Jump to content

Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

New Visions section

Joan of Arc never had visions!!!! She only heard voices! PLEASE correct this error!

It's not worth checking the page history to see when this unsigned comment was added, but it's out of order. The condemnation trial transcript describes both. DurovaCharge! 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

After a careful look I agreed with several of the criticisms posted above: some changes crept into the text after FA approval that implied a false dichotomy between faith-based and medical interpretations. The scholarship also needed improvement and other concerns deserved attention. I've drafted a new version which (I hope) strikes the right balance with sufficient documentation. It's hard to please everyone on so delicate a matter - I've attempted my best. Regards, Durova 23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it. There have been many complaints about the Hoffmann quote, and it still seems like it might be desirable to find a better quote, but I think you've substantially improved the section. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
For some unknown reason Hoffman's credentials and a qualifying statement had been removed from the article before the complaints arose. Durova 06:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
As an atheist, I find this section to be mostly balanced, but needing just a little more work. While I do not actually think that a dichotomy between evidentially-based and faith-based arguments is necessarily false, I realise that this is not a mainstream view and that Wikipedia thus needn't reflect it. However, perhaps it should at least be mentioned as such, i.e., as a minority view. (Or perhaps it's too tangential to the topic at hand. I'm unsure at the moment.) In general, though, I find the section to have been excellently-written and properly-sourced.
What does strike me as needing attention is the seemingly very speculative treatment of "mental illness" in such sentences as
"Among the specific challenges that potential diagnoses such as epilepsy or schizophrenia face is the slim likelihood that any person with such a disorder could gain favor in the court of Charles VII."
and
"Besides the physical rigor of her military career, which would seem to exclude many medical hypotheses, Joan of Arc displayed none of the intellectual decline that normally accompanies major mental illnesses."
I find it rather unlikely that the court of Charles VII was aware of what we now call temporal lobe epilepsy and its effects. The presence of this particular "disorder" would by no means necessarily have been associated with some sort of general decline in intelligence and is often associated with religious experiences (or experiences which mirror religious experiences in many respects, if you aren't willing to believe that "true" religious experiences can be the product of mere brain activity). It is quite different, and easily distinguished, from schizophrenia, for example.
Note that I've placed "disorder" in quotes: I am actually a proponent of various aspects of the anti-psychiatry movement; I consider the terms "disorder", "delusion", "mental illness", et cetera to be unscientific in that they imply that we currently somehow scientifically know of some "fundamental order" of some ideal, "healthy" mind-- an allegation that is, at best, unproven and, at worst, (and in my personal opinion), provably wrong. However, as someone with a naturalistic worldview, I think that the section should at least mention some current naturalistic hypotheses about the origins of Jeanne D'Arc's visions, such as the aforementioned temporal lobe epilepsy, alongside the views of those who would hold that science and faith needn't exclude one another. Nothing about "madness" or "insanity" is necessary, as calling D'Arc mad is unfair and entirely unscientific-- but a link to a scientific term, like "temporal lobe epilepsy", presented as a possible explanation of her visions, wouldn't be unhelpful, regardless of your belief (I hope).
One more thing: I have no problem at all with the Hoffmann quote. It's perfectly fine to keep all the information that's already here; I just think there should be a more-specific treatment of the opposing views. I'll do a little research on some opposing modern medical hypotheses about this and cite them.
Again, in general, this is quite a well-written section, and very well-sourced. The presentation of evidence here is quite commendable. It's just that this still seems a bit dismissive of the "number of more recent scholars [who have] attempted to explain Joan of Arc's visions in psychiatric or neurological terms" in that it doesn't really characterise their views very specifically other than in saying that "[some] characteristic symptoms [of the mental "disorders" which might have caused these visions] conflict with other known facts of Joan of Arc's life", without saying what symptoms conflict with what facts of her life. For example: it is certainly true that "it would seem unlikely that widespread tuberculosis, a serious disease, was present in this 'patient' whose life-style and activities would surely have been impossible had such a serious disease been present", but tuberculosis is certainly not the only possible cause of temporal lobe epilepsy or other abnormal temporal-lobe activity, which would not necessarily preclude either military success or intelligence. I don't think that including a link to, and concise description of, temporal lobe epilepsy (for example) would be dismissive of, or unfair to, a faith-based view of the origin of D'Arc's visions if both views are fairly and accurately represented in the same section.
Warm regards,
Tastyummy 05:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for a very thoughtful piece of feedback. When I revised the section I considered adding more about temporal lobe epilepsy in particular. Part of the reason I didn't was the shortage of peer reviewed papers that specicifically related that condition to Joan of Arc. While there's been a fair amount written in medical popularizations, there has also been a good deal written for a general readership on other "diagnoses" - I recently read a medical website about migraine headaches that calmly assured readers that Joan of Arc suffered from migraines (based on what evidence, I wonder - the only ailment testified in her trial records seems to have been a single case of food poisoning). From my reading on temporal lobe epilepsy, a majority of cases include other physically debilitating symptoms: grand mal seizures in 60% of cases, repetitive automatic movements such as lip smacking and hand rubbing in 40% - 80% of cases.[1] Unfortunately it would violate WP:NOR to assert that in the article without some accompanying expert evaluation that specifically links this to Joan of Arc in particular. The general objections, if specified, would probably be similar to the temporal lobe tuberculoma hypothesis (which is better sourced).
Also, the comment about intellectual decline specifically relates to psychiatric as opposed to neurological conditions, so that paragraph excludes epilepsy by definition. This goes more in the direction of schizophrenia, which (whatever you may think of schizophrenia) the psychiatric community associates with disorganized mental processes. For whatever value posthumous diagnoses may have, some scholars have equated Charles VI's madness with schizophrenia.
One difficulty that hovers around this section is the lax scholarly standard that applies to posthumous attempts at diagnosis in general: it would violate WP:NOR to state this explicitly, but I ought to confess my own bias that such attributions are often no more than armchair speculations by historians who themselves have no formal medical or psychological training and do not consult anyone who does have the appropriate qualifications. Peer review standards in history journals (as opposed to medical journals) do not expect that degree of rigor on this topic, which unfortunately means many poorly supported hypotheses get repeated uncritically to the general public. Durova 20:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, excellent. I tried to mediate this section over a year ago. There was a true impasse as neither side would budge from either a religious perspective or a scientific viewpoint. The section now entertains a scientific explanation for the visions without unbending insistence. Wonderful!

