Jump to content

Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joan of Arc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joan of Arc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Doctoring of trial documents

The trial section ends with the referenced fact that "The twelve articles of accusation which summarized the court's findings contradicted the . . . court record," but throws in the suggestion that that court record was "already doctored" which isn't mentioned anywhere else in this article nor in the article about the trial, and most certainly isn't proven by the reference to the trial record itself. Does anyone know if this claim has a source elsewhere in this article that I'm missing? If anyone is interested in a more thorough consideration of this I can dig out my copy of the trial and see what the introduction and essays accompanying it say.

I read the documents (in translation) for a course with an expert on the subject who told us that the authorities involved maintained strict discipline throughout the legal proceedings and documentation of the trial because it was such a contentious topic and they didn't want to generate controversy. Mehmuffin (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Islam

Under the "Capture" Section we get this line "Joan, an ardent Catholic who hated all forms of heresy together with Islam...". Catholics at the time surely did not like anyone else, but could we get a citation that she had a special hate for Islam for itt to be mentioned specifically? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.229.32.220 (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That sentence should be rephrased since it overstates things a bit. One of the letters she dictated to scribes does encourage crusading efforts against "Saracens" (a term for Muslims in that era) and another letter condemns their theology; but the sentence should be phrased more precisely. I can add a source and rewrite the sentence. Ryn78 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ryn78: I wonder if mention of Islam warrants at all in this instance. How is it relevant to her capture? Even if her hatred of heresy is important, I cannot see any other connection to Islam that somehow makes it relevant here. Moreover, the previous sentence quotes a letter which establishes quite well her hatred of heresy, so I'm even more suspicious of this statement because it seems like it's redundantly reinforcing that statement just to make a stab at Islam—and the meat of the sentence is really just about her letter challenging the English. If you find the reference for the Saracens I think it would be more appropriate to delete "an ardent Catholic . . . Islam" and maybe bring the topic up towards the end of the Life section's lead, near the quote about doing what her lord wills. Mehmuffin (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joan of Arc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joan of Arc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The (possible) doctoring of trial documents

Pinging @Mehmuffin:

Blast, not all of my explanation showed up; that's what I get, I suppose.

To quote more fully the passage from my edit summary:

Certain inadmissible procedures were employed in the court itself. This is, again, revealed by [Guillaume] Manchon [the trial notary]: "At the beginning of the trial, during five or six days, while I set down in writing the Maid's answers and excuses, sometimes the judges tried to constrain me, by translating into Latin, to put into other terms, changing the meaning of the words or, in some other manner, my understanding (of what had been said). And were placed two men, at the command of my lord of Beauvais [Bishop Pierre Cauchon] [...] These men wrote and reported what was charged against Joan, and suppressed her excuses [...] And after the session, while collating what they had written, the two others reported in another manner and did not put down Joan's excuses [...] But there were great differences between our writings, so much so that lively contestations arose between us.

— Régine Pernoud, Joan of Arc: By Herself and Her Witnesses, p. 171

Given the evidence provided here by the notary, I'm willing to state that the trial transcripts, of which there were three, as you recall, were doctored to some extent; however, I'm also willing to entertain evidence to the contrary, or, perhaps, an effort to change the wording to be clearer. Thank you! — Javert2113 (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

{reply to|Javert2113}}Ah sorry I missed your summary earlier. Thank you for the quote. I agree that this is good enough to say doctoring. It would unfortunately add a few words but rephrasing to "court record, already doctored by the judges" would make me feel better so that the agent of the doctoring is more clear than it is now. How does that sound? — Mehmuffin (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Mehmuffin:In a word? Perfect. Wordy, but explanatory. I request that you do the honors, if that's all right. Thank you! — Javert2113 (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Javert2113: Great, edited and also added your citation to the sentence. Mehmuffin (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Le Pen

Wikipedia says the FN's flame is actually Italian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(France)#Foundation_(1972%E2%80%931973)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Movement

French Wikipedia says it looks like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Rally

Of course they changed the "old flame" since they want to become a mainstream well respected winners' party:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_national_(parti_fran%C3%A7ais)#/media/File:Logo_FN.svg

JFCochin (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018

scandinaviea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.154.2 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In the section about beautification in this article, there is no link to beautification which i personally recommend to be added

Yours Sincerely Pikachu4999 (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Pikachu4999

Martyr?

I think that somewhere in the article mention should be made that St. Joan is not recognized as a martyr by the Catholic Church. She is not included in the Roman Missal of Vatican II, but in the former missal she is called a virgin. White is worn at Masses on her feast day, not red. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

By her own words Joan of Arc was not from France...

