Talk:Joan of Arc, Trial: Difference between revisions
imported>Frank van Geelkerken No edit summary |
imported>Frank van Geelkerken (→EDIT) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
== EDIT == | == EDIT == | ||
Changed your tag from [[ | Changed your tag from [[Category:Law Workgroup (Top)]] to [[Category:Law Workgroup]], the TOP entries are entries which '''all''' members of the workgroup should work on as much as possible. | ||
I think in the case of the ''LAW'' workgroup it might be better to first make a good entry for the lemmata '''''LAW'''''. | I think in the case of the ''LAW'' workgroup it might be better to first make a good entry for the lemmata '''''LAW'''''. | ||
Revision as of 16:13, 23 February 2007
Initial content
The initial content for the Trial of Joan of Arc article was taken from the Trial subsection of the Wikipedia article on Joan of Arc of January 5, 2007. James F. Perry 11:05, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Section headers (January 11)
The section headers have been added primarily to organize the material by providing an outline. Prometheus is regarded as a symbol of the fight against tyrannical power. The use of this imagery in the section headers may be "unencyclopedic". Keep in mind the overall purpose - outlining and organizing. The final draft is some distance off. James F. Perry 11:02, 11 January 2007 (CST)
No Wikipedia content
As of February 14, 2007, there is no Wikipedia content in this article, all of the original such content having been removed some time earlier. James F. Perry 16:29, 14 February 2007 (CST)
First session - the matter of the oath
The Trial transcript goes on to report "Jeanne . . . swore to answer truthfully whatever should be asked her, which she knew, concerning matters of faith, and was silent with regard to the said condition, that she would not tell or reveal to any person the revelations made to her."
I'm not sure what this means. Historians have generally rejected the notion that Jeanne took such an unlimited oath, instead asserting that the transcript was tampered with in this respect. Manchon, in his Rehabiliation trial deposition, did assert that pressure was brought to bear on him and the other notaries to doctor the transcript in places (though he did also say that it was by and large accurate). The fact that the question of the oath was repeatedly returned to in subsequent sessions seems to support this notion. In matters of legal proceedings, then as now, is it ot held sufficient to take the oath once and that is good for all sessions? James F. Perry 16:10, 21 February 2007 (CST)
EDIT
Changed your tag from to, the TOP entries are entries which all members of the workgroup should work on as much as possible. I think in the case of the LAW workgroup it might be better to first make a good entry for the lemmata LAW.