Talk:Joan of Arc/Evidence and style
Text pulled from Talk:Joan_of_Arc.
A debate about "evidence" and "style"[edit]
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 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)
- 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 Wikipedia 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?
- First of all, you wrote nothing worth a reply. Second, it is not exactly good manners on Wikipedia 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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. [AR]
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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.