Signatures & Her Name 

   "Jay [j'ai] nom Jehanne la Pucelle" ("I am called Joan the Maiden")1
   - she herself, as quoted by Jean Pasquerel

   "In my home village they called me Jhenette ["little Joan"] but since I came to France I have been called Jehanne")2
   - she herself, as quoted at her trial

http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_signatures.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.2.191 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

la Pucelle or Duché de Bar is in France, and in Joan of Arc's time it was part of both France and the Holy Roman Empire, and both France and Germanic Empires/Kingdoms fought over this territory in Lorraine for centuries. My source is an extensive knowledge of European history.100.34.143.131 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor additions

Would these changes be permissible:

  • Adding url (like Google books, for example) to references, when available
  • Removing OCLC numbers when the ISBN is available
  • Adding author links to bibliographical references
  • Adding citation templates to footnotes so as to ensure some degree of uniformity

The user Xxanthippe requested that this be discussed before being changed. 2shill (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Reasons to be sceptical

The is much in this article which merely repeats common myths. Her name probably wasn't Joan. She couldn't have been a peasant girl. She was literate, had been taught to ride a warhorse and fight like a man, and she knew canon law at her trial. She never mentioned visions, other than saying that like Saint Charlemagne, she will fight and win.--Gueux de mer (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC) https://mandascott.co.uk/joan-of-arc-who-was-she-really/

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

JuiceWRLD1998 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC) JOAN OF ARC WAS BORN JANUARY 6th, 1412

 Not done: See footnote number 3 – Þjarkur (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Birth place of Joan of Arc

Many believe Joan of Arc was French. Domrémy was originally under England's control. Therefore Joan was not born in France.

I would perhaps suggest the first paragraph be slightly amended to show Joan was born originally in Domrémy, controlled by Henry VI of England, now part of France. The map provided does show this, but the statement makes one believe she is French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Our Lady of Succour (talk • contribs) 09:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Domrémy-la-Pucelle was part of the Duchy of Bar (1033–1766) which did not come under full French control until 1735. The local Dukes were subordinate to both the Kings of France and the Holy Roman Emperors. When born c. 1412, Joan would have been a subject of the local feudal lord Edward III, Duke of Bar. Edward was killed in the Battle of Agincourt (1415), where he fought on the French side of the combatants. Dimadick (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Therefore no change to the paragraph is needed. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC).

It's SAINT Joan of Arc

She was declared a Saint, so her correct title is Saint Joan of Arc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.47.116.162 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Per Naming Convention:Saints:

  • Saints go by their most common English name, minus the word "Saint", if such a title is available and the saint is the primary topic for that name. If the base name (for example, "Timothy") requires disambiguation due to lack of primary topic for the saint, natural disambiguation has been preferred at Wikipedia. This leads to titles like Saint Timothy and Matthew the Apostle. As the word "Saint" can lead to controversy (depending on who considers whom to be a saint) and possible non-neutrality, other forms of natural disambiguation are typically preferred, all other things being equal. If the word "saint" is included in an article name, the standard formula is to keep it unabbreviated except when referring to a name with typical abbreviation (such as the city of St. Louis, United States)."
  • "For example, we use Joan of Arc (recognizable, natural, concise, and unambiguous) but Saint Monica. (Disambiguation is necessary because Monica is a disambiguation page; editors have preferred "Saint Monica" over other possible titles, such as Monica of Hippo.) The word "Saint" should never be omitted if it is the only way of referring to the title in a recognizable way. Patrick of Ireland is merely a redirect to Saint Patrick for this reason. "Saint" should never under any circumstance be shortened to "St." in article titles about the person in question, though redirects should be created from such titles." Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

'Joan of Arc has remained a popular figure in literature, painting, sculpture, and other cultural works since the time of her death'. The 'Ditié de Jehanne d'Arc' was written by Christine de Pisan in 1429, just after the first successes of Joan of Arc. The sentence must be corrected to 'since even before the time of her death'.

Olivier Talagrand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.62.205 (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The "archaic" French, Jehanne is pronounced "Zan Dabk"? Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn IPA. The article doesn't say her name is pronounced "Zan Dabk" but [ʒan daʁk]. Seriously! Str1977 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Anachronistic Nationalistic Wording

"a group of French nobles allied with the English" "put on trial by the pro-English bishop Pierre Cauchon"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but people in feudal times didn't usually think nationalistically like this. Rather than being "pro-English", the French who fought alongside the English were just being loyal to their liege, who happened to also be the king of the English. They weren't acting on behalf of the English people, they were acting on behalf of their liege as they were expected to in feudal culture. I put forth that this wording be swapped out for more feudalistic wording, like "subjects of the House of Plantagenet", and "pro-Plantagenet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurlebatte (talk • contribs) 12:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a big leap of faith

