Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Joan's letters

Could anyone give full English translation of Joan's letters ? Sounds very interesting !

That's a weird part: as a french native, I used to translate "Joan" as "Jeanne", but that not the transcription of her sign. Is there a trustable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.84.74 (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A new external links to add ?

Hi, It would be interesting to add the link of the new French website "Joan of Arc Medals" which deals with the numismatics of Joan of Arc. This topic is missing on this page. The adress of the website is [1].

• Joan of Arc medals website, Numismatics – Exonumia : medals engraved in the effigy of Joan of Arc – France.

Best Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron45 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC) There are multiple web sites with the translations into English of Joan's letters. I will place an external link for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScripsitVeritas (talk • contribs) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC) http://www.joanofarc.info/ - translations of Joan's letters and other documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScripsitVeritas (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

External links

• Médailles Jeanne d’Arc, French site containing pictures and descriptions of Medallions devoted to Joan of Arc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron45 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrial and Rehabilitation sections in apparent contradiction ?

Under the section "Retrial" we are told that Joan was posthumously retried and declared innocent of the heresy charges for which she had been condemned on 30th May 1456, i.e. 25 years after her death. We are also told that the re-trial court declared her a martyr and condemned (presumably also posthumously?) for heresy the bishop under whom she had been condemned.

A few lines further down, under the section "Rehabilitation" it is implied that her rehabilitation began in 1817 with the writer Philippe-Alexandre le Brun de Chantelles,[to redeem her family from the stigma of relapse into heresy, this in 1817 France ??] after we have just read that she been rehabilitated by formal judicial declaration of innocence, 361 years previously. It seems to me that the Section Title "Rehabilitation" is misleading and that it should instead be entitled something like "Renewal of Interest, in post-Revolution France", and that the question of her family's reputation (if it was still an issue at the time) should be further clarified or at least referenced.86.45.184.235 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC) http://www.joanofarc.info/ Contains translations of Joan's letters as well as original source materials.

Works about Jeanne

As a Dane, I'm a bit miffed that the section in the head about the artistic adaptions of Jeanne's life does not include "La passion de Jeanne d'Arc" by Carl Theodor Dreyer. I mean, who the hell is Maxwell Anderson? Would someone please amend that for me? It seems outsiders (understandingly) are no longer allowed edits. //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.212.11.150 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we indent the paragraphs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobgreen35 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

add an external link

Joan of Arc exonumia is not present on this page, you might add this famous French external link :

• Médailles Jeanne d’Arc.French site containing pictures and descriptions of Medallions devoted to Joan of Arc.

Best regards Iron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron45 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Notes and References

Seems to me that the Notes and References together are longer than the entire article itself. Suggest removing duplicates. --Trelawnie (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well researched and written, BUT I FEAR subtle alterations over ongoing periods may alter this article for the worst- I'm new to the wiki community, but if a wonderfully compiled article as this achieves "featured status" shouldn't the article become semi-protected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.252.150 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Born in France?

Joan of Arc was not actually born in France. Domremy was in Bar, which was a duchy of both France and the Holy Roman Empire. Bar became part of Lorraine (also a duchy at the time) in 1508. Lorraine was not annexed to France until 1766.

Amandakstroud (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)amandakstroud April 8, 2010

interesting

An original radio play, 25 parts of 20 mn. About Joan's history, based on the authentic documents registered during her trial. On CD MP3. (French).

• Jeanne d'Arc, la Délivrance, feuilleton radiophonique en 25 épisodes pour les radios associatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aulon (talk • contribs) 12:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

b-day

Do any of you know what Joan of arc's birthday is?? We have had a bad time finding this.

                                  thankyou,
                                 06//01//1412  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.236.90 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 

What's in a name; Jehanne Darc

Suggestion: Include info about the way Jehanne Darc wrote her own name, and link to an image of her signature: http://nn.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Jehanne_signature.jpg

Also: I have heard that "d'Arc" is incorrect - as there is no place called "Arc", there also is no surname "d'Arc". Therefore the name should be written "Darc", as I have seen it done on a bronze plaque in France. I heard it should be "Darc" on the TV-show "60 minutes", but have no source.

Sigve 84.210.0.38 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no place called "Arc"? Really? → Arc-en-Barrois - Sigruhn (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aulon, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Interesting about Joan of Arc : Jehanne, la Délivrance an original radio play, 25 parts of 20 mn. About Joan's history, based on the authentic documents registered during her trial. On CD MP3. (French and English).

• Jeanne d'Arc, la Délivrance, feuilleton radiophonique en 25 épisodes pour les radios associatives

Aulon (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: the link you posted is a promo link, and the article is currently not in need of more external links. jonkerz♠ 14:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstandings : it was not to create an external link but for the biography or documents. No "promo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.227.27.82 (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Excommunication

The last paragraph of the section "Hundred Years War" mentions excommunication as an aside, but the article goes into no detail about her excommuniation. GavinTillman (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Catherine de la Rochelle

Joan's rival: Catherine de la Rochelle is not mentioned here, but I read a section where Joan apparently shared a bed with Catherine waiting for Catherine's white lady. Seeing that in those times, pyjamas were considered immoral up to I think early Victorian times, was Catherine's role in Joan's trial revenge for thwarting her own possible role as a protector of France or something additional?--I am the Blood 06:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

Images

Just wondering why the captions under some paintings have the title of the painting in italics and others don't. Considering this is a featured article I think it should be consistent. Jenks24 (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Was she raped?

This edit removes information that Joan of Arc may have been raped. It's sourced to Pernoud so deserves mentioning and the article makes it clears that it's speculative. The edit was justified with this link, which doesn't seem particularly reliable. I suggest re-adding the mention that Joan may have been raped. Nev1 (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Moot point now, since the edit was reverted, but I agree - the removal justification appears to be a single "opinion piece". Since the existing text, as you point out, is clear that the Pernoud reference supports only the theory that she 'may' have been raped, I feel a discussion by such a relevant source is worthy of keeping.  -  Begoon (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/about.html is a non-notable third party source and does not meet the criteria for WP:CITE. In a nutshell its a personal website owned and operated by a Allen Williamson, a historian (to which I have been unable to find any educational or professional certificates, degrees, or verification to qualify his expertise). This could make him an amateur historian with no formal profession or training. My findings this person has not been published aside from his own website. Mkdw^talk 19:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that on the site's "about us" page, it says: "To this end, the corporation shall engage in: 1) the conduct and publication of original research on historical topics related to Joan of Arc and her time period;" doesn't encourage me to treat it as reliable either. One of the stated aims of the society is "Some of the proceeds from the publications will help provide funding for the protection of Joan of Arc's baptismal church at Domrémy-la-Pucelle." which is noble and good, but also gives the impression that this society would maybe be too concerned with preserving the image of JofA, and refutes this theory more because it might seem to some to "sully" her image than because of any reliable research. It really feels like just as much an "opinion piece" as the previous reference to me.  -  Begoon (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm copying some posts from my talk page here to move the discussion to its proper place  -  Begoon (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved from User_talk:Begoon#Joan_of_arc

Hi, I added two more links which include articles from people(Mr. Williamson and Mrs. Frohlick) who have very good knowledge about Joan's life. In their article, they prove that she was not raped. One of the reasons is Joan's own sayings and another is mistranslation of Isambart's words mentioned by Pernoud in his book.I am going to a new house, so i wont access to net for some days and i wont be able to take part in the discussion.--Joan2011 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for replying. There's no hurry, time limit or deadline here on Wikipedia, so if you're going to be away for a while, that's fine - the discussion will still be there when you can get back to it. Don't feel that something will be "finally decided" in your absence - Wikipedia is not like that - you can come back and pick up discussions any time if you have something to add. I always find that the discussions I get most from here are the ones I go into with an open mind - I don't always go away from them with the same ideas I took in, but I often go away wiser. There are lots of good people who edit here, and their main concern is that what goes into the encyclopedia is fair, balanced, and verifiable.  -  Begoon (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, Can I add the reasons that prove her virginity without removing that sentence(e.g her words that her body was never corrupted and mistranslation of Isambart's words)?--Joan2011 (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt she was raped, moments before she was lead to the stake she stated her virginity and such, I believe she was assaulted but not to the point where she was raped. She was likely have fought her attackers. So the part where it says 'she may have been raped' leads to readers believing she was likely raped. The line should be redone properly and expressed better, such as 'she was subject to being sexually assaulted until she was told to wear male attire again'.