I think this article needs to be renominated for front page status. Too bad May is over seven months away. Wjbean

I've done just a little more tweaking to the section. Regarding the opening post to this thread, what had happened between FA approval and the fix was that the section had been altered to imply that the flaws in medical and psychological explanations meant Joan of Arc's visions were literally true. This violated NPOV and does not necessarily follow: there is also good reason to doubt the accuracy of the original documents. Durova 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This section just seems to get better with each editing pass. While not being argumentative the section does afford varying opinions of Joan's visions without declaring any one of them "the truth." This is diplomatic perfection. No stand is thrust forward as fact, yet the section retains NPOV and accuracy. Marvelous. Wjbean

A good idea?

"King of England, and you, duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France...pay your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France."[1]
Joan of Arc, Letter to the English, March - April 1429

I borrowed the quote box idea from Pericles where it seems to work well. The translation is my own effort, although a source reference for the French original would be appropriate. I could do perhaps three or four from Joan of Arc's letters and distribute them through the article. Do people like this? Durova 11:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good addition to the article. You would need to cite which letter each quote is from, the date, and perhaps a little of the context in order to give people an idea of what each quote refers to, or who the letter was written to. Could all of that be fit into one of these boxes? CF18000 17:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pericles addresses those concerns with external links. What I hope to do here, if Wikimarkup allows, is to footnote the quote boxes. I have two other specific examples in mind: her 25 June 1429 letter to the citizens of Tournai where she reports her successes in the Loire valley and her letter to the citizens of Reims of 5 August 1429 where she states her misgivings about a truce with Burgundy. I plan to insert these as near as possible to the article's description of relevant events. The short excerpts would offer glimpses of her personality and her use of words. Durova 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


"...the Maiden lets you know that here, in eight days, she has chased the English out of all the places they held on the river Loire by attack or other means: they are dead or prisoners or discouraged in battle. Believe what you have heard about the earl of Suffolk, the lord la Pole and his brother, the lord Talbot, the lord Scales, and Sir Fastolf; many more knights and captains than these are defeated."
Joan of Arc, Letter to the citizens of Tournai, 25 June 1429
"Prince of Burgundy, I pray of you - I beg and humbly supplicate - that you make no more war with the holy kingdom of France. Withdraw your people swiftly from certain places and fortresses of this holy kingdom, and on behalf of the gentle king of France I say he is ready to make peace with you, by his honor."
Joan of Arc, Letter to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, 17 July 1429
"It is true that the king has made a truce with the duke of Burgundy for fifteen days and that the duke is to turn over the city of Paris at the end of fifteen days. Yet you should not marvel if I do not enter that city so quickly. I am not content with these truces and do not know if I will keep them, but if I hold them it will only be to guard the king's honor: no matter how much they abuse the royal blood, I will keep and maintain the royal army in case they make no peace at the end of those fifteen days."
Joan of Arc, Letter to the citizens of Reims, 5 August 1429

I'm still figuring out how to footnote athese excerpts. Here are my other translations. Durova 19:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


The boxes and footnotes look good. CF18000 23:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Name change

Posting the results of my Google search:

  • "Joan of Arc" 4.2 million returns
  • "Jeanne d'Arc" 3.4 million returns
  • "Jeanne la Pucelle" 84 thousand returns

Since the third entry is dwarfed by the other two and the matter is already footnoted, I'm cutting the third version. Durova 02:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found the third to be in the majority the older one's source are, and or course french.--Dryzen 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional background

Perhaps the background section deserves one more paragraph to explain some details that could confuse a typical reader:

  • Both England and France remained Catholic countries throughout the war. England became Protestant the following century during the reign of Henry VIII.
  • Although the English nobility had spoken Norman French as a first language for several centuries after the Norman Conquest, this was no longer the case in Joan of Arc's era. The English language had gained ascendancy in England during the fourteenth century.

I'd like to keep this brief because the Background is already rather long. Durova 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review

I'm submitting this for featured article review to seek additional opinions about fairness and NPOV balance. Please join the discussion at the link above. Durova 18:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

CC80 removed the following with a claim that the site plagiarized other websites:

  • Jeanne-darc.dk Various materials including a complete English tranlsation of the rehabilitation trial transcript.

So far as I am aware, this is the only website that reproduces the entire T. Douglas Murray 1903 translation of the nullification trial record. The Virginia Frohlick site reprints selected excerpts (and unfortunately does not disclose the translator or translation date). Currently the article references Ms. Frohlick's excerpts at http://www.stjoan-center.com and if I interpret the site descriptions correctly, this matter is the crux of the dispute. Right now it seems best to leave both sites in the links section. Ultimately it would be preferable to switch the citations to the more complete version.

The reference change would need to be made thoroughly: actually checking each citation for quotes and exact wording, then updating the access date on each associated footnote. I specify this because some editor tried to change over the condemnation trial links in April but didn't follow through appropriately. The article wound up referencing two different versions of the same document and the altered footnotes still provided no-longer-relevant page citations and access dates. Direct quotes in the article text were no longer accurate either. I had spent a good deal of time last winter consolidating citations from different editors onto one consistent translation. To do this right is a tedious task, but attention to detail is essential if this article is to have any real value as a reference tool.

Please post a follow-up below if I've overlooked some relevant issue. Durova 22:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

