumed you might provide some about this question. So far you have presented very little ... to put it mildly, and your rather aggressive reply was uncalled for. So one last try:
  • Did Joan ever mensturate? The book I have here (none I would trust on historical facts since it is a tertiary source on those, but I am trying to verify or falsifying them right now) indeed mentiones that this is based on d'Aulon, but if he based that on the testimony of "women who had known Joan or conducted the first medical examination on her" that's not the worst possible source, is it? And, very important, did she not mensturate during a certain period of her life (which could be explained by the circumstances) or did she never start to mensturate, which could not be so easily explained away?
    BTW, I never stated - as you imply - that not mensurating alone could possibly be sufficient for a diagnosis of AIS. It would be insufficient for any diagnosis. Together with other points, though, it becomes relevant. [AR]
The testimony by d'Aulon on this point is very brief and far too vague to determine anything - he merely says that these women thought that she didn't have the "private illness of women" (menstruation). And as I said, since there are numerous medical conditions that could interfere with a woman's menstrual cycle - Joan's fasting alone might do that - this condition would not prove anything related to the discussion. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Did Joan have public and underarm hair? I have read that more than once, and the book here (and, as far as I remember, other texts) claim that was stated by the midwifes that examined her, the same ones that testified she was still a virgin. Since you too referred to these examinations, I wonder where those authors have that information from? I mean, I have met quite a few "history" books that made quite outragous claims, but usually facts were not completely made up. So is there a link maybe to the reports of those midwifes (preferably not put up by you) where one could check your claim that "there is nothing in the sources"? Or a book that is easily available? Because if there is something in the sources after all, that very much points, especially together with point one, to some physical problem, maybe AIS.[AR]
There wasn't any written report by the women who examined Joan - they announced their findings verbally to the Royal Court, and the only description we have of their findings is found in the testimony of the witnesses at the appeal - none of whom said anything about a lack of pubic hair. I have personally translated all 123 depositions, and it isn't in there. If you want to confirm this, you can look at books which have all of the relevant testimony, such as Oursel's "Les Procès de Jeanne d'Arc".
Pop books on the subject do, in fact, sometimes include a large amount of pure fiction, which is what this is. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • How about the "shortened vagina" claim? First of all, it was not I who "entirely misconstrued the circumstances", I said specifically that I put a question mark behind that claim myself. So there was no reason to misrepresent what I said. (But when did you ever need a reason for that?) But back to the question, for which I need to mention one topic that you seem to be obsessed with, but which is obviously not all that relevant (even if it brought her time to call for help once), that is her clothes, which cannot have offered her the protection you ascribe to them. First of all, there had to be some opening, unless you wish to claim that she urinated and defecated into her clothes, and kept the waste there, too. Not completely impossible, but somewhat unlikely. Only clothes that are closed that much offer some protection. Furthermore, previously, around the 9th of October, you only stated that those clothes had laces and points so they could be tied together, now they are sewn together. However, the quotes you brought into the debate on Oct. 11th say "tied", too. In both cases, though, the clothes could still be removed, and certainly without cutting her skin, too. That is especially true when they were only tied together. What is tied together can be untied. Countless reports by women that were raped confirm that. So we come back to the question: Was there any attempt of rape that might have not succedeed because she just had no or not enough of a vagina to be penetrated? BTW, a vagina might have been so shortened that penetration would be impossible, and such a vagina might also be extremely narrow. And those examination: Was indeed her vagina examined in depth, like a modern doctor would do, or how were those examinations conducted? Such a vagina could, after all, be easily confused with the very tight (but normal) vagina of a virgin. [AR]
First of all: you obviously have not seen the type of clothing in question here, and you obviously aren't reading anything I've written about it. The laces went all the way around (there wasn't, and didn't need, to be an "opening", as I'll explain in a bit), and they could be stitched so that the pants and tunic would practically be connected into one piece (whether you want to use the term "tied" or "sewn" or "stitched", etc, is all the same). When the person needed to "go to the bathroom" (which you thought would necessitate an "opening"), they would have to laboriously unlace the garment - and yes, a would-be rapist could possibly do so as well, but it would be very difficult if the woman wasn't cooperating; and it would certainly give her time to cry for help - as Joan did on one occasion when the Earl of Warwick came to her aid. But again, the issue of protection simply comes down to the following analogy: while a determined thief can always get past the lock on your door by using various means, I suspect you still lock your door at night anyway, do you not? Similarly, Joan clung to this clothing both because it provided at least a reasonable protection and (more importantly) it was the only possible protection she had available - as was fairly standard practice in that era, in fact. This shouldn't need to be pointed out, much less explained in such a painstaking fashion over and over again.
Concerning her vagina: first of all, there is no evidence whatsoever that any rape attempt was prevented by her having a "shortened vagina" - we know that one attempt was prevented by the Earl of Warwick, and we know that her outfit helped prevent rape, but there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that an abnormal vagina was a factor. Secondly: the examinations are only described very briefly, but there is certainly no mention of anything concerning a shortened vagina - they said that she was found to be a virgin, and had a scar from a riding accident. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • And there is a fourth point, also allegedly coming from the examinations: That her labia were swelled, which could indicate undeveloped testes inside them. Again, certainly on its own not sufficient for a diagnosis, but together with other points maybe significant. [AR]
