Talk:Pope Joan/Archive 2

Work in progress....
This article requires clean-up and lots of grammatical corrections. I will do so as time allows, and have already done a few sections. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated by all. Also, we do not need to capitalise "pope" unless it precedes an actual pope's name. Also I wish to add that repetitions about how this-and-that had nothing to do with Joan should be avoided. This is POV unless citations are specifically provided. The same goes for any POV and OR that supports the existence of Joan. Djathink imacowboy  19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cúchullain said above: "[This article]... is certainly the place to judge how best to include the views of the scholars who have written on the subject." No it is not. Wikipedia works as a place where facts are added properly into the articles with their necessary citations, nothing more. Judging content is not the job of an editor. Verifiability is all that matters. Djathink  imacowboy  19:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, I was talking the talk page, not the article. Second, I said it's the place to judge how to include material from scholars who have written on the subject, not judging the material itself. The article talk page is absolutely the place to do that. And finally, verifiability is not all that matters – the other core content policies are equally crucial. In addition to being verifiable, articles must be written with a neutral point of view, meaning all significant, verifiable views are presented "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias", including taking into consideration due weight. Articles must also contain no original research, which includes analysis or synthesis of published material that advances a position not advanced by the sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your copy editing, but I reverted some of your changes. Most importantly, you've attempted to use a novel as a source. A novel is not a reliable source for an article on a medieval tradition, let alone for medieval history. You also removed some important details from the introduction, and added some that don't need to be there (the King Arthur line is immaterial here, and the 9th century date is only one of the dates given for the female pope in different versions).--Cúchullain t/ c 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1. That novel has non-fiction source in the chapter I indicated properly per guidelines. 2. You had no right to simply revert the bad grammar I streamlined. 3. I concede the point about Arthur...I think I was thinking out loud. But in return I suggest you READ edits 1st then decide how best to add to them. I removed uncited material, no matter how 'helpful' it seemed. And the grammar sounded worse than a middle-school student's; it is a problem throughout this article. "Let alone" was a prime example of rather silly verbiage. Djathink  imacowboy  21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Further: I hope I simply misread the edit, but you cannot make major changes like that and then mark them as minor edits. Djathink  imacowboy  21:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just one example, you reinserted this: "...let alone that it originated in the 9th century as a deliberate rebuff to the memory of the female Pope."...among other badly worded items. That sort of writing was uncited here, is POV and almost sounds like OR. You can't just put that back and then say you're "cleaning up"! It is no way to work with other editors. Djathink  imacowboy  21:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You really need to start assuming good faith and commenting on the content, not the contributor. I am more than happy to discuss this in a civilized way, but such a combative attitude will get us no where.
 * In response to your comments: (1). I'm sorry, but neither that novel nor its notes are reliable sources. I stand by that. (2) Please read WP:OWN. If you are not comfortable with people continuing to edit your work, you should not edit here. At any rate I did not revert all of your edits, only parts of them I felt that were not an improvement; I did my best to explain myself on the talk page here. (3). I'm glad you agree about the Arthur line. I did read all of your edits; as I say I determined that some of them were not an improvement to what was there before. (4) None of my edits were marked as minor.
 * In the future, feel free to edit boldly, but when you get reverted, the best next step is to go to the talk page and discuss it in productive way.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, assuming good faith: good faith was in the edits to improve grammar. I will concede about the novel, because apparently you will not budge, but I plan on getting a 2nd opinion for that.

You in turn reverted good grammar streamlining and labeled that edit as clean-up. That is not accurate, nor is it fair.

Lastly, if you are reinserting text be sure it is either cited or tagged as citation needed. Lots of what I removed was uncited and untagged. If there is a question of owning an article, I'd say at this point we both seem as if we'd like to own it. So... your points are well-taken... are mine? Djathink imacowboy  22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please look again at what I reverted. It is proportionately very little of what you changed, and mostly focused on the introduction. The lines I reverted included the aforementioned Arthur line and lines like "The first mention of the pope who would be recognised briefly as Pope John (ne&eacute; Johanna) appears in the chronicle..." and "Due to the Dark Ages lack of records, confusion often reigns in the evaluation of events". I do not regard as an improvement over what was there previously.
 * Feel free to seek outside input on the novel, but we're going to have to hear your reasoning on how it could be a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked very closely at what you reverted and noted that much of it was hard to revert or change easily. I worked very hard to improve that article; you did a lot of 'wholesale' reversions, saved them, then reverted more. It makes it hard to follow what all you're doing.

Agreed otherwise, in most points. However, it is not for either me or you to solely decide what sounds or works best in the article. As I said, whoever put some of that grammar in was doing a poor job of it. What you think is no improvement may very well be a great improvement in grammatical terms. You were right about the past accounts being explained in modern tense; but you made no smooth, understandable transition to allow for it. It sounds poor that way.