Trial of Joan of Arc

the last 3 sessions for the separated article about her trial has not been completed SINCE 2008!!!! Either we should remove the last 3 dates or have someone with brains to edit it and finish it off, looks completely lame to have a page uncompleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.18.134 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrial

Should the "Retrial" section be changed to "Rehabilitation"? See Talk:Retrial of Joan of Arc#Merge. There are presently two articles on the subject and it has been suggested that the title "Retrial of Joan of Arc" is factually incorrect. Samatarou (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Portrait

I'm curious to the part where it says 'the one she sat for has not survived' is there a verified source for this? How do we know when and or if she even sat for it and are we certain it really did not survive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.18.134 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

persistant problems with vision section

Anti catholic bias towards the reality of the supernatural calls this section into question. I know a Scizophrenic. They cannot function without medication. Joan could not have battled England with such a condition. Also the Catholic Church lists her as a virgin. She can't be a virgin if she was raped. In one section there is speculation that she was, yet Butler's Lives of the Saints mentions nothing about it.

I'm placing problematic quotes from the article in bold:

Among the specific challenges that potential diagnoses such as schizophrenia face is the slim likelihood that any person with such a disorder could gain favour in the court of King Charles VII. His own father, Charles VI, was popularly known as "Charles the Mad", and much of the political and military decline that France had suffered during his reign could be attributed to the power vacuum that his episodes of insanity had produced. The previous king had believed he was made of glass, a delusion no courtier had mistaken for a religious awakening. Fears that King Charles VII would manifest the same insanity may have factored into the attempt to disinherit him at Troyes. This stigma was so persistent that contemporaries of the next generation would attribute to inherited madness the breakdown that England's King Henry VI was to suffer in 1453: Henry VI was nephew to Charles VII and grandson to Charles VI.

This seems to imply that King Charles VII and his court wouldn't have given "favour" to a mentally ill person because of what happened as a result of King Charles VI's mental illness and their resulting stigma against mentally ill people. However, using this idea to argue that it's unlikely Joan could have "gained favour" with the court if she had schizophrenia or some other mentall illness assumes that King Charles VII and his court would have known if she had such a condition. Isn't it possible that they simply couldn't tell that Joan was mentally ill? If so, than whatever stigma they may have had against mentally ill people and the info about King Charles VI isn't really relevant to the subject of this part of the article.

Joan of Arc displayed none of the cognitive impairment that can accompany some major mental illnesses when symptoms are present.

Shouldn't that claim by supported by a citation?

She remained astute to the end of her life and rehabilitation trial testimony frequently marvels at her astuteness:

Often they [the judges] turned from one question to another, changing about, but, notwithstanding this, she answered prudently, and evinced a wonderful memory.[68]

Her subtle replies under interrogation even forced the court to stop holding public sessions. If her visions had some medical or psychiatric origin then she would have been an exceptional case.

This seems to imply that a mentally ill person can't be astute, which I'm pretty sure is false. If it's true, there must be a reliable source that can be cited to prove it.Web wonder (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Add external link : Joan of Arc EXONUMIA

Joan of Arc exonumia is not present on this page, you might add this famous French as external link :

http://medailles.jeannedarc.free.fr

French site containing pictures and descriptions of Medallions devoted to Joan of Arc.

Best regards Iron —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron45 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How and when did she learn to ride and handle weapons?

From the historical sources, it is clear that Joan could ride a warhorse. And there seems to be a majority view that she could handle weapons. It took (and still takes) many years of practice to ride a horse well enough to go into battle. And it takes years of practice to gain proficiency with weapons, especially on horseback. As far as I know, the peasants of the time did not learn to ride, especially not war horses, which were trained to strike with their hooves, etc. So I always wondered how and when Joan learned to ride and to handle weapons. I haven't found anything about that in the literature, but I haven't read that much. So I wonder if any of the other editors has found a discussion of this topic.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FurtherInformation template

Is it just me, or did Ryn78's change of the templates for subarticles from 'SeeAlso' and 'Further' to 'FurtherInformation' cause the links to disappear? I don't know if it's just my browser or what, but instead of the links, I see whitespace. -- 128.255.251.167 (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not just you. In Google Chrome - whitespace, in Firefox - whitespace, in IE8 - horribly displaced and messes with page format. I've reverted the change for now, and left a note pointing to this discussion on the user talk page. I don't think such a widely used standard template should be replaced without discussion, and certainly not with one that doesn't appear to be properly tested/working.  Begoon•talk 00:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Patronage and related laziness

I'm too lazy to register however the article is locked to edits by commoners like me. I have noticed under patronage that Joan of Arc apparently served the U.S. which strikes me as odd, as the united states as we know it did not exist for several centuries after her time. I have left a quip on the discussion page for the user who originally made the (hopefully mistaken) error, however I suppose it doesn't hurt putting a comment here since I'm one of those americans who believe other americans, by intention or otherwise, cast the U.S. and its residents in a bad way, perhaps by assuming the rest of the world operates by america-rules and on america-time, haha! to think.... And no offense to the offending contributor, I'm sure they were well-intentioned. 174.57.82.141 (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Anonymous for A

I just noticed that Saint Joan of Arc redirects to Canonization of Joan of Arc and that there is a separate page for Joan of Arc. When I went to the latter (this) page, I clicked on "Discussion" so I could paste a copy of the message I left on the Canonization of Joan of Arc discussion page. In doing so, I just noticed that there was a message from the user who left a message on my talk page because they thought I had made the edit they find offensive. As my message (below) explains, I have never made any edits to either Joan of Arc or Canonization of Joan of Arc. Thus, I don't know who added the "U.S." to the patronage of Saint Joan of Arc. I thank the user for saying (above): "And no offense to the offending contributor, I'm sure they were well-intentioned". Although I love the U.S., I also try to be considerate of people from other nations and the people of other nations. We are all fellow human beings in this world. Here is the message I left on the Canonization of Joan of Arc discussion page:

"A user placed a message on my talk page, with the following section header/subject: "The U.S. did not exist in Joan of Arc's time". The message was/is:

"Hi. I don't typically edit wikipedia but I found it particularly offensive to see your addition of "U.S." to the patronage of Saint Joan of Arc. I don't know if this was accidental by automating the process of adding "U.S." to every instance of women appointed to voluntary emergency service (called "waves" in USA) or some mistaken patriotic campaign but I'm sure the taste of this is ever more foul to non-americans.

"Since I'm unable to edit that page and don't care to register I'll just have to drop a line in discussion and hope someone picks it up before that blunder further tarnishes some non-american's view of us. (I can see it now... Large red-ink stamp "AMERICA WAS HERE THANK YOU" in stereotypical egotistical manner) 174.57.82.141 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC) A with an Anonymous"

I then replied on my talk page, as follows: "Because 174.57.82.141 (talk) has not registered, I am unable to respond directly, so I hope that user will look at my talk page (here) to see my reply. You (the said user) say that you "found it particularly offensive to see [my] addition of "U.S." to the patronage of Saint Joan of Arc." I just looked at the revision history for Saint Joan of Arc; it shows that I have not made any edits to that page/article. Thus, I do not know why "U.S." and "women appointed to voluntary emergency service (called "waves" in USA)" was added to the patronage of Saint Joan of Arc, in the infobox on her article page. You may wish to click on the "Discussion" box at the top of the Saint Joan of Arc article and ask that the U.S. patronage be deleted from the infobox. Any editor who has "Saint Joan of Arc" article on their watchlist will then see your request and may give a reply to your request. God bless you."