British vs. US spelling

I changed offense and defense to offence and defence respectively. My edit summary said: It was 15th century France at war with England, so US spelling is inappropriate. Akhilleus has described this justification as "ridiculous". I find myself in disagreement. WP prefers localised spelling variants be used in relevant contexts. Where the context is general, the spelling used by the original author should prevail. My point remains: Joan was put to death by the English, during their war with France. Surely English spelling is appropriate here, of all places, and US spelling is out of place. JackofOz 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English says "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." I wasn't aware of this particular guideline when I reversed your edit, and I apologize for calling your justification "ridiculous."
I appreciate the gracious withdrawal. JackofOz 07:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
However, I disagree with your argument. I don't think that this article's connection to the U.K. is strong enough to change to British spelling; if the logic is that the spelling should reflect the geographic and cultural circumstances most closely connected to the subject, shouldn't the article be written in Medieval French, or Elizabethan English?
Well, if a war against an invading English army isn't a strong connection to the UK, I don't know what would be. But OK, I'll humour you for a while. The first thing to be noted is that your choices don't include an American option. But if we did use US spelling, by your argument it wouldn't be modern day US spelling, but the spelling used in the US at the time closest to Joan of Arc's time. There was no US in Joan's time, so maybe our lexicographer colleagues can enlighten us as to when the first recognised US variants of English spelling were first noted. Maybe somewhere around 1776, perhaps? How relevant would that be. JackofOz 07:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Mostly I disagree with the change simply because the article has been using US spellings for some time, including "offense", "defense", "honor", "tricolor", and so on. It achieved FA status and was featured on the main page using US spellings. Why change it now? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That is an argument for never changing anything at all, and setting the article in stone for all eternity. Featured Articles are definitely of high quality, but they are not beyond improvement. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia that have been a certain way for a long time, and then one fine day they get changed, for the better, because someone comes along who has never seen the article before, and brings a fresh perspective to it. That's what WP is all about. JackofOz 07:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline for national spellings doesn't extend beyond places where English is spoken as a first language, nor is there any precedent for using archaic idioms editorially in history articles. Durova 13:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus and Durova. Take, for example, the case of World War II. In articles about Nazi Germany, should we use British spellings up to 1941, and either American or British afterwards? The Wikipedia guideline is there, in my opinion, because of the assumption that most readers and editors of Britain-related articles are British, and that most readers and editors of American-related articles are American. No one can deny that Joan of Arc is connected with England, but Joan of Arc is not a "UK article", so spelling should be governed by the more basic rule: respect the spelling decisions of the first editor. Lesgles (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Speedy no move. Duja 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc → Jeanne d'Arc — Joan of Arc is only common in the anglosphere, but Jeanne d'Arc is more common overall, and is the more original word →AzaToth 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

  • Would it be acceptable to say in the article intro "Joan of Arc, better known as Jeanne d'Arc in Francophone regions,... "? There is also no mention of her other nickname, the "Maid of Orleans" (admittedly more common in French than in English). --Kyoko 15:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time the issue of how to present her name has come up on the current edition of this talk page and the archives include quite a few other discussions. The current entry at Joan of Arc facts and trivia doesn't even explain this fully. For four of the six centuries since she lived she was better known in France as la Pucelle. That's how she referred to herself in correspondence. Some scholars such as Régine Pernoud consider this her surname although it might be more appropriate to call it a title. Joan of Arc's condemnation trial testimony states that, so far as she knew, she had no surname. Yet a royal grant of nobility from 29 December 1429 gives her and her entire family the right to use the surname du Lys. That name appears in few other records. Shakespeare calls her Joan la Pucelle. Maid of Orleans is a more recent nickname, used by Voltaire in 1756 and popularized by Friedrich Schiller in 1801. Schiller's play inspired numerous imitations and adaptations throughout the nineteenth century. The first appearance of anything that resembles Jeanne d'Arc is in the Latin records of her rehabilitation trial from the 1450s, which disregarded the condemnation trial record's testimony about her lack of a surname and local surname inheritance customs. That reference remained obscure until Jules Etienne Joseph Quicherat popularized it in the 1840s. Quicherat's overall standards as a scholar were superb and his books remain standard reference works to the present day, yet he probably goofed in his title: if it were appropriate to spell the surname d'Arc rather than Darc, then the Latin records would have translated this as de Arco. It's also somewhat arbitrary that he chose to refer to her by this particular surname. Names were a relatively fluid concept in fifteenth century France and I doubt that any of her contemporaries would understand the fuss we make about establishing some definitive or "authentic" version.
To summarize, anyone who studies art or literature about Joan of Arc from the nineteenth century or earlier will encounter a variety of names for her, most of which don't resemble either the modern French or the modern English forms. Durova 18:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indicate Date of Birth

It seems to me important that Joan's date of birth be included in the section under "Childhood". The "when" seems to be an important, basic piece of information that belongs here. When I tried to add it initially it was deleted because there is no firm evidence to support a particular date of birth. When I added it again with a reference to this uncertainty and a citation, it was deleted because the citation was already in the article. I still maintain information on her date of birth belongs in this section, and that a citation should be included because of the uncertainty involved. Just because we don't know with certainty the year she was born is not a good argument to leave it out entirely, in my opinion. Tbilb 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we really don't know her date of birth. We can make a good guess about the year: she was probably born sometime in 1412 — at her trial in 1431, Joan said she was "nineteen or thereabout". Legend has her date of birth as January 6, but this date is suspect. In that very religious period, someone who claimed to be guided by heavenly voices would not heasitate to make hay out of a birthday that fell on the feast of the Epiphany. But Joan did not do this, so we can be fairly certain her birthday wasn't January 6. But that still leaves 364 other possible dates of birth... assuming we have the year right.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to express her birthdate, even as an estimate, in the section about her childhood. The article already states it twice: in the opening line and in the saint box.

The reason to express it there is to include the reasoning for 1412, and to make comprehension of the section easier. Septentrionalis 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The reasoning is already expressed in greater depth in the footnote that accompanies the first line. In theory I've no objection to moving some of that content out of the footnote and into the article text. However, in practice this article used to have a consistent problem with editors who added January 6 to the birthdate. Most of them seemed to have a passing acquaintance with the topic and probably edited in good faith, which is understandable since the January 6 date gets repeated uncritically in many popular references and many people outside the Catholic tradition don't recognize the hagiographic symbolism. My worry is that some well-meaning editor would stop at the first line, think I can make this better, and add that date without reading past the introduction. Because frankly that's what used to happen until I tweaked the opening lines several times. The current solution has worked for several months. Now that I've said my bit, go ahead and try what you think is best. I could give this six weeks or so to see whether another solution succeeds. Durova 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing I do wonder is whether it would be better to change her birthdate from 1412 to c. 1412. Given the quality of the evidence about her age, an estimated birth year seems more appropriate. Durova 04:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Septentrionalis 13:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, changing. Durova 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Forensic investigation

(moved from original location) Sorry to interrupt this, i was wondering about how scientists where looking at the remains of supposed her body, is there any latest news on that whether or not it would likely be hers? thanks