So, you see? It cannot just be left up to one or the other of us, and by the looks of it, some of the details are a point of disagreement between us. As to the novel, it is verifiable, it is what she wrote and it is non-fictional "Notes" chapter, so how does it not meet the standard? It is not part of her novel's storyline at all. Djathink imacowboy  23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're taking this far too personally. The reverts and changes I made are pretty slight compared to the large swath of changes you made, and they were explained sufficiently. About the novel, this is not a source with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The author has no qualifications in history, medieval studies, or another related field; her background is in literature and writing. The text in question is not an academic work; it's an appendix in the back of a historical novel. Cross's views are not considered plausible by scholars in the field. One reference work I have, Medieval Europe: A Short History by Judith M. Bennett and C. Warren Hollister, contains a blurb about the book that praises the novel but totally dismisses Cross' claims in the appendix (p. 129 in my edition). We might could use the novel to source the author's own opinions, but it's not a source for history.Cúchullain t/ c  02:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I take editing personally because I work hard at it. And nothing anyone presents here will correct the bad grammar and uncited material. That can only be corrected with proper correction, not with accusations about taking things personally.


 * Since I have already acquiesced about the novel, I wonder who may be taking this more personally. Not I; there are no plans in my immediate future to try to work on this with you guarding the article so carefully.


 * Just remember, this is Wikipedia. One day, some editor will show up and take your place as article-guardian. Djathink  imacowboy  03:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dude, you asked how your source doesn't "meet the standard", so I told you. If you don't like an environment where you sometimes find disagreements you have to work through, you're at the wrong encyclopedia.Cúchullain t/ c 04:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Please, I humbly ask you, do not refer to me as "dude". 2. You can tell anyone on here anything you like, apparently. You showed no proof to back up what you told me. 3. Please do not lecture editors about being in the wrong place. 4. It is a wise idea for you to consider the ways in which you seem to refuse to work through disagreements. Djathink imacowboy  19:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is high time we disengage for a while. I've said all I can say here. If at some point you are willing to engage in a productive and civil discussion on how to improve the article, I'm more than open to it.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Time for you perhaps. It is clear, it was clear from Day One, you're not open to anything when it comes to this article. While I made errors, I think the subsequent attention to my edits and the reversions show who is struggling. Djathink  imacowboy  00:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress II
Pat, you stated: Taken from  this date. Well, I'd like to humbly ask that the sentiment about grammar be honoured; you will note a few of Cúchullain's wholesale reversions in the history. I promise that I will not remove cited material or add silly content of my own as I did previously. Djathink imacowboy  23:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pat, this edit, what do you mean by summarising "date is not consistent"? Not consistent with what? The legend is set in the early 9th century; or do you know a more precise century? You've already had your way with the Early Middle Ages when people still commonly use "Dark Ages". If you continue second-guessing me, I'll have to assume you're edit warring. Why would you insist on this? What is the matter with stating the legend is set in the early 9th century? I'll revert this until you supply a citation that says exactly that "the legend is set in the Early Middle Ages". Djathink  imacowboy  01:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, per your edit summary's implication, I made no edits about antipopes. They are real historical people and do not know why anyone would change references to them... but then I can't really see the use in belabouring the subject of antipopes in this article. Joan was not said to have been an antipope and I doubt any of those antipopes had to do with the spread of the legend... unless you can cite an authority that says otherwise. Djathink  imacowboy  01:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the inclusion of her in the category antipopes. If you read the article you will see that the most common version places her in the 9th century, but other versions exist. Is the 850s early 9th century? PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 800s were the 9th century. I apologise because I saw that I originally slipped and wrote "8th century". But there is a problem: antipopes were elected as a political move from amongst legal candidates to fight a sitting pope. Joan is considered a myth, so your post is actually confusing. You cannot say Pope John VIII was an antipope! Djathink  imacowboy  20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

PatGallacher: You have again removed the legitimate addition to the date of the Pope Joan legend. I can only conclude that you are enjoying yourself edit warring and forcing your POV. All that, in spite of the fact that you just admitted the legend is placed in the 9th century, which is all I wish to add to the lead and which you keep reverting for no good reason. This has been reported at ANI as you know. I will not make another edit nor post here again until the ANI is addressed. Djathink imacowboy  21:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment If I may be so bold, we need to concentrate on verifiable content here. [What follows is based on this version of the article]: For now, I suggest editors keep discussion to this talk page and ensure that all their claims are backed up by reliable sources. Discuss all dates here and cite each claim. If it turns out that there are two or more reliable sources claiming dates, then (eventually) the article should contain all such claims but for now, simply discuss them so they can be weighed properly. The second issue that needs resolving here is which date (of all the date candidates) should go in the lead or should more than one date go in the lead? The third issue that will need resolving is that the aritcle is currently very poorly sourced overall. Consider submitting this article for peer-review. But first, let us fix the date issue. Stand by your sources ... -- Senra (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, Djathinkimacowboy, why you're adding a date to the lead that explicitly contradicts some of the information later in the article? The article explicitly says that various different stories have placed this myth in various different centuries, so I don't see how the lead can say "in the 8th/9th century". Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, "Middle Ages" is better here; different versions give different dates for the events, and some of are not within what is usually called the "Early Middle Ages". Specifically, Jean de Mailly's earliest version has the story take place in the 11th century. And "Dark Ages" is not appropriate as the term is usually avoided by medievalists.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above. Recommend someone make the change and we close this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I had to come back when I saw Viriditas' contribuition after saying the RfC was inappropriate but then commenting on it anyway so as to close the discussion. I do not agree totally. I made an error in my original edit to the lead, and did not mean to write "the 8th century", but the 9th century. That is the most common time frame.