Eagle4000 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I just deleted "U.S." from the infobox, as I just discovered that I was in fact the user who added it (in Dec. 2009). When I first read the message on my talk page, I clicked on the link in the message for Saint Joan of Arc, not realizing that it was a redirect to Canonization of Joan of Arc. When I checked the revision history and saw that I had not made any edits, I made my replies on my talk page and the discussion page of Saint Joan of Arc (i.e., Canonization of Joan of Arc). When I realized that there was a separate page for Joan of Arc, I then left the above message. After doing so, I decided to check the revision history of Joan of Arc to see which user added "U.S." I then was surprised to discover that I was that user, back in December. As the other user noted, I was well-intentioned. I apologize for adding "U.S."; I must have "assumed" that WAVES and WACs were only U.S. units. I try not to be an "ugly American". Mea culpa. Eagle4000 (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Joan of Arc's death by heat stroke

It is doubtful Joan died from burn injury. Several witnesses at the Nullification Trial testified that she was speaking clearly right up to the moment she lowered her head to her chest and lost consciousness. It's likely she died from heat stroke before the flames reached her. When air temperatures exceed 300 degrees Fahrenheit a person loses water weight at a rate of one or two pounds per minute. She likely passed out in five minutes when the flames were still some distance away.

For a complete discussion on this topic, see the article I posted on this website in Sept 2002:

http://stjoan-center.com/topics/Death_by_Heat_Stroke.html

Empther (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Iron45, 6 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

This Joan of Arc exonumia website could be in the external link http://www.medailles-jeannedarc.fr With more than 2000 facebook people worldwide Iron45 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Links such as these are generally not permitted by Wikipedia's guidelines. elektrikSHOOS 04:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Birthday

Many sources state that she was born on January 6, 1412, i think the "ca." is being a little too careful and is inconsistent with her exact date of death which has an equal amount of sources that prove that. I strongly suggest edited one of the two birth/death dates. Any opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.164.212 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 10#Date of birth. 6 January is a traditional date that appears in many places, but there is no proof it's accurate. Also, please read footnote 2. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Joan of Arc statue in New Orleans LA missing

"The people of France gave the golden bronze statue of Joan of Arc to the City of New Orleans in 1972. (Note: This statue is an exact copy of the famous 1880 Emmanuel Fremiet equestrian statue of Joan located at Place des Pyramides, Paris.) This statue was originally located in front of the International Trade Mart building but it was moved in 1999 to its present location of the 'Place De France" on Decatur Street in the French Quarter next to the French Market on Decatur Street."

citation of [2] --77.4.47.195 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

People executed for heresy

Shouldn't this article be included in the Wikipedia category ‘People executed for heresy’? Mortimer Lanin (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

clarification about the stone cannonball spliting on her helmet

The Battle of Jargeau article says a stone cannonball split on Joan's helmet, but the copy of the nulification testimony linked in this article just says a "partially spent" cannonball hit her helmet without, as far as I can see, mentioning the splitting. Is "spent" an old-fashioned word for "split", or does that piece of info come from a different source? Web wonder (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think an alternative explanation of the word "spent" in this context might be a canonball that was "exhausted" in the sense that it had lost most of its initial velocity. If so, it had very little force behind it. Nandt1 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Legacy

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under Legacy:

"Joan of Arc was not a feminist." This is unsubstantiated. It currently functions as a thesis statement preceding historical facts that do not support or refute this (non-neutral) claim: "She operated within a religious tradition that believed an exceptional person from any level of society might receive a divine calling. She expelled women from the French army and may have struck one stubborn camp follower with the flat of a sword.[65][66] Nonetheless, some of her most significant aid came from women." Consider deleting "Joan of Arc was not a feminist."

Add this to the bottom of the Legacy section: "Joan of Arc was a popular feminist symbol during the American and British woman's suffrage movements." Source: This working day world: women's lives and culture(s) in Britain, 1914-1945 By Sybil Oldfield 98.232.178.174 (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think, according to wikt:feminist she wasn't a feminist, as the following sentences demonstrate. She apparently didn't think she was able to fight with the men because any woman was able to fight with the men. Rather, she felt that she was able to fight with the men because she'd been specifically and personally called of God to fight, even going so far as to expel female (soldiers?) from the army who wanted to serve and march and work as she did instead of staying home. I think the two footnoted references support this. The "Nonetheless, some of her most significant aid came from women" sentence continues to expound on that train of thought. That paragraph ends with, "From Christine de Pizan to the present, women have looked to her as a positive example of a brave and active female." I'll leave the edit request up for a while in case someone else disagrees with me, but I don't think this edit needs to be made. Leave me a message on my talk page if you'd like to talk more. Banaticus (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done, for the reasons given previously. Banaticus (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

film

In the fourth paragraph on cultural references it is surely very important to include the silent film by Theo. Dreyer "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (link it to the Wiki page) based on the trial transcript and universally acknowledged a masterpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alf Heben (talk • contribs) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fiction?

I add several quotes by the various historians that claim the story of Joan of Arc was fabricated. Whether these claims are right or wrong it's still a fact that these historians have made these claims. If you have evidence that they're wrong please post this evidence, rather than just deleting the original claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate do delete this new section completely, but it cteates several problems. It may be giving undue weight to fringe theories in an incosistent and incoheren way. What is the claim being made here?

- Joan's life and its historical significance has been subjected to a good deal of distortion and exagerration since her time: possible but requires eamination,

-Joan's life as we understand it is basically a fabrication: whole different ball game, and where does this leave the records of her trial which were discovered around the turn of the last century,

-Joan survived burning and preumably lived in relative obscurity after this: sometimes suggested but very much a fringe theory. PatGallacher (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue these historians highlight is that there aren't any independent sources from the 15th century that make reference to Joan of Arc's victories (during her trial Joan herself claimed to have lead an army at Orleans but this was not been verified by other sources), there is almost no information regarding Joan of Arc during the 16-18th centuries, and that the legend of Joan of Arc seems to have occurred midway through the 19th century. While none of these historians claims that Joan of Arc never existed they do claim that the lack of references to Joan of Arc's achievements until the mid 19th century indicate that her life was greatly exaggerated.

Regarding the records of Joan of Arc's trial they mention almost nothing about her achievements. In the Fourth Session Joan briefly states she was present at the 3 day Siege of Orleans with 10-12 thousand men from the King, went to the fort of Saint Loup, then to the Tourelles, and was wounded in the neck by an arrow. However she doesn't mention how she lead the army to victory, what type of soldiers either army contained, what she did each day, or even what happened each day. In the Fifth Session Joan says she was at Rheims. In the Sixth Session Joan says she was at Jargeau and Troyes. The Tenth Session Joan says she was at the assault on Paris but all she did was say "Surrender it [Paris] to the King of France". In The Interrogation Article LIII Joan says that if she was a commander in war it was in order to fight the English. Meung-sur-Loire, Beaugency, Gien-sur-Loire, Auxerre, Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier, and Compiègne are not mentioned.

The trial records indicate Joan that did not played a major role in the French's military tactics as Joan only claims to have commanded soldiers at Orleans; the locations of other battles are only briefly mentioned; there's no reference to her commanding the French army between 1429-1430; Joan wasn't sure if she was a war commander; and the majority of the trial is about Joan wearing men's clothes, the Saints and angels that visited her, and her ability to predict the future.

The trial records state that Joan was excommunicated and declared an heretic. Then she was burned alive.