According to the news reports from February the study should have concluded in August. I've run a search every two weeks since then and seen nothing yet. Note that this type of analysis cannot conclude for certain whether the remains are hers because they have no other DNA sample for comparison. The study can only exclude some possibilities, such as if the bone came from a man. DurovaCharge! 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ya'know, I was wondering about this, too. I wonder why we haven't heard about this in so long: given the interest in Joan of Arc, there would be interest in the outcome of the testing.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
As soon as the results go public they'll get added to the article. DurovaCharge! 02:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting conversation at another site

The discussion no longer exists in the current version but here's an archive that contains some interesting cricicisms of the current article.[2] Some of the inferences drawn there are mistaken. For instance, one editor speculates that the facts in this article were written by committee (actually about 85% of the citations were added by one editor). The comments about the Background section, however, are interesting and I'm curious what other editors have to say. Compare to the online Columbia Encyclopedia[3] and (for those who have access) the Britannica article.[4] Most short biographies of Joan of Arc provide so little context that they appear to make the contradictory assertions that Joan of Arc fought for, was captured by, and was killed by "the French." When I prepared this article for WP:FA consideration I did my best to highlight the most relevant facts the geopolitics of her era that a modern nonspecialist would be unlikely to already know (or to find with suitable ease at related Wikipedia articles). Welcoming comments in light of the discussion at the other site. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

A kids point of view. 
 Im doing a project on joan of arc for my french class. I need some new information for my project. Anyone with any information plz help. I will delete this.
Try the external links at the bottom of the article and the entries on the bibliography page. This article has plenty of footnotes. If you find a section that interests you, go down to the footnote and read the source. DurovaCharge! 14:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cross-dressing revert

Voln (Talk | contribs) chose to revert my category entry that Joan of Arc, for the purposes of joining the military forces of France, dressed as a man. There was also evidence at her trial that she dressed as a man, it is thought to protect herself from her jailers. There is a category of women in a similar situation. It is called "Category:Female wartime crossdressers". Is Voln exercising a NPOV? Has Voln read the caution for people who think they own an article, to be found at WP:OWN. So I'm going to put it back, and if reverted again, will have to bring in somebody to settle this nonsense. Joan of Arc belongs to the world. JohnClarknew 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is what matters. Joan was indeed accused of being a cross-dresser, a crime under canon law per Deuteronomy 22:5, but she denied it, claiming she wore male clothing as a disguise. This is discussed at length by her biographers - e.g. Beaune, pp 151–160 & 300ff. Joan was not definitely a cross-dresser, so categorising her that way seems inappropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Joan never claimed to be wearing male clothing as a disguise, that was an assertion made by her contemporaries attempting to explain and come to terms with her cross dressing in a positive light. In the Rouen trial records Joan claims she wore the clothing under the command of God, and later in the private examinations even suggested she wore it because she wanted to. The idea of Joan claiming she wore the clothing under the command of God fits in with her defiance during the trial, and her rejection of the Church Militant as an authority to tell her what to do. I suggest you read the complete translation of the public and private examinations during this trial. See Craig Taylors 'Joan of Arc: The Pucelle', which contains a lot of relevant primary material. The biographies on Joan are well known to be questionable in their academic content, and really cannot be taken as totally reliable on their information. 80.41.87.32 20:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the above has been debunked repeatedly by recognized experts such as Pernoud. The source you've cited for this old discredited version is a book that hasn't even been published yet (the distributor, Palgrave, gives a date of January 2007). How could you know what's in it? Voln 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're talking about 'Joan of Arc: The Pucelle', which is the first full translation of many of the documents regarding Joan of Arc, and has been in print in Britain since 2006. My main point is that biographies of Joan that are often celebrated contain extremely questionable information and often misinterpret the sources. Obviously I have not read every biography on Joan, but I have read enough to know that they are often written by people of limited indepth knowledge. The trial of condemnation records (both the surviving fragments of the original French, and the official Latin copies) are the only know primary source of Joan discussing her reasons for wearing male clothing herself, and therefore should be the basis of academic opinion on it, despite the obvious and well documented flaws of the records. In the records, dated Monday 28 May 1431 it states "Asked why she had taken this male clothing, and who had induced her to wear it, she answered that she had taken it of her own free will, and that she preferred this male clothing to that of a woman." Joan never once said during her trial that she wore male clothing as a disguise. I know that some people would suggest that this record has been doctored, and I know it is usually not verbatim etc etc, but there would be no reason for the judges of the Rouen trial to doctor her final answer on male clothing in. If you support the view that the judges were acting under political or partisan motives to secure a guilty sentence, it would have been far more damning for them to leave Joan's previous explanation (that she was wearing male clothing under the command of God) as her recognized excuse. This excuse was a rejection of the Church Militant and was a heresy. Besides, if Joan wore male clothing as a disguise, then it wasn't very convincing was it? Previous female saints who dressed as men were viewed as men, thus validating the disguise. Joan was never viewed as a man, always a woman wearing male clothing. 80.47.138.222 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the above is wrong. The Condemnation transcript is not the only source concerning Joan of Arc's motives for wearing male clothing. The witnesses at the Rehabilitation trial provided many quotations from her on the subject, as do many chronicles and the like. The motive was not "disguise", but rather the usage of this clothing as a defense against rape since the hosen and doublet could be tied together to make it difficult for her guards to pull the hosen off. The book you keep citing is, based on your description, dredging up a very old set of misconceptions which have already been debunked ad nauseam by recognized experts. Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the verdict of recognized experts, not discredited theories. This should be the end of this discussion. Voln 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that the condemnation trial records are the only source of information on the matter, that would be silly, but it is the only source that has Joan speaking on the matter herself. The book I keep citing is a collection of primary sources translated, it does not contain the arguments but rather the original material (such as the trial records, letters etc.) Reliance on either trial record (both the Rouen trial and the nullification trial) would be a mistake, but I think it is worth considering the value of the only known testimony of Joan on her clothes (despite the obvious problems of trial records.) It is not unreasonable to suggest that Joan wore the clothing of males because she preferred it (although this would require a large section on gender issues and Joan in the article), particularly as the rape scenario is only occured in the Rouen prison, which does not account for the rest of the time that Joan wore male clothing (i.e. most of her time in France.) It also doesn't account for why she was occasionally unwilling to remove her male clothing even to recieve mass. It is accepted from testimony that she was mistreated in prison, and therefore it is a fair point that she returned to male clothing for protection, but that does not mean that her statement that she like male clothing is wrong and that it wasn't a contributing factor to why she wore it to begin with. I'm just throwing it out there for discussion, not suggesting it is fact. 80.47.138.222 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"She said also that it was altogether necessary to change her women's clothes for men's" (Barrett's version of the transcript at p. 45). That seems like relevant primary material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely keep the category, because whether she was or wasn't, she is famously known for this and so people doing research on the matter would expect Joan to figure into a category. Within the article itself, someone can simply state that the allegation is uncertain or whatever, but that should have no bearing on whether or not to keep the category. --164.107.92.120 02:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)




About her Armor;

Sorry to add this, i'm very new onto wikipedia I'm just wondering what ever happened to her suit of armor? If i remember, during 1 of the battles which she lost, she hung up her fully equipped armor in the alter of a church, anyone know what ever happened to her armor suit/s she wore? There's been false claims of founding of it but I'm not sure, thanks for anyone's help here. And keep up the good work here, Joan of Arc is my favourite historical figure.