The article says "...at Beaurevoir Castle. She made several escape attempts, on one occasion jumping from her 70-foot (21 m) tower, landing on the soft earth of a dry moat...". A ref for the whole paragraph is given as a book, "Pernoud, Régine. Joan of Arc: Her Story, p. 96.". Does anyone have a copy of the book to see if it actually refers to the height she jumped from? The "70-foot (21 m)" is also incorrect. Was the 70-foot converted to metric or the 21 m converted to imperial. It's currently way off the mark so which one needs correcting. Moriori (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Far from a leap of faith, it is said that her leap may have been a suicide attempt. Various Google Books sources place the height at 10, 18, 20, 22 meters, and 70 feet. I think the only certain thing is that nobody can agree on the height of the tower, so I would venture to suggest that we leave out the height altogether. Elizium23 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

American English

The article uses {{Template:Use American English|date=March 2013}}. Is this justified? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the article is written in American English, and per WP:ARTCON on Wikipedia we strive (or are meant to, rather) to use one spelling consistently throughout each article (although the specific type of spelling used by each article differs, e.g. coeliac disease uses British English, while methamphetamine uses American English and Australia uses Australian English). Personally, I dislike American spelling, but I can only see one instance of British spelling in the entire article, and that is the word analysed, which I just tried to change to analyzed to keep the article consistent, but @Javert2113: decided to revert that edit (and yes, I'm pinging you, Javert2113, because I would like an explanation for your revert that is supported by consensus, as mixing up different spelling varieties within the one article violates WP:ARTCON). Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 12:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but I was asking about justification. I haven't checked the article history, but I'm guessing it's because of first use? I've always thought that rule was a bit arbitrary. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I would guess too, either that or at a certain point someone realized inconsistent spelling was being used throughout and they decided to standardize it and introduce a template to try and retain that standardization. Yes, it is arbitrary, but alas that is consensus and I doubt it'd be possible to create a new consensus to the contrary, as how else are we to determine what spelling is to be used? When it comes to articles that are clearly more linked to a particular country than to all others (e.g. when it comes to the country's article itself, when it comes to citizens of the country, and so forth) and that country has its own national variety of English, it's naturally obvious which spelling variety should be used, but for all other articles it's always going to be uneasy to reach anything but an arbitrary consensus. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 13:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, the article doesn't tell us if she spoke English. But if she did, I suspect it wasn't American English! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Back then spelling wasn't standardized, so even those that were literate at the time frequently spelt inconsistently. William Shakespeare spelt relatively consistently for the age, and he predominantly followed what today is standard American spelling. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 13:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh no! Well, she may have spoken English, but I'm sure she never wrote anything down. In fact her literacy seems to be an open question. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC) p.s. I suspect scholars might prefer to cast that as "today's standard American spelling reflects the pattern predominantly followed by Shakespeare"? Whether that's actually an accurate claim is another question.
I'm willing to admit that I erred there, and I apologize, Fuse809. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Use of "may have been" as a past hypothetical

Past speculation about a contemporary hypothetical can't be in a tense indicating a time preceding that speculation. Consider this phrase approximating the one I corrected. It has both a grammatical error and an error of meaning in the context of the article.

"They suspected the king may have been insane"

This is grammatically wrong, because "may" is in the present tense and we are not talking about a present situation. So for grammatical meaning we'd have to write "...might have been insane."

But this is an incorrect description of the situation unless we mean that they thought he had previously been insane but wasn't any longer. The king either was or wasn't insane at the time they suspected it.

In brief, they suspected that he was insane.Chenopodiaceous (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hm. "They suspected the possibility existed that the king was insane" is not the same as "they suspected the king was insane". The suspicion of the possibility is not the same as the suspicion of the reality. You've can can maybe convince me there's a possibility of XYZ, but I don't think you can convince me of XYZ." Nit picking, certainly. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we could write "They suspected that he might be insane", and I would gripe but not too hard. The thing is that "suspected" already includes the possibility. I "suspect you have red hair" doesn't mean "I think you have red hair". It means "I think there is a possibility that you have red hair". There's no point piling up hypotheticals; one's enough. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Armor

"Joan asked for permission to travel with the army and wear protective armor, which was provided by the Royal government. She depended on donated items for her armor...|"

Which was it? JF42 (talk) 09:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Blanket revert