An English Transcript is available here for all who wish to read it:

http://smu.edu/ijas/1431trial.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For the last second claim: fr:Roger Caratini doesn't seem to be very reliable according to his French wikipedia page. We'd need to know what made the other sources WP:RELIABLE. (Hohum ^@) 20:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppressed Caratini's quote as it contains no argument, but is purely based on this highly contested author's reputation. UltimaRatio (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the quote by Dr Cobham Brewer it makes reference to the work of Joseph Octave Delepierre, who re-evaluated the work of Daniel Polluche. Daniel Polluche unearthed records from Rouen indicating that Joan of Arc was alive after 1431 and wrote about them in his book "Probleme historique sur la Pucelle d'Orleans" (1749). It may be better to split the 'Historical accuracy' part into 'Historical accuracy' and 'Survival theories' to better explain each part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanime5 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The theory picked up by Brewer, that would accept one of the several "Joans" who surfaced after the execution as the real article, suffers from a number of problems -- including the eyewitnesses to Joan's execution and the fact that the lady in question, Claude des Armoises, subsequently confessed to being a fraud. I've added these to the section dealing wiith this material. Nandt1 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation Error

The third citation refers to an IMDB article that discusses nothing specifically analogous to the material it references. I felt like this warranted removal but I don't want to do it myself as I know you wikipedia folks have a way you like to go about things...

-Aircraftcarryur (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

fervid panegyric

In the section "Canonization," there is a sentence which begins:

"When Félix Dupanloup was made bishop of Orléans in 1849, he pronounced a fervid panegyric on Joan of Arc...."

What is a "fervid panegyric"? The term has no Wikipedia article, and is not explained. Nor does the article indicated by {{main}} (Canonization of Joan of Arc) explain the term. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 21:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

fervid = fervent = passionate ; panegyric = public speech. These are English words. Not too common, but English nonetheless. 93.132.242.202 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

translation from the french article ?

I participated few years ago to theses chapters in the french article about Joan of Arc. (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d%27Arc) It will bring some additionnal & valuable infos about the general contexts about what was Joan at her time. I will need support from good french/english translator. Someone may help ?

'Jeanne d'Arc et son époque : enjeux et problèmes'

Jeanne d'Arc fut très populaire de son vivant, la chevauchée vers Reims la fait connaître également à l'étranger. Elle commence à recevoir des courriers sur des questionnements théologiques venant de nombreuses contrées. On lui demandera son avis sur lequel des papes, alors en concurrence, est le vrai. Jeanne se rapproche des ordres mendiants. Elle était une des nombreux prédicateurs en cette époque se disant directement envoyés de Dieu. Même si l'objet principal de sa mission est la restauration du trône de France, la Pucelle prend parti de fait sur le plan théologique et fait débat. Les conflits d'intérêts autour d'elle dépassent la rivalité politique entre les Anglais et les partisans du dauphin. Ainsi l'Université de Paris, qui était « remplie des créatures du roi d'Angleterre » ne la voit pas d'un bon œil, à l'opposé des théologiens de Poitiers, composée des universitaires parisiens exilés par les Anglais, et également à l'inverse de l'archevêque d'Embrun, des évêques de Poitiers et de Maguelonne, Jean de Gerson (auparavant chancelier de l'université de Paris), l'Inquisiteur général de Toulouse, ou encore l'Inquisiteur Jean Dupuy qui ne voyait que comme enjeux « à savoir la restitution du roi à son royaume et l'expulsion ou l'écrasement très juste d'ennemis très obstinés ». Ces gens d'Église, et autres, soutenaient la Pucelle. Pour l'éminente autorité religieuse qu'était alors la Sorbonne, le comportement religieux de Jeanne dépasse l'enjeu de reconquête du royaume, et les docteurs en théologie de cette institution la considèrent comme une menace contre leur autorité, notamment à cause du soutien des rivaux de l'Université à Jeanne, et pour ce qu'elle représente dans les luttes d'influence à l'intérieur de l'Église. Jeanne n'a pas eu non plus que des amis à la cour du dauphin, le parti du favori La Trémouille (dont Gilles de Rais était) se plaça régulièrement en opposition, au conseil du dauphin, face à ses initiatives.

'Son rôle dans la guerre de Cent Ans'

Jeanne d'Arc n'a ni influé à elle seule sur la phase finale de la guerre, qui s'est achevée en 1453, ni été inexistante dans le rôle tactique et stratégique de sa campagne. Dunois parle d'une personne douée d'un bon sens indéniable et tout à fait capable de placer aux points clés les pièces d'artillerie de l'époque. Les faits d'armes sont donc à porter à son crédit même si certaines batailles ont été réglées en partie par de curieux événements. Elle fut en outre un chef indéniablement charismatique. Sur le plan géopolitique, le royaume de France, même privé de tout ce qui était situé au nord de la Loire, bénéficiait de ressources humaines et matérielles bien supérieures à celles de l'Angleterre, quatre fois moins peuplée. La stratégie de Charles V, qui misait sur le temps, en évitant les combats et en assiégeant une par une les places fortes, a parfaitement montré les limites de l'invasion anglaise. Cependant, avant l'intervention de Jeanne d'Arc, les Anglais bénéficiaient d'un avantage psychologique extrêmement important lié à plusieurs raisons : la réputation d'invincibilité de leurs troupes ; le traité de Troyes qui déshéritait le dauphin Charles et mettait en doute sa filiation à l'égard du roi Charles VI ; un état d'abattement et de résignation de la population ; l'alliance avec la Bourgogne. L'avantage numérique du royaume de France pesait peu. Cette situation faisait qu'en 1429 la dynamique était anglaise. Jeanne a eu indéniablement le mérite d'inverser l'ascendant psychologique en faveur de la France, en remontant le moral des armées et des populations, en légitimant et sacrant le roi, et en battant les Anglais. Charles VII a eu, lui, l'initiative de se raccommoder avec les Bourguignons, étape indispensable pour la reconquête de Paris. Jeanne d'Arc visiblement ne portait pas les Bourguignons dans son cœur à cause de leur proximité avec son village de Domrémy et des heurts qu'il avait pu y avoir.

'L'enjeu de sa virginité'

Si « pucelle » signifiait à l'époque simplement « fille » et pas particulièrement « vierge16 », Jeanne mettait aussi en avant sa virginité pour prouver, selon les mœurs de son temps, qu'elle était envoyée de Dieu et non une sorcière et affirmer clairement sa pureté, aussi bien physiquement que dans ses intentions religieuses et politiques. Dès lors vérifier sa virginité devient un enjeu important, étant donné l'importance politique des projets de Jeanne : restaurer la légitimité de Charles, et l'amener au sacre. Par deux fois, la virginité de Jeanne fut constatée par des matrones, à Poitiers en mars 1429, mais aussi à Rouen, le 13 janvier 1431. Pierre Cauchon (celui-là même qui la fit brûler) avait ordonné ce deuxième examen pour trouver un chef d'accusation contre elle, en vain. Il est en revanche difficile de savoir ce qui s'est passé entre le jugement et le constat de « relapse », période où Jeanne a été durement maltraitée par ses geôliers, défigurée. Selon Martin Ladvenu, un lord anglais aurait essayé de la forcer dans sa prison, en vain.