Opening of Trial revert

Voln chose to revert my previous edits on the opening of the trial and the lack of diffamtio during the preparatory trial stage of the Rouen trial 1431. This information is both relevant and cited by reputable sources and verifiable, there is absolutely no need to delete this information. Likewise, there is no citation for the assertion that Joan of Arc was denied legal representation and this is acknowledged by many academics studying Joan of Arc's trial as a fallacy. I have left this in for the time being (as I do not want to get into an editing and revert war) but I would appreciate a comment on the matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.138.222 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Again: recognized experts such as Pernoud have debunked ideas such as the above. The article currently represents the consensus view among such experts. This new book is only peddling old theories which no serious historian has subscribed to.
I would add that since this new book isn't even available yet from the UK version of Amazon, where is it available? Voln 21:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
For the last time: this book is a collection of sources that were previously unavailable edited and translated by Craig Taylor. Please do some research on sources before criticising them! This book is available through academic channels, and I happen to have a copy bought from the University which Craig Taylor tutors. Also I really don't understand what you mean by 'old theories', what exactly are these theories? My edit did not contain theories at all, rather evidence from primary sources. Please clarify. Also it should be noted that the source I am quoting as been reviewed as an essential collection, especially as it contains sources that were previously untranslated. 80.47.138.222 22:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect: since you (and evidently Taylor) are unaware of the Rehabilitation witnesses who quoted Joan of Arc concerning her male clothing, then it's obvious that neither you nor Taylor have done even cursory reading on the subject. Based on what information is available about Taylor's book, it does not contain any new sources but rather merely a collection of excerpts from a few of those sources which have long been studied. Most importantly, the ideas you've been presenting from that book are in fact very old ones which have always been considered gross misconceptions. If Taylor's book is a rehashing of old misconceptions then it certainly does not supersede all of the works by recognized experts such as Pernoud.
This should be the end of this discussion. Wikipedia policy requires that precedence be granted to the accepted view. The article currently reflects that view. Voln 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
According to Amazon, never a very reliable source of publication info in my unhappy experience, Taylor's Joan of Arc: La Pucelle is published. If it is published (i.e. Taylor didn't give you a galley, photocopy or some other form of prepublication copy), clearly it is preferable to rely on a modern critical edition of the sources rather than an ancient one with dubious interpretation or none at all. Nobody disputes this, what is at issue is whether the work you are citing is published, and whether you are citing the sources or the commentary, which is less than clear from your edits. So far as the source material goes, if you have a publication copy of the work, you could start by replacing all the (undesirable) primary source references with references to Taylor's edition. Wikipedia's bias in favour of often-useless web resources in preference to reliable printed ones is a major problem. Personally I have no great interest in the subject, but it's hardly reasonable to say that a critical edition of the sources replaces or invalidates all previous work. DeVries, Beaune, and Meltzer are serious modern scholars whose work does not rest on trial transcripts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


The book is published, and is available through the Manchester University Press (2006). The work I am citing is directly from the sources themselves, sorry for not making that more clear. The reason why these sources were produced and translated in the first place is that previous editions of translations have been incomplete and often based upon Victorian era translations that edited certain elements of the sources out. The publication is not merely trial records, but the complete unedited translation of around 100 sources from multiple languages and commentary on them. My point is, this information does not contradict any other theory on Joan of Arc. Suggesting that, for example, Joan requested that there were more French clerics who supported her (e.g. those from the Poitiers investigation) is hardly an issue of contention, it says so in the trial records. 80.47.138.222 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Historians such as Pernoud did not use translations: they studied the texts in the original language. Large collections of these documents, in the original languages, have long been available in print. It isn't relevant whether this new book contains English translations of some of these: experts on the subject have never depended on English translations in the first place. Voln 22:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not my recollection, nor is it backed up by the footnotes to Beaune's biography. Primary sources are referenced to collections, not to archival sources. For example, the trial documents are cited from Duparc, Procès en Nullité de la Condamnation de Jeanne d'Arc, Charles VII's enquiry from Doncoeur and Lanhers, who are also cited for the French minute, Tisset, Procès et condamnation, for the trial again, etc. While it's true that there have been many modern critical editions, Duparc and Tisset most notably, they are not easily obtained, and not everyone who might be interested reads Middle French and Latin. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Since we've been running into edit-conflict problems, I'm reposting this comment of mine down here:
With all due respect: since you (and evidently Taylor) are unaware of the Rehabilitation witnesses who quoted Joan of Arc concerning her male clothing, then it's obvious that neither you nor Taylor have done even cursory reading on the subject. Based on what information is available about Taylor's book, it does not contain any new sources but rather merely a collection of excerpts from a few of those sources which have long been studied. Most importantly, the ideas you've been presenting from that book are in fact very old ones which have always been considered gross misconceptions. If Taylor's book is a rehashing of old misconceptions then it certainly does not supersede all of the works by recognized experts such as Pernoud.
This should be the end of this discussion. Wikipedia policy requires that precedence be granted to the accepted view. The article currently reflects that view. Voln 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem to assume that I am ignoring the documentation available in and on the rehabilitation trial, despite the fact you are ignoring what I am saying! I am not even saying anything regarding theories on issues, rather what different sources SAY on them. You and this article seems to ignore the criticisms of the rehabilitation trial (I was taking it for granted that this wouldn't be a necessary part of the discussion) and the debate on the differences between the Rouen trial and the nullification trial. The book I referenced is a collection of sources, not an opinionated book, and contains a wealth of source material on the nullification trial so I would appreciate if you left personal attacks on research to a minimum considering you haven't even read the work in question, and presumably not the reviews of such. Taylor is a well respected historian at a highly rated University, and those that he acknowledges as aids to his research are world renowned experts on the Hundred Years War and its related study. I therefore apologize if I have misrepresented his work. The comments on here seem to suggest that I am claiming that Taylor's translations are something brand new, whereas I was merely suggesting they are the most complete translation available to the modern lay reader. Previous translations have often been incomplete. I am not claiming this is the basis for original research, as obviously the original tracts would be most useful. However, the book is useful as contains easy access to all the most important sources on the issues surrounding Joan of Arc, including the records of the Rouen and Nullification trials. I would therefore appreciate it, as I am sure Taylor would, if you would stop making assumptions on the book and read what I am writing about it.