There was no mention of a swelled labia - that seems to be very loosely based (via distortion) on the fact that one examination found that there was a scar from a riding accident. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And let me mention one last thing: The whole time you have said that one should examine the evidence (at least the evidence you deem relevant) but now that I ask for some of your quotes, I don't get them. If you still refuse to answer with anything but "Can't be, all pop books" I cannot help assuming that evidence matters only to you when it suits you, even if it is historical evidence. In that case, your claim of being a "historian" would be bogus. But then, maybe you just had a bad day yesterday, so maybe today you will give some actually usefull reply. -- AlexR 03:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alex, most of the information you are citing from these books simply is not in the original documents, as any historian who has translated them will tell you. I label this stuff fiction because it IS fiction. To question my credentials for doing so is both absurd and also borders on libel. AWilliamson 05:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are constantly refusing to even consider evidence or possible evidence that does not agree with your prejudices, and you constantly misrepresent things I said to make your rants look better. Requests for actual evidence in this debate you have flatout refused to answer, instead you are asking me to rely on "I say so". (Just to mention the most obvious points.) And you seriously wonder why I don't quite trust your statements? That's not libel, that's something that naturaly follows from your behaviour here. I also do not rule out that you have any formal credentials as a historian, but certainly you don't bother with behaving like one here. You know, like in not being biased one way or the other, or in being willing to examine evidence.
Needless to say that I am still not quite willing to believe that everything you don't like to hear about was made up by authors who after all have a reputation to loose as well, if not as historians. "Mr Williamson said so" certainly does not count as evidence to me. Not even remotely. -- AlexR 09:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alex... in my replies yesterday, I referred you to a book (written by another historian, Raymond Oursel) that you could read to see the entire relevant testimony for yourself and thereby confirm that what I am saying is true. I also addressed, again in my replies yesterday, each of your points on menstruation, the idea of a "swelled labia", "lack of pubic hair", "shortened vagina", etc, by citing what the testimony actually says. Since this is obvious, I can only assume you're deliberately engaging in classic "troll" behavior here; but if not, then take a look at the Oursel book and see for yourself what the evidence is. Can you do that? AWilliamson 03:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The book you referred to seems to be useless to me, since I do not speak french, and the title is French. Should I be able to find something in English or German, I might have a look. How about you, though? So far you have flatout refused to look at any evidence that goes against your prejudices, how about you then looking at evidence for a change? As for your replies you allegedly made, well, there were letters on that page, but they consisted of nothing but another round of "because I say so". That's not a reply. And as for the trolling, sorry, but you come into this article and delete parts of it without explanation, and only start to debate when I had the article locked, you tried to stop changes that had absolutely nothing to do with your pet saint, you constantly misrepresent what I said, so often that it cannot be attributed to accident, you flatout refuse to even think about anything that goes against your prejudices, you expect everybody to believe whatever you say, just because you call yourself a "historian", you are patronizing into the bargain, and you accuse me of trolling? That's a joke, right? -- AlexR 04:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you don't read French, then the only English-language book I could suggest is "The Retrial of Joan of Arc" by Régine Pernoud (translated by J.M. Cohen), which has the important sections of the appellate testimony. The other issues you mentioned again above have already been refuted numerous times, and do not need to be refuted again.
Take a look at the Pernoud book, and you can confirm that I have been accurately describing the testimony, and have not "rejected" anything except the fiction you have been citing from pop books. AWilliamson 03:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If the book contains only parts of the testimony, it can't be usefull, since those bits I would be interested in are probably not in it. And how could I know whether you described the testimony accurately if I don't have access to all of it? Because, you know, I still flatout refuse to believe that more than one author made up the points mentioned, especially since by no means all of those texts are from "pop books", as you well know. (A book isn't a "pop book" because you don't like what's in it.) Also, I have no idea what you think has been refuted, so far you have refuted very, very little. And the way you have behaved, I wonder whether I was not somewhat naive to trust your statements about the "relapse" and similar things whose removal I did not object to, as well. -- AlexR 05:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firstly: you've been warned often enough already about misrepresenting the debate. Secondly and more to the point: if you're going to reject any translation of the testimony that can be suggested, then it seems you're just looking for an excuse not to confirm the information. Moreover, since "my" view was also accepted by the other historians who specialized in this subject, it is not legitimately in dispute. This is a bit like trying to argue with the people who believe that since there are so many books claiming that Joan was English or Italian, therefore these "must" be based on authentic evidence rather than fiction, therefore historians must be wrong about her ethnicity.
If you're not going to read the testimony, then you'll have to drop the subject. AWilliamson 03:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh please, Mr. Williamson, mind pointing out to me where I misrepresented the debate? I thought that was your speciality, you have certainly done it often enough. And what do you mean by "you have been warned"? Going to sent some hitmen after me or what if I don't cease and desist? Really, that's a bit cheap, making vague threats. [AR]
As for rejecting any translations, I did nothing of the kind, I said that if the translation you pointed out was incomplete, it was probably useless, that is not quite the same thing. And I most certainly not to stop editing because I do not have read the testimony, since I know what I am talking about well enough, where the possible gender variance is concerned, and I think I made it very clear that I am decidedly undecided about the intersex question. I asked for your alleged experts help on getting more information, but what you provided, and how you provided it, was nothing I personally deem believable. ("All made up, because I say so" - what an argument.) However, the article (that is Joan of Arc, to mention that for the umteenth time, since the debates certainly do not belong here) should represent the debate, that is, this theory and that theory exists, and not one persons opinion, not even yours. [AR]
As for "other historians who accepted your view", that may or may not be the case, but it is utterly irrelevant. If these historians refused, just as you do (and not just on this matters, as talk:Joan of arc shows) to even consider much of the evidence brought forward by non-historians, or historians who do have a different view on the subject, well, how much is their judgement worth? Nothing at all. Not that it matters, the articles here should, again, represent the debate, not one persons (or possibly one groups) conclusion. If you want a text that contains nothing but your own opinion, write a book. This is the Wikipedia, and therefore the wrong place for such attempts. -- AlexR 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alex: I gave you the only sources that are in languages you might be able to read - since the full transcript is only available in the original Middle-French and Latin, if you're not able to read these languages then what makes you qualified to reject the verdict of all the historians who _have_ read it? (You know better than this, Alex).
The rest of your comments have been dealt with repeatedly, and do not require further repetition. AWilliamson 03:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--From Talk:Joan of Arc--