My argument is the Early Middle Ages do include the 9th century, do they not? And the story is set most commonly and popularly in the year 855 A.D. Of course there are other dates.

So my only point now is this: is the 9th century part of the Early Middle Ages or not? And if so, why not place the modified fact in the article? I don't think the guidelines should favour the two editors' personal choice only. Djathink imacowboy  00:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In case everyone's lost by now, this is the issue: no one can agree even on a fixed year or date for this story. It has been placed from the early 9th to the middle 11th centuries (both technically fall into Early Middle Ages, C.).


 * I am asking, why does the lead not express the most commonly used date in which this is placed, viz., the 9th century? It doesn't matter that there are contradicting dates in the article... it's a myth as far as we now know. Who cares how many varying dates appear?


 * Why am I specifically being opposed when I try to say it is placed at its earliest in the 9th century? Pat has already conceded that point! Djathink  imacowboy  01:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of ideas. One, inclusion of a specific date in an article about something seen as being to some degree false might tend to, willfully or not, lend credence to a story which has been found to have no clear base. In such circumstances, it might mislead readers. Maybe.
 * Also, I suppose, there is a question regarding the possible excessive degree of detail in the inclusion of the specific date. Why is it so important that the specific date be included, when the broad period already mentioned includes that date. I tend to think that, maybe, WP:BURDEN might be invoked to basically require evidence from other sources which give the date sufficient weight that it would logically be included. I don't know if that evidence that the date in question is given particular attention by the most recent reliable academic sources has specifically been presented yet, having not looked the material over to that degree. If it hasn't, that is potentially a reason. Just a few ideas, anyway. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a sensible argument. I may not agree in all details of it, but it is generally sound. Sadly, I cannot as easily dismiss the arrogance shown here by certain editors, but I hope ANI will resolve that too. Meanwhile I am satisfied. Djathink  imacowboy Special:EmailUser/Djathinkimacowboy 04:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A sad, final note: The ANI seems to be left in one editor's hands, and that happens to be the editor who comes here and says let's agree with PatGallacher, let's close this thread. Well, let's do that then, and let the PatGallachers of Wikipedia own all the articles they like, let them break the 3RR as long as they can make confused, half-baked arguments on the talk page. Why not. Djathink imacowboy  (yell)  10:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proving that this Pope Joan existed rests on an editor who can scholarly establish that she did exist with a verified scholarly source. This source has to be independent and merits academic research and recognition in the art or research field. Simply claiming that Pope Joan existed as an anti-Catholic sentiment, or using the excuse that the Roman Catholic Church is capable of "hiding things" is not sufficient and does not merit the burden of evidence. You can argue on and on this talk page, but Wikipedia rules are pretty clear. LoveforMary (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)LoveforMary
 * Sources don't refer to this character as an Antipope. They pretty uniformly agree that she did not exist, but they don't refer to her with that term.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Popess Joan
Shouldn't this be "Popess Joan"? I know the term is used...never, but still. That's what the Catholic Enclyothinger said. --Tothebarricades.tk 06:26, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually the femine form of 'Pope' is Papess.
 * When the priesthood is made coed (which will probably be around AD 4000), a more likely title for a female Archbishop of Rome will be Holy Mother. Words like "Popess" and "Papess" are inherent contradictions on the grounds that "Pope" derives from Pappas, which was a casual term for Pater ("Father") and therefore basically Latin for "Daddy." Every little kid knows that only boys can be daddies and only girls can be mommies. So, if anything and ever, the female form will be Holy Mother or something to that effect. -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.150.198 (talk) 08:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be, if she was a real person. However, she was supposedly Pope John VII, and when only when she was discovered to be a woman did they call her Joan, soeveryone called her "Pope Joan." It is what she was known as, not what she should correctly be called. (I'm going from the little information that I have heard, don't quote me)


 * Popess Joan would be an effective way of concealing this article from the Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It obviously makes no sense to have a female form of the noun "pope". Plus the whole point here is that she is supposed to have pretended to be a man. --dllu 21:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not an opinion, only a hint: Other languages distinguish. For exampe in german: "Papst" and "Päpstin". --84.190.99.147 (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In Discordianism (which is more of a joke than a sincere religion), anyone can be a pope; a female Discordian pope is a "Mome". FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dubious categories
I have removed Category:LGBT history prior to the 19th century and Category:Transgender topics and religion. There is nothing in the article that supports these categorizations. We would need reliable sources arguing that Pope Joan can be regarded as a transgender person, or is in some other way important to transgender history. StAnselm (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything similar in Eastern Orthodoxy?
Have there ever been any rumors about a secret "Matriarch of Constantinople" or something like that? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

First, no. Second, the Patriarch of Constantinople is not an "Orthodox Pope".Dogface (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)