However, back on the issue of reverting edits on primary documents, are you suggesting that my claim that it was not simply JUST the reversion to male clothing that resulted in Joan's execution is false? (note, I'm not saying this was not part of it) Bearing in mind that the documents produced by the judges responsible for such a decision marked out the fact that she admitting to speaking once again to voices as "the fatal reply." How can this be contended? This was obviously part of the reason why Joan was executed, or it wouldn't have been noted as such in the primary document. The fact that the judges highlighted this in the trial record as their reasons, whether this was actually true or machiavellian or whatever, is significant and useful to know. Now that I have expounded on my edits and hopefully made you realize they are merely factual commentary on what appears in the documentation, you can stop reverting my edits. Awareness of what happens in both trial records is necessary to understand and make up your own mind on Joan of Arc, and therefore it is relevant. 80.47.138.222 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend Daniel Hobbins' account of the trial. This book has been acclaimed by scholars of many disciplines and has received zero negative reviews by professionally trained historians. Some of the older works, while still worth reading, are a bit dated and most trained historians take into account both old and new research. Best, --164.107.92.120 02:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

(My comment below was addressed to 80.47....etc )

Since you've written new replies all over the thread, I'm going to reply to them all here in one place.
Judging from the information available about Craig Taylor's book, it only contains about a hundred excerpts - and merely a couple dozen brief excerpts from both trial transcripts. This is truly a tiny percentage of the source material, and yet you call it "the most complete" available. Even in English translation there are already other books available which contain larger selections than Taylor's - for example, take a look at Pernoud's "The Retrial of Joan of Arc" (which is now being republished) for a more thorough set of excerpts from the Rehabilitation testimony.
Taylor is not recognized as an expert on Joan of Arc, and most of what you have mentioned from his book (aside from some of the direct citations from documents) has been repeatedly debunked by those who were recognized as experts. In one of your recent posts you again made the statement that the Condemnation trial transcript is allegedly the only source which quotes Joan of Arc on the subject of her male garments, which is false. She is also directly quoted on that subject by the Rehabilitation witnesses and several chronicles and other sources. These provide quotations from her stating that she wore male garments both while encamped with her army and later while in prison for the purposes of protection (i.e., from any rogue members of her own army and then from her English guards). If this new book doesn't recognize this then the author is either unaware of some basic information contained in the sources or is deliberately leaving it out. Much the same is true of Hobbins' book, which you are again promoting here. Pernoud on the other hand was recognized as the foremost expert on the subject due to her thorough grasp of the sources and decades of specialized study.
That having been said however, the most recent additions you have made to the article are probably acceptable since these - unlike the previous ones you had originally added - are reasonably consistent with the accepted view. But keep in mind that the practice of summarizing or analyzing primary sources would result in the type of original research which Wikipedia articles are supposed to avoid. I also doubt that this book by Taylor has been published yet since both the UK and US versions of Amazon (the largest retailer) list it as either unavailable or with a delayed shipping estimate (Amazonspeak for "We Don't Have It In Stock Yet") despite a hypothetical release date given variously as either October 17th or 30th. If it truly had been released sometime in October then Amazon would list immediate shipping. Palgrave's website says that it has been delayed until January. Voln 12:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall saying anything about Taylor (maybe you've confused me with a different anonymous! Anyway, you wrote that "Pernoud on the other hand was recognized as the foremost expert ..." So, even you use the past tense here: "was." --164.107.92.120 16:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Pernoud is still regarded as the foremost expert in recent history, and her writings are still considered the most accurate materials on the subject. I guess I'll need to be cautious in my exact phrasing from now on lest someone try to pick out a single word and use it for their own argument, although I had hoped this wouldn't degenerate that far.
My post farther above was addressed to whoever has been promoting Taylor's book, using a slew of IP addresses. If you're a different anonymous person then you don't need to reply to it. Voln 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Pernoud is still regarded as the foremost expert according to whom? Obviously, Hobbins and his multitude of reviewers suggest otherwise . . . --172.128.165.253 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the rationale for saying that Taylor is not a recognized expert in this subject. His page at the University of York notes that he is a "Lecturer in Medieval History, and a Fellow of both the Société de l'Histoire de France and the Royal Historical Society." Like most academics, he has several areas of specialization, including the Hundred Years' War. His page lists two articles that he's written specifically on Joan, and one is titled "Violence at the Rouen Trial of Joan of Arc." Taylor sounds like exactly the sort of scholar this article should use as a source, and I'm a bit disturbed by Voln's high-handed dismissal of Taylor's credentials.

Obviously, any work of Taylor's that is cited must be published. A search of WorldCat shows that 6 university libraries own the book, including Oxford. The low number of results indicates that the book was very recently published--either libraries haven't yet catalogued it or haven't purchased it, but given the popularity of the subject I'm sure that more libraries will have the work in the future.

None of this indicates that Taylor is necessarily correct, but the book meets WP:RS. I'm no expert in this subject, but so far the stated reasons for leaving Taylor out--which more or less seems to be that his views are different from those of Pernoud--don't seem compelling to me. On the other hand, if his views are in the minority, one or two sentences ought to be enough. And if he's raising arguments that have been raised and refuted before, in an encylopedia intended for non-experts, it is valuable to point out that certain ideas have been long regarded as erroneous. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To 172.128.... and Achilleus:
Pernoud was the founder of the Centre Jeanne d'Arc at Orleans. She wrote over a dozen books on the subject. It goes without saying that she is widely regarded as the foremost expert on the subject in recent times.
Taylor, by contrast, has only written this one new book, which seems to run counter to the accepted view on many fundamental points. Voln 16:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cross-dressing is a needless buzzword!