'Problèmes des sources historiques'

Les deux sources principales sur l'histoire de Jeanne d'Arc sont le procès en condamnation de 1431, et le procès en réhabilitation de 1455-1456. Étant des actes juridiques, elles ont l'immense avantage d'être des retranscriptions les plus fidèles des dépositions. Mais elles ne sont pas les seules : des notices, des chroniques ont également été rédigées de son vivant, telle que la Geste des nobles François, la Chronique de la Pucelle, la Chronique de Perceval de Cagny, ou encore le Journal du siège d'Orléans et du voyage de Reims. Il faut ajouter également les rapports des diplomates et autres informateurs. C'est Jules Quicherat qui rassemblera de manière quasi-exhaustive l'historiographie johannique entre 1841 et 1849, en 5 volumes. Entre le xve siècle et le xixe siècle, une foule d'écrivains, de politiciens, de religieux se sont appropriés Jeanne d'Arc, et leurs écrits sont nombreux. Il faut donc être prudent dans la manipulation des sources : peu lui sont contemporaines, et elles réinterprètent souvent les sources originelles dans le contexte de leur interprète. Les procès sont des actes juridiques. Les deux procès ont la particularité d'avoir subi une influence politique évidente, et la méthode inquisitoire suppose bien souvent que l'accusée et les témoins ne répondent qu'aux questions posées. De plus le procès de 1431 fut retranscrit en latin (vraisemblablement à l'insu de Jeanne), alors que les interrogatoires étaient en français. Philippe Contamine, au cours de ses recherches, a constaté une abondance d'écrits dès 1429, et le « formidable retentissement au niveau international » dont cette abondance témoigne. Il remarque également que Jeanne d'Arc fut d'emblée mise en controverse et fit débat par ses contemporains. Enfin, dès le début « des légendes coururent à son sujet, concernant son enfance, ses prophéties, sa mission, les miracles ou les prodiges dont elle était l'auteur. Au commencement était le mythe. » Il apparaît donc qu'aucun document contemporain de l'époque - hormis les minutes des procès - n'est à l'abri de déformation issue de l'imaginaire collectif. Au cours du procès de réhabilitation, les témoins racontent d'après des souvenirs vieux de 26 ans. L'anoblissement accordé à Jeanne d'Arc par le roi Charles VII17 pose un autre problème. Il ne reste en effet aucune charte originale pour l'attester, mais uniquement des documents attestant de cet anoblissement rédigés postérieurement. Ces documents dont nous ne savons s'ils sont faux ou déforment une partie de la vérité historique font apparaître que Jeanne d'Arc avait été anoblie par Charles VII et avec elle ses parents, comme il était d'usage pour assoir la filiation nobiliaire sans contestation, et par conséquent la filiation présente et à venir de ses frères et sœur. En 1614, la descendance fort nombreuse de la famille d'Arc montra qu'elle s'établissait uniquement vers la roture, et le roi leur retira leur titre de noblesse. Par ailleurs, le trésor y gagna en nombreuses pensions, car chaque membre de la lignée pouvait prétendre à indemnisation de la part du trésor pour le sacrifice de Jeanne d'Arc. Une des copies de la charte d'anoblissement qui nous est parvenue dit que le roi Charles VII la fit Jeanne dame du Lys, sans lui concéder un pouce de terre, ni à elle ni à ses frères et sœur, ce qui était contraire à l'usage de l'anoblissement, car le titre visait à assoir la propriété de façon héréditaire. En d'autres termes, la faisant dame du Lys, le roi Charles VII la liait au royaume et à la nation mais puisqu'elle s'était vouée à la chasteté et à la pauvreté il ne lui allouait aucun bénéfice terrestre, ce qui privait du même coup sa parentèle de la possibilité d'user convenablement de cet anoblissement puisqu'elle demeurait sans possibilité de s'élever dans la société nobiliaire. Les d'Arc restèrent des roturiers par la force des choses.

thank you

94.112.195.104 (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Bschifres Bschifres (talk)

France? She was a Bar Maid not a French Maid

No doubt this has been raised before but surely "born in eastern France" should be "born in what is now eastern France"? Rouen is suffixed with 'then under English control' -should not "Domrémy, France" but changed to "Domrémy, France (then Duchy Of Bar)? I won't edit this as I assume that it has been discussed countless times.109.153.176.14 (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo needs editing

The photo of the Tower at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tour_Jeanne_D%27Arc10.jpg needs to be rotated 90 degrees. --CSinColo (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of Joan of Ark's birth.

In the transcript of her trial in Rouen it is stated as "the day of Epiphany 1412", i.e. January 6th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.20.74 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

An Unknown Error

This item - " In response to another such theory alleging that she suffered from bovine tuberculosis as a result of drinking unpasteurized milk, historian Régine Pernoud wrote that if drinking unpasteurized milk could produce such potential benefits for the nation, then the French government should stop mandating the pasteurization of milk.[75]" doesn't make any sense ( the "potential benefits of contracting bovine tuberculosis?" ). It should be corrected or taken out. It's possible that the author means to imply that the ability to have visions outweighs the danger of tuberculosis, but at the very least it is confusing and needs to be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.125.64 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Zhan D'Ark Boulevard in Tirana

Joan of Arc is the name of a Boulevard in Tirana, capital of Albania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.79.156 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Literacy

I often wonder why Joan is always described as "illiterate." Amazingly the article here shows her signature. As I recall she asked the so-called judges at her trial to give her a copy of the charges against her so that she "might ponder them." Why would an illiterate person ask for that? There are extant letters from her signed in her own hand, letters perhaps dictated but signed nonetheless: These are not things that an illiterate person does; an illiterate does not consider writing a letter, of any kind, nor to see a list of charges. And anyway, what's so difficult about learning to read? A child can do it. Myself, I think there is always the impulse to discredit her in the English speaking world, one way or another; and the charge of "illiteracy" is one way to do that.

You are right, she was not illiterate. It is quite easy to explain : as the daughter of a rich peasant with a good reputation, the local priest could have taught reading and writing to her. It was something common in the villages at the time of the ancient regime.Nortmannus (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

An armchair historian might find it easy to explain, but what we need are references. There is probably a direct reference in the trial records; my 2nd-hand knowledge is that she said (under oath) that she could not read a letter that was handed to her.

If you want a definitive answer, look here (good luck):

THE TRIAL OF JEANNE D'ARC / TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH / FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN AND FRENCH DOCUMENTS / BY W. P. BARRETT

~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

Shouldn't there be a section listing some of the more prominent works relating to her (plays, movies, music, etc.)? I imagine many readers of this page come here as a result of experiencing a popular culture connection. I did find a link deeply buried here (under See also ... Further information ...), but this is nearly impossible to find. Perhaps a brief In popular culture section with Main article: Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc link? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Points to re-examine

The article claims that "The French civic holiday in her honour is the second Sunday of May." For one thing, there is no civic or public holiday in France associated with Joan of Arc. The catholic church has removed her from the saints' calendar. She is "celebrated" by the extreme right-wing Front National on May 1st, as a counterpoint to Labour Day.

Similarly, the introduction to the article claims that "From Napoleon onward, French politicians of all leanings have invoked her memory". This may have been true in the past, but as said above Jeanne d'Arc has now been "taken over" by the National Front. See here (in French) for example. Regards, --Camster (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree Camster.Nortmannus (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

hi

proud english people...lets teach lesson:))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.212.54.103 (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

suggested changes to "visions" section

There's a part that says "she displayed none of the objective symptoms that can accompany the mental illnesses which have been suggested". That seems like a claim that should have some citations. I'm not saying it isn't true, but if there is proof that she definitely didn't display any symptoms, it should be mentioned in the article. If there isn't, it should be changed to say something like "there is no evidence that she displayed any of the objective symptoms that can accompany the mental illnesses which have been suggested".