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 Wikipedia. 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)
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 03:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello AWilliamson. I understand that Ambi has been in touch with you about me taking over the mediation between you and AlexR. She tells me you have agreed to this so perhaps you could email me and let me know the situation so far, and how mediation might be able to help. My address is sannse (a) tiscali.co.uk Please also read Wikipedia:Confidentiality during mediation and let me know if you are happy with this. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee)

[edit] Poll: Inclusion of Biblical figures at List of occultists

I have put up a poll concerning the inclusion of Solomon, Jesus, and the Three Wise Men at Talk:List of occultists. As someone who has contributed to the talk page in the past, your input is invited. -- Smerdis of Tlön 04:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yahweh divine

From the Administrator's notice board

I've received a complaint by email from another editor that the above user name is inappropriate in that it may be offensive. While I can see how this may be the case, I'd also like to ask opinions on this one, and since I've had previous interactions with the editor in question (User:Yahweh divine) over what seemed like vandalism (at the time), maybe a less involved party can communicate with Yahweh divine if it is felt that their user name is inappropriate.

Greetings, AWilliamson. I posted the above today, and we'll get a response to your concern fairly quickly, I'll guess. I'll understand if you want to remove this notice once you've read it. Fire Star 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd

The Vfd against the decency project has failed to delete the article. I would like to get it going in another direction or perhaps start a new project entirely focusing on what standrds need to be established to ensure that Wikipedia gains more credibility in academia...a lofty goal. I appreciated and agree with your comments in the vote section and request any further insight you have about the project. You can find it here--MONGO 01:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hy, why hide under 66.216.226.34 ?

Why do you use 66.216.226.34? Are you just shy? Switisweti

The IP 66.216.226.34, has only made one edit to the Joan of Arc article. Fire Star 20:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe you'd like to know

Just look at this message: [1]. Switisweti