My inclusion of Joan of Arc in the category of Female wartime crossdressers in time of war today seems to have ignited a firestorm in User talk:Voln and others, and has been twice reverted. There are 43 women in the category, which clearly states This is a category for women who have cross-dressed as men for the purpose of serving in the military. Some retained their male identities after the war, others returned to female identities. No one is suggesting that Joan was a tomboy or a lesbian, nor that the inclusion means anything beyond what it says. Did she fight in a war? (Yes). Was the war fought by women as some were in ancient Greece? (No). Did she fight alongside men? (Yes). Did she wear armor? (Yes). Case closed, she should be included in the category!

However, the term "cross-dressing" (read this link, which cites Joan of Arc) has today taken on the taint of sexual perversion, and it might be wise to either change the word which is a mischievous word, or delete the category altogether as not being significant, because it is causing conniptions in people who appear to feel personally responsible for Joan's femininity and saintly purity. From that category, I researched further and expanded a piece on Pauline Cushman, whom someone had already written up as a "transvestite spy", despite the fact that there was no evidence for that assertion whatsoever - she'd been widowed twice, and given birth to 2 children! I hope a decision can soon be made about this hot topic, and how problems of WP:OWN and NPOV information can be properly dealt with. JohnClarknew 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this category should included. Joan certainly wore men's clothes, but (at least according to this article) she wasn't adopting a male identity. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Return of Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#Joan_of_Arc_vandal?

Voln's edit history[5] includes a distinctive nexus of interests (Joan of Arc, Roman Catholicism, and homosexuality) as well as familiar patterns of edit warring and particular sensitivity on the subject of cross-dressing. As with the earlier disruptive editor, Voln mentions the names of scholarly authors without actually providing direct quotes or page numbers - my previous research revealed that the vandal's claims about the content at issue often amounted to gross distortion - and even repeats the vandal's peculiar claim that the specific construction of Joan of Arc's clothing provided defense against rape. See this source, which mimics the format of a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but whose "peer reviewers" are amateur Joan of Arc enthusiasts and whose author has no publication record in recognized journals. The vandal, who is probably this study's author, inserted that source as a reference into the article earlier this year. That has been nearly the only citation this editor ever provided in a disruptive career that may have persisted for two years. See User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc for a fuller description.

Subsequent to the previous disruption spates I have become a Wikipedia administrator. Voln's edits of 3 December are one revert shy of WP:3RR, but talk page participation here and at Talk:Joan of Arc bibliography arguably crosses the WP:POINT line and may violate WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors. Thus far I have not tagged this editor's user page with a suspected sockpuppet template or requested a suspected sockpuppet investigation, but I am rather close to doing so, and if the investigation comes back positive I will seek a community ban. Then, through Wikipedia:Checkuser, I will pursue bans against all other active sockpuppets of this vandal: I suspect he remained active on religion and homosexuality topics while largely avoiding Joan of Arc except when I go on Wikibreak. I will also seek consensus for removing the link to this website - which is probably owned by the same person - per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, and petition America Online to terminate service for longsanding user contract violations.

If these allegations are mistakenly leveled I apologize in advance, yet the similarities are too striking to ignore. If these allegations are accurate then the appropriate response is to cease disruption. DurovaCharge! 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The community has banned Voln, its sockmaster account AWilliamson, and related sockpuppets after a unanimous discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson, the only dissenting voice was a Williamson sock. As the primary investigator on this lengthy and unusual case, I suggest posting queries regarding other possible sockpuppets to my user talk page. DurovaCharge! 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rehabilitation trial

A few points that I feel could improve this article slightly that need to be discussed:

1. Change the name of the re-trial section and all mentions of the 1455-1456 re-trial from 'rehabilitation' to 'nullification' trial. Rehabilitation in this context has pro-catholic overtones and hints that the aim of this trial was to make some comment on Joan of Arc's spirituality, or sainthood. This is not the case, the trial was started to effectively investigate the procedural concerns of the 1431 Rouen trial, and that was all. It makes sense to use 'nullification trial' as this was the terminology used by those involved with the trial at the time, and the aims of the trial fit this title more adequately.

2. Acknowledge some of the flaws of using evidence from the condemnation trial records and also the nullification trial records, the problem being that many do not recognize the problems of the latter. There appears to be a pro-Joan bias in historical study of the subject that means that many scholarly works, including numerous ones cited in this article often criticize heavily (and often justly) the evidence of the condemnation trial records, yet completely ignore the debate over the nullification records and use those records as evidence without acknowledging the obvious flaws within them. The problem is that the nullification records portray a Joan that most people, especially Catholics, are happy to see and therefore even practiced and celebrated academics are sometimes drawn into the trap of taking the evidence on Joan they see therein at face value without even acknowledging the obvious motives and biases of opinions mentioned in them. Whereas, the same academics are very keen to question the validity of opinions expressed in the Rouen condemnation trial records, quite rightly, yet completely ignore this process for the other trial. It truly is mind boggling that such historians could ignore this process of source criticism. This is to the extent that at certain conferences on Joan of Arc, academics being booed for presenting papers that provide evidence of corruption, contradictions and ulterior motives involved in the nullification trial of 1455-1456. As a result, few successful writers are keen to write material on the subject of the flaws of the nullification trial, and the 'different' less pro-Joan view that comes from not taking every shred of evidence from the nullification trial as fact. I'll put it this way, how many academic historians of value do not at least question the validity and accuracy of the sources they are using as basis of their work, especially the records of a trial that was conducted 25 years after the original trial? I would be happy to add more specific examples of the flaws of the records at a later time if necessary. But until this problem is addressed I feel that this article does little but mirror the conclusions on Joan of Arc that is essentially biased history, despite the good academic reputations of the authors in question. While I fully expect certain editors of wikipedia to jump on my back because of this (it is a bit of a taboo, hence why many historians haven’t challenged ‘the accepted view’) but I feel it is worth discussion and perhaps a separate article on the various trials themselves.