Also, the part about Schizophrenia seems a bit misleading. The symptoms it mentions that Joan didn't appear to have are part of a list in the diagnostic criteria that also includes "hallucinations" and "delusions". The criteria says the patiant need only fufill two of the symptoms on the list to fufill that part of the criteria, so it seems like someone with hallucinations or delusions (such as seeing angels where there aren't any or thinking God chose you to drive the English out of France) could fufill that part of the criteria withoutu having disorganized speech, catatonic behavior, or any of the other symptoms this article mentions. Not that this proves she did have Schizophrenia, but the article's argument for why she couldn't have had it doesn't seem to work (correct me if I'm wrong on this, as I'm a laymen and just reading the letter of what the criteria says). Web wonder (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 April 2012: Correct FIVE spellings from Rheims to "Reims"

Please change x to y: Please change Rheims to Reims. I am putting this request in three areas...hopefully SOME will read it and understand that corrections NEED TO BE MADE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc

PLEASE correctly spell the town of "Reims", France IT IS NOT "Rheims" as is stated in this site FIVE TIMES. It is "Reims" pronounced with an "h" but not spelled with it. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc I have spent 30 minutes getting to this point. I AM LOGGED IN!! Please correct this site

Please change x to y: Please change Rheims to Reims.

PLEASE correctly spell the town of Reims, France IT IS NOT "Rheims" as is stated in this site FIVE TIMES. It is "Reims" pronounced with an "h" but not spelled with it. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc I have spent 30 minutes getting to this point. I AM LOGGED IN!! Please correct this site

Please change x to y: Please change Rheims to Reims.

Littleprince1977 (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC) PLEASE correctly spell the town of Reims, France IT IS NOT "Rheims" as is stated in this site FIVE TIMES. It is "Reims" pronounced with an "h" but not spelled with it. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc I have spent 30 minutes getting to this point. I AM LOGGED IN!! Please correct this site

 Fixed While 'Rheims' is a variant which occurs elsewhere, I've made the article internally consistant as the spelling shown on the map, used in the sources where 'Rheims' was in the prose, and the title of the English Wikipedia article. Dru of Id (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The link to IMDB

The link number 4 quotes a movie as a validation of the fact that she was pronounced as a martyr. Do quotes from a movie really count as valid? Could anybody find a better citation from some book, instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.232.13.228 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Please Change

in the Legacy It Is Stated semi-legendary Come On She Was A Legendry Figure Not Semi-legendary And Please State Her Introduction As A Christian Martyr Please she Sacrificed Her Life For Her Country Her Motherland She Was burned alive by evil english For Fighting For Truth,Justice And Freedom, Please Change These Things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.209.229 (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

joan of arc

Its amazing how powerful she was.How Brillant she was amid intense persecution. She mostly was an amazing person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapari12 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also interesting is the dichotomy. She was a Catholic Church proclaimed saint killed for Catholic Church proclaimed heresy. France is on the map today because of her, and, oh yea, the Catholic clerics who prosecuted her were French. At least the article doesn't repeat the myth it was the bad old English responsible for her death (although an improvement would make clear that these were French clerics). No, it was the French, and it was the Church. Now she's a symbol of French nationalism and pure Catholicism, a symbol these entities reduced to scattered ashes prior to the beginning of her adult life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.82.174 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of such a comment ? Nothing to do with the history of the Middle Ages, but a political comment printed with the nationalist ideology of the 19th and 20th century that does not help in anyway to understand events that took place in the Middle Ages.Nortmannus (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Folk Heroine Not Really

Saint Joan Of Arc Was Real Her Sacrifice Was Real She Was A True National Heroine Not folk heroine I Sincerely Request admin to change this Please== — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.233.76 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am not an admin, although it is not necessary to be one to edit the article. Such a change would need to be supported by multiple reliable sources (See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources); once found, use the {{edit semi-protected}} template (if there is already a section below this, use the 'New section' tab rather than putting it here). Dru of Id (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

admin Please Change

admin Please Change Her Identity As National Heroine Of France Not folk Heroine, Joan Of Arc Is A True National Heroine And Figure Of France Her Martyrdom Inspired Freedom Of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.203.84 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Add directors

Alongside famous composers and writers I'd add that several of the greatest directors of all time have based films on her life, namely, Dreyer, Bresson, Rossellini and Rivette. (24.46.31.192 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

Domrémy wasn't in France when Joan was born

Domrémy (white) is situated in France

It belonged to de Duchy of Bar and that was at that time a part of the Holy Roman Empire. [[3]] [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk math (talk • contribs) 14:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In 1301, Philip IV of France forced Henry III of Bar to do homage for the part of his Duchy situated west of the Meuse River, which was then called Barrois mouvant. Since then the duchy of Bar was both part of the Crown of France (for the west of the Meuse River) and part of the Holy Roman Empire (for the rest of the duchy). Domrémy was situated West of the Meuse River (as you can see on this map), in the French part of the Duchy of Bar, when Joan was born. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The whole page is set down as history when it is nothing of the sort. Why are those historians who draw attention to the myth being taken as fact fobbed off as "revisionists"? I would suggest that the myth is too important to those who revere the subject as a "saint" to allow facts an equal space on the same page. Acorn897 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 August 2012

The second paragraph of the introductory section concludes: "and settled the disputed succession to the throne." This is inaccurate or misleading. Both the war and the competing claims to the throne continued after the coronation. I recommend that the sentence be amended to read something like: "Several additional swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims, thereby effectively nullifying the rival claim of the English King to the same throne." Gasheets (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase "and settled the disputed succession to the throne" but did not add your proposed text. -- Dianna (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias?

This entry goes out of its way, bypassing objectivity, to exonerate the Catholic Church in regards to Joan's trial and execution.These areas need to be re-done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.127.122 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC) JOAN OF ARC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.19.34 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

physical stature

If Joan of Arc both wore and fought in the heavy enveloping armour of the day implies that she must have been fairly muscular at least, not the feminine young woman usually portrayed. Perhaps this muscular build is at least partly behind the rather vague mention of her wearing male apparel.AT Kunene (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But we will need documentation in reliable secondary sources, otherwise this represents original research. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

/* physical stature */ you're assuming a lot about the armor she may have worn...it may have been only a helmet and breastplate, for example. and even full plate armor would not have been exceedingly burdensome given the weight was distributed across the body. also, why even bring this up? your interest in her build is kind of weird, as is your implication that a woman with a muscular build cannot be feminine. have you ever seen female athletes? serena williams for instance, is very muscular but certainly feminine. what's your point in bringing this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.71.14 (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I have a source about this somewhere: she wore plain, unadorned, white armour, most likely made in Italy. The French wore a type of wasp's waist armour at that time, so perhaps it was styled in that fashion. FWIW it's worth. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The oldest portrait representing Joan of Arc in a manuscript was maybe painted when she was still living or a short time after she died. She is represented on it in plain, dark armour (we can't see the legs, but we suppose covered too) covering her body, holding a sword in one hand and her flag in the other one.Nortmannus (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

please edit this

I just read through Regine Pernoud's Joan of Arc:her story, and I found one of the "citations needed". Under the subtitle "Capture", where her jump from a tower is described: there is a quote by Joan referenced on page 96 in Pernoud's book regarding her leap. "I would have preferred to die than be in the hands of the English, my enemies.... After I fell from the tower, I was for two or three days without desire to eat..." It keeps going for about fifteen lines. I see this page is semi-protected, and since I'm an anon (push, prod ;) ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.159.218 (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I SAW THIS TOO, I'M READING THE BOOK FOR A BIO PROJECT. CAN SOMEONE CHANGE IT FOR ME, I'M AN ANONYMOUS IP BUT I DON'T WANT AN ACCOUNT, I JUST WANT THIS FIXED. THANKS, --JULIE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.159.218 (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012

Regarding Joan's leap from her prison tower (during her capture by Burgundians), the verification needed can be removed, as I have a source: Regine Pernoud's Joan of Arc: Her Story, page 96-- "I would have preferred to die than be in the hands of the English, my enemies.... After I fell from the tower, I was for two or three days without desire to eat...." It goes on to say much more than I care to write :P . Anyway, that tag can be removed, because I can prove a verified source that, um, verifies it. 65.110.159.218 (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Already done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

question about visions section

"Also potentially relevant is the fact that she displayed none of the objective symptoms that can accompany the mental illnesses which have been suggested, such as schizophrenia."