An editor blanket reverted ALL of my edits without providing any indication what he is objecting to or why. I'D like to ask said editor: please state your reasons or at least which edits you are objecting to. Str1977 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for following WP:BRD and bringing a discussion to the talk page. User:Str1977 has made 6 consecutive edits to Joan of Arc, 4 without edit summaries and 1 with an incomprehensible edit summary. His edits seem mainly to be changing Roman Catholic to Catholic and coronation to anointed. There may be theological issues of WP:POV here and the changes in this sensitive area need to be justified by sources. User:Str1977 may like to open an RfC in Portal:Catholicism or elsewhere. Under WP:CAUTIOUS it the responsibility of the changer of an article to justify their changes. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
So I take it that you have no objections of your own. Let me state:
  • The church in question is called Catholic Church. Hence I used the word "Catholic", without "Roman".
  • As any student of the French monarchy knows, the coronation bit of the ceremony was of minor importance, while the annointing was of supreme importance.
From your silence I deduce that you actually had no disagreement against changing the non-English word "hosen" to "pants" (using that word as the article is written in American English) and that it was merely reverted due to your illegitimate blanket reverting. Str1977 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The term 'hosen' is a perfectly good English word, if antiquated. It is a plural form of 'hose,' also a perfectly respectable English word from which derives the word 'hosiery.' 'Pants' is an inappropriate substitute for several reasons, the principal one being that it is an egregious anachronism, since 'pants,' the preferred word for trousers in American English, represents a single garment fastening at the waist and reaching to the ankles; a fashion which only evolved in Europe to replace knee-length breeches during the later C18th. This is not what is being referred to in the case of Joan's cross-dressing.
The male nether garments of the C15th, rendered as 'hose' or 'hosen' in English, chausses in French, were composed of two separate tubes of cloth or knitted wool that enclosed the leg and were fastened to the upper garment, which might more properly be called a doublet, by leather ties or 'points.' (This by the way is way is why we say 'a pair of pants', 'pair of trousers' etc)
Moreover, anachronism aside, the substitution misses the point that the nether garments being by design fastened to the doublet, the obstacle to molestation, such as it was, would have been obvious to all. It wasn't some measure Joan came up with on her own, the details of which the current edit glosses over.
Thirdly, 'pants' in this context is ambiguous, since in a British context it refers to undergarments ('panties' in American usage) which not only confuses the issue, suggesting Joan might have been partially clothed, but a comic element in the British usage adds an air of the ridiculous and undermines the dignity of the subject.
For these reasons, 'hose,' being the correct English language term for the historical garment and wholly relevant to the narrative should be re-inserted. A link to the relevant Wikipedia page Hose (clothing) will avoid any confusion for the general reader.

Postscript: the text at footnote 90 is also erroneous in this regard and should be amended: "According to medieval clothing expert Adrien Harmand, she wore two layers of pants ("trousers" British English) attached to the doublet with 20 fastenings. The outer pants were made of a boot-like leather. "Jeanne d'Arc, son costume, son armure."[15](in French). Retrieved 23 March 2006."

The French author cited, Adrien Harmand, describes at great length the nature of medieval chausses which are clearly neither pants, nor "trousers" British English. There is evidence that Joan might have worn over-leggings to travel, or that the chausses themselves that she wore to travel might even have been of similar material. This does not necessarily relate to what she wore in gaol.

JF42 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Joan's nether garments; hose, leggings, etc- Response to Age of Plantagenet edit of my edit (1.5.2020)

Age of Plantagenet's edit reads:

"Since wearing men’s hosen enabled her to fasten her hosen, boots and doublet together, this deterred rape by making it difficult for her guards to pull her clothing off. She was evidently afraid to give up this clothing even temporarily because it was likely to be confiscated by the judge and she would thereby be left without protection."

Clearly the repetition of 'hosen' is unhelpful as is the reversion from 'hose.' 'Hosen' itself is an antiquated usage, as has been pointed out, and might distract whereas 'hose' is an acceptable alternative and reflects common usage in historical discussion.

The observations in the Article History page relating to this edit would seem to reflect a limited perspective, surprising in one professing interest in the late medieval period, and engaged in a discussion on historical clothing.

1." I've never seen the term "nether garments" used so it's going to cause confusion likewise "leggings" usually mean tights"-

There is nothing exotic about the term 'nether garments.' You may be making assumptions about its causing confusion to readers other than yourself. Anyone who has read that far into what is a dense article will be reasonably literate. NETHER means 'lower,' yes?. It is customarily used for the lower portion of the human body- 'nether parts', 'nether regions,' but see also, for instance, 'Netherlands'(Cognate with 'beneath,' 'underneath' etc).

It is surely contradictory meanwhile to revert to 'hosen' which might indeed cause confusion (See above)

2. "likewise "leggings" usually mean tights',

"Usually"? I would have to disagree. To reduce the meaning of this word with a 300-year history to a female fashion term of the late C20th, indicates an equally narrow perspective. The term 'leggings' has meant a secondary or separate leg covering for a good deal longer, I can assure you. It will cause no confusion. Again, anyone having read that far into the article, and interested enough to read the footnote, would know this.

3. "and perhaps wore outer boots (houseaux) for travel."

Re. this emendation of footnote 90, there is no indication in the Adrian Harmand article cited, nor in French reference