I think these points are worth discussing, especially by people who have read books that actually criticize, or acknowledge the bias in the sources in question, and aren't biased by their faith on the matter. Even if people are still happy on having an article that is based upon writers that do not acknowledge fully the flaws in the evidence (because that IS unfortunately the consensus view in print, partly due to the immense stigma of criticizing Joan in published works, or bizarrely even questioning the pro-Joan evidence seen in the nullification trial). This process of ‘breaking the cycle’ is made even harder because many of the ‘famous’ historians that base their biographies of Joan of Arc use the evidence from the nullification trial extensively to make their assertions on Joan, as I’m sure certain wikipedia users will be keen to remind me. Basically I would be happy to even add a tertiary article on the known problems and history of BOTH trial records, and the preliminary investigations as the materials are available to me. To me there seems to be a need to acknowledge this. 80.47.161.190 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite reliable peer-reviewed sources please, and by this I do not mean the "Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies" or any such, I mean publications in known and noted historical journals or books from reputable academic publishers. That is the starting point. WP:NPOV contemplates that significant points of view be represented proportionately, so if your thesis is the subject of a significant debate in academic circles, even if it's a view held only by a few named but prominent individuals, it may be verifiable for inclusion. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience is a good guide to what kinds of things are appropriate, and also the extent to which participation by directly involved parties with a vested interest in content may be acceptable. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well It is certainly a substantial debate. I'll get some articles for review and present them here. In regards to the 'rehabilitation' label of the trial, that is quite an old fashioned label and is surely worth changing for the reasons outlined in my comment above, as it is misleading and a somewhat christian POV term vested in the later inclusion of Joan as a saint. I understand the need for verifiable and credible sources however, as Joan of Arc is certainly a subject that brings out the 'nut jobs.' Over the next week I'll try and compile a few sources from journals. 80.41.79.204 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP has a good point about neutral wording for the second trial. I hadn't considered those hagiographic overtones. I agree about posting major changes to the talk page first. Full citations, please. DurovaCharge! 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the label of the re-trial to nullification in all the instances I could see, and added a brief line on the aims of the re-trial 1455-1456 to avoid confusion on readers linking it to the later decisions on the sainthood of Joan of Arc by the Catholic Church. Thanks for the comments. 80.41.79.204 13:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About her Armor

Sorry to add this, i'm very new onto wikipedia I'm just wondering what ever happened to her suit of armor? If i remember, during 1 of the battles which she lost, she hung up her fully equipped armor in the alter of a church, anyone know what ever happened to her armor suit/s she wore? There's been false claims of founding of it but I'm not sure, thanks for anyone's help here. And keep up the good work here, Joan of Arc is my favourite historical figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mazzie1 (talk • contribs).

You seem to be referring to the following: Before she left Saint-Denis, Joan had placed a white suit of armor in the basilica of Saint-Denis as a votive offering in gratitude to God for the victories that He had given her so far. She had taken this from a Burgundian knight whom she had defeated at Paris.(DeVries, 148)
So the suit of armor she left as an offering after the defeat at Paris wasn't the suit she actually wore but a trophy she had taken during battle. She was captured at another battle the following year, which makes it virtually certain that her actual armor fell into the hands of her enemies. Its fate is unknown. The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City owns a helmet reputed to have been hers, although really all that's known for certain is that it comes from the right time period. Unfortunately this particular item isn't highlighted at their website. My own guess is that her armor was probably melted down and reused for other purposes. Very few complete suits of armor survive from the first half of the fifteenth century. DurovaCharge! 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This may sound stupid but for prisoners like her during that time, do they let prisoners take showers or clean themselves i.e baths, toilets? i'm researching on medieval prisons/prisoners and was interested in her living conditions.

A prisoner's treatment depended in large part on the prisoner's social status. Wealthy prisoners paid often paid the cost of their imprisonment and were allowed small luxuries. Charles I de Valois, Duke of Orléans, who was captured at Agincourt and remained a prisoner for much of his adult life, played chess with his guards and became a noteworthy poet. Poor people didn't fare nearly as well. I've visited the prison where the much lower-born fifteenth century poet François Villon was held at Meung-sur-Loire. In simple terms it's a hole in the ground, but really it's much crueler. There's a small opening at the top, then a single two-tiered cell. Guards would lower a prisoner down to the upper tier by ropes. Then, once a day, they would lower a single loaf of bread into the prison. No matter how many people resided there the ration was the same. The upper tier of the prison was circular with a sheer dropoff to the lower level about thirty feet further down (and no way back up to the top tier). The toilet, presumably, was the lower level of the pit. The only light source was the small hole in the ground at the top of the prison. They had no heat, much less baths. Most of them didn't survive long. Sort of as an adjunct to this prison, underneath the nearby bishop's palace, there was also a regular dungeon with two barred cells. One held prisoners who had recently been arrested. A water cure torture device is still in the other chamber.
Regarding Joan of Arc in particular, she was an unusual case. Her terms of imprisonment were fairly good during the early part of her captivity while she was held by the Burgundians: noblewomen visited her and her page attended her. She made two escape attempts and apparently had plans for a third escape - someone was caught trying to smuggle a file into her cell. On one occasion she succeeded in locking her guards into their guard room and was on her way out when a porter discovered her. On another she leaped from a tall tower - the structure itself no longer survives but contemporary testimonies estimate her fall as 60 to 70 feet. She survived it with nothing worse than a concussion (and probably leaped because she knew by that point that the alternative to escape was certain death). The English took no chances: for a while they sealed her into an iron cage. The article states some of the conditions during her trial and how they deviated from normal procedure. When she wasn't testifying they kept her shackled to her bed. Her diet in prison appears to have been better than Villon's: during the trial she had a case of food poisoning and attributed it to a bad piece of fish. She probably eliminated bodily wastes into a chamberpot. I don't know whether she was offered a bath, but since all of her English guards were male and she complained about sexual molestation she probably didn't want to undress in front of them. DurovaCharge! 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the description, i am wondering about what you said 'someone slipped a file whilst in prison, what was the file or anything about it? thanks for helping out.

My source isn't handy for that bit of information. From what I recall, the file got intercepted on its way to her. Again, if your assignment has to do with late Medieval prison conditions generally, Joan of Arc is a very unusual example. DurovaCharge! 20:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Interim report from the forensic study

The rib bone and piece of cloth purported to have been from Joan of Arc's pyre site are unlikely to have been actual relics: the linen was not charred and the bone shows signs of embalming.[6] DurovaCharge! 07:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Is there an article on this? or source link? thanks

The link above goes to the MSNBC story. DurovaCharge! 20:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Durova.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_of_Arc/Archive_7&oldid=1091626726"