Can we really be certain she displayed none of the objective symptoms, or would it be more accurate to say we lack evidence to suggest she did display them? In the case of schizophrenia, for example, do we have records of her nutrition, hygiene, or whatever the diagnostic criteria means by "self-care" to prove that her self-care wasn't "markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset"? If nothing else, the article is making an assertion here that should probably have a citation. Web wonder (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's no evidence for these "objective symptoms," then it strikes me as disingenuous to suggest that she might have had them but that there is not evidence for it. We have to work with the evidence we have, and there is no evidence that her nutrition, hygiene, or whatever was impaired -- thus it seems more honest to say that they didn't exist, instead of suggesting that they might have existed. There's no evidence that, say, George Washington had such "objective symptoms," but surely you can see the problem with stating "There is no evidence that Washington's self care, nutrition, and hygiene was impaired." Can we really be certain George Washington didn't display any objective symptoms of schizophrenia? Surely it would be accurate to say that we lack evidence that he did...except the same thing can be said for every historical figure ever.

And assuming that she DID suffer from schizophrenia is a huge assumption...esp. given that she didn't display any other symptoms associated with it, except the alleges voices which the article clearly states could be explained by any number of things. Throwing these kinds of half-suggested assertions out there, when there is NO evidence for them, strikes me as a kind of "just asking questions" form of insinuation. Not to mention the fact that if there were any kind of lack of self-care or other "objective symptoms" of schizophrenia, it almost surely would have been recorded somewhere or mentioned at her trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.86.46.6 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Honored in Anglican Communion?

Is there a source for this? It... seems unlikely. Twin Bird (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

She's listed in the Calendar of saints (Church of England) as May 30th. Make a note in your diary! Samatarou (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What source are they using for that? ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryn78 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a direct ref now Samatarou (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Composers of popular music also occasionally employ Joan of Arc as theme

The opening large paragraph of the main article closes speaking of writers, artists and composers employing Joan of Arc in popular culture. In more recent times, reknowned pop duo, 'Gypsy and the Cat', employed her as thematic in their highly popular hit record of 2010, "Jona Vark". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.141.7 (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Duke Louis of Orleans, Duke of Orleans

That's just bad english. You'd say, " the King's brother, Louis, Duke of Orleans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.189.87.239 (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Insanity

I think the term "insanity" should have linking brackets. I tried to do this but the text showed up with the brackets in the sentence. Risssa (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bias against diagnosis of mental disorder

Many believe that she suffered from schizophrenia, but the article seems too biased agianst that position. Joan clearly suffered from some abnormal psychological diesese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede

The lede closes with the following sentences:

Famous writers, filmmakers and composers who have created works about her include: William Shakespeare (Henry VI, Part 1), Voltaire (The Maid of Orleans), Friedrich Schiller (The Maid of Orleans), Giuseppe Verdi (Giovanna d'Arco), Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (The Maid of Orleans), Mark Twain (Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc), Jean Anouilh (L'Alouette), Bertolt Brecht (Saint Joan of the Stockyards), George Bernard Shaw (Saint Joan), Maxwell Anderson (Joan of Lorraine), Carl Theodor Dreyer (The Passion of Joan of Arc), Robert Bresson (The Trial of Joan of Arc), Arthur Honegger (Jeanne d'Arc au bûcher), Leonard Cohen (Joan of Arc), and Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark (Joan of Arc). Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc have continued in film, theatre, television, video games, music, and performances.

This is ALOT of words to spend on the lede considering the vast amount of information on the page. I was just going to delete it as "too much", but when I scanned down the page, I find that this information is found nowhere on the page (unless I missed it - I was assuming it would be in "Legacy"). So that raises another problem - the lede is meant to summarize the content of the page and this lede has about 30% of it devoted to content that is ONLY found in the lede.

So I moved the entire section into "Legacy" and summarized it in the lede. Since it was a dramatic change, I thought I'd put it on Talk since I can't summarize all of this in the edit note. Ckruschke (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Edit request on 20 August 2013

Please remove the sentence 'Joan of arc was not a feminist', which is in the article under the heading 'legacy' as it is completely irrelevant in the context of this part of the article and the references used to back up the author's opinion also do not relate to any mention of or denunciation of feminist ideology. Josephski (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: With what do you propose that paragraph is opened with? (And as a side note, requests should be in a "replace x with y" format) -Ryan 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps remove the part 'Joan of arc was not a feminist' and begin with the last sentence of the paragraph 'From Christine de Pizan to the present, women have looked to her as a positive example of a brave and active female.[75]' This is a more factual way to begin. Also, the following sentence is somewhat misleading, 'She expelled women from the French army and may have struck one stubborn camp follower with the flat of a sword.[72][73]'. Having read the references there is no mention of her expelling anyone merely conflicting accounts of the event. I suggest this sentence be removed and the following sentence replace it, beginning 'Some of her most significant aid came from women. King Charles VII's mother-in-law, Yolande of Aragon,..' So in the correct format... Replace 'Joan of Arc was not a feminist' with 'From Christine de Pizan to the present, women have looked to her as a positive example of a brave and active female.'[75] Replace 'She expelled women from the French army and may have struck one stubborn camp follower with the flat of a sword.[72][73]' with 'Some of her most significant aid came from women. King Charles VII's mother-in-law, Yolande of Aragon, confirmed Joan's virginity and financed her departure to Orléans.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephski (talk • contribs) 08:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Diannaa (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

vanilla and mummification

In the relics section, the following in stated:

" vanilla in the remains, also consistent with mummification."

Since vanilla comes from the New World and the ancient Egyptians didn't trade with ancient Mexicans, where does the vanilla come from? This needs to be clarified, if only to point out something like mummification produces effects similar to that which artificially creates vanilla, assuming any such thing is valid. Reference for anything along these lines?99.245.248.91 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

She was born to a peasant family in east-central France '''''''Joan of Arc (Jeanne d'Arc was born in Lorraine Domremy which is located in North East of France not east central. please correct immediatly''''''''Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdinoia (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. --Stfg (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gilles de Rais

I have seen an account of her life which states she sought the protection of this person on arrival at court. Are there any other accounts which state this? I am wondering how reliable the report is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.168.115 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The wiki entry for him does mention him in the army Joan was inspiring. Any reliable information on the association should be put in the article, because he is notable. And his career is pretty different from hers. 2.28.168.115 (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong perception?

In the section Legacy, a picture showing her signature states that it's "Jehanne". However, what I see is Johanne, with an "o" not a "e". There's a big difference between the "e" and the "o", we can notice this in the signature itself, the calligraphy is different. Thus I wonder how it was concluded that it's an "e" and not a "o". I think that it's a misinterpretation. --HawkFest (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Although the example in the article could arguably be "Johanne" with a mark under the "o", there are three other examples of her signature which clearly say "Jehanne". See this page: www.jeanne-darc.info Samatarou (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 november 2013

This segment : "As a staunch supporter of King and country, Joan of Arc was an acceptable symbol to the monarchists. As a patriot and the daughter of commoners, she was seen as one prototype of the low-born volunteers (the soldats de l'an II) who had victoriously fought for revolutionary France in 1802 and as such could be claimed by the Republicans."

It needs correction: "les soldats de l'an II" is about the soldiers of the revolutionary armies of 1792-1793, not 1802. Furthermore, there is a confusion between the "volontaires de 1792", the said low-born volunteers who enrolled en masse in the national army, and la France de l'an II, which describes the victorious revolutionary France of 1793-1794, an II de la République (The républican calendar began in September 1792). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.204.153 (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Nationality and QI (Quite Interesting)

Quote from the QI article:

We live, they say, in The Information Age, yet almost none of the information we think we possess is true. Eskimos do not rub noses. The rickshaw was invented by an American. Joan of Arc was not French. Lenin was not Russian. ... (Emphasis mine)

This article unambiguously describes Joan of Arc as French, and states that she was born "in Domrémy, a village which was then in the French part of the duchy of Bar." The article for the Duchy Of Bar indicates that Bar was a principality of the Roman Empire but that the part of Bar containing Domrémy was at the time a French fiefdom. I am not knowledgeable enough about the topic to know what nationality that makes her officially, but it would seem there is disagreement between the QI quote and this article. Does anyone know of any sources corroborating the quote, and is this notable enough to add to the article? STLocutus (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the QI statement is basically made to attract attention and is not notable or accurate enough to add to the article. Domrémy of Joan's time was on a piece of land technically under control of the Burgundians who were allied with the English. However, that certainly does not make Joan "English"; and one is really splitting hairs to attribute to her a nationality of "Burgundian" because of an essentially temporary geo-political situation at the time of her birth. RoseHawk (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle French

What was the Middle French pronunciation of her name, the way she and her contemporaries would have said it? I think that should be included for completeness. I believe that it was still trisyllabic, /(d)ʒeˈãn.nə/. CodeCat (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed.

I couldn't get the hang of the new beta editor, therefore, I'm posting here.

Regarding: Revisionist theories. Even though there's a link to Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc, I still find this sentence to be very weak as-is: "The accuracy of the standard accounts of the life of Joan of Arc has been questioned by revisionist authors." I think a clarification of is in order at the least and an explanation of what "revisionist" means in this case, too. "Revisionist" certainly implies a less seriously considered opinion when it's synonyms include: "malcontent", "propagandist", "reactionary", "troublemaker", and "zealot". The reader shouldn't be forced off-article to find this information. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Paradox in Joan of Arc's execution

Joan was burnt at the stake in the Old Market Square of Rouen, in view of the Church of St Sauveur. An historic irony in this is that St Sauveur was a gift by Count Alan Rufus of Brittany to the Abbey of St Ouen, a gift assented to by William II, Duke of Normandy in 1066 x 1067. (St Sauveur may have been named after the church in Vannes founded by Nominoe, early 9th century Duke of Brittany, who was buried there.) Alan's epitaph describes his 4 August 1093 death using the word "cineratur", suggesting that Alan may have died in the London fire of that year.

A further twist in this tale is that one of the leading contenders to inherit Alan's Honour of Brittany in England was Arthur de Richemont, "the predecessor, companion and successor of Joan of Arc". Arthur met Joan at Orleans, rode at Patay, and after her death he worked toward obtaining control of the French army and finances, both of which he successfully reformed along Breton lines (to Brittany's later grief). Arthur liberated Paris and won the battle of Formigny, thus driving the English out of northern France. His nephew Duke Peter finished off the English in the battle of Castillon, so Gascony changed hands and the Hundred Years' War was over. Zoetropo (talk) 06:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Giovanna d'Arco

I could not see any references to the opera "Giovanna d'Arco". Surely this important work should be mentioned? 176.252.42.62 (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joan of Arc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141205045109/http://www.etapes.com/index.php?num=84&rub=forum&forum=1&p=0 to http://www.etapes.com/index.php?num=84&rub=forum&forum=1&p=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Lord Woodhouselee's Universal History

I have an 1835 edition. Writing some time around 1800, Woodhouselee has a very different version of the story of Joan of Arc. King Charles VII wanted to show off divine support for his kingship, so he and his aides perpetrated a fraud. Joan of Arc was perceived as a fit person for the scheme. She captures Orleans, crowns king Charles, gets captured and burned at the stake. Charles reconquers France and governs with wisdom. In a footnote, we are told that Charles captured a couple of the clerics who condemned Joan, and he burned them at the stake.

People telling Joan of Arc stories usually have an agenda of some sort. Shakespeare was trying to explain how Real Men could be defeated by the French. She is a symbol of French patriotism. I don't like supernatural explanations. I don't know what Lord Woodhouselee's agenda was. English kings renounced their claim to the French throne sometime around 1800.

Woodhouselee's story makes sense. The French had bigger armies, but they lost battles due to poor leadership and a lack of discipline from their knights. After Joan of Arc, the French seem to have stopped allowing English armies to fortify their positions and set up archers.

Are there any other sources out there that say this? I have searched the web, and I have not found anything. Is this worth noting on the Wiki page?

JHowardGibson (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

some minor points about the "visions" section

I notice that link 94 points to, among other things, a source suggesting that she had epilepsy, but only the source linked to that argues against this notion is actually mentioned in the article. Should the sentence "Dr. John Hughes rejected the idea that Joan of Arc suffered from epilepsy in an article in the academic journal ‘Epilepsy & Behavior" be replaced with one that mentions both that article and the one with the opposite conclusion in the same journal, or should it be left as is?

Also, there's the part that says King Charles VII "would have been familiar with the signs of madness because his own father, Charles VI, had suffered from it". Do all mental illnesses have the same signs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that was the case.

Finally, the source labelled 102 says "How can we understand differences between an inspired voice, an isolated instance of hearing one's own name, and the voices of the mentally ill? One answer is that "non-pathological" voices occur rarely or perhaps only once. Not so for the person with mental illness. Without treatment, these experiences recur relentlessly." Did Joan's voices occur often enough that this information isn't really relevant to her case? Web wonder (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

So called "Revisionist History"

The revisionist history section just links to "Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc", which presents accounts of Joan's being a witch. It is more concerned with conspiracy theories than revisionist theories. That's all fine, but doesn't merit the section title "Revisionist Theories". Brooksmith's (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest adding to Category:15th-century_women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.41.119 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There's also a lot of revisionist history of Joan of Arc by nutty trans or trans activist people who now want to claim that Joan was transgendered when that's not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.201.59 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the same trans activists/trans people also claim that Joan was also a witch or not Christian when she actually was a devout Christian woman. This is an example of revisionist theory that should be deleted as it does not reflect actual history or biographical facts about Joan of Arc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dressing,_gender_identity,_and_sexuality_of_Joan_of_Arc100.34.201.59 (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2016

When the Siege of Orleans is mentioned, the s in siege needs to be capitalized. This is a minor(ridiculously minor) edit, but it's been bugging me for a while. Bsumantb (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: per MOS:CAPS it is not capitalized in the article siege of Orléans either. Elizium23 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, please don't mix in vandalism with your talk page edits or you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

add "of Alexandria" to "St. Catherine" to distinguish her from Catherine of Sienna, which most readers will assume. Vinceheuser (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ryn78 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is this article still an FA?

This article was awarded FA status back in 2006, at a time when the criteria for FAs was more lax than it has since become. As it currently exists, there are many "citation needed" tags throughout the article and the use of sourcing is not always particularly good (very few academic historical works are cited, whereas websites like Burgundy Today are). Moreover, the style of referencing is rather higgledy-piggledy. The editor who brought this article to FA status, User:Durova, has not been active since 2014, so I see little hope of assistance from them in dealing with these problems. It pains me to say it, but I think that there is a strong case for this article being brought to FAR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It does need a lot of work. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Source?

Is there any source for "The Duke of Bedford led an English force and confronted the French army in a standoff at the battle of Montépilloy on 15 August."

Specifically Montepilloy. As the only place in France remotely close to that is Montpellier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.142.29 (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Montépilloy as it sounds (suffix -oy) is located in the North of France, specifically in Picardy. It is the site of this battle and there is an article about it in the French Wikipedia fr:Bataille de Montépilloy.Nortmannus (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Citations

Any objections to cleaning up the reference section? Seraphimsystem (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace Correction

Please replace Kingdom of France with Holy Roman Empire in Infobox as Duchy of Bar was in the HRE when Joan was born, and was not part of the Kingdom of France until 1766. Thank you. 47.152.248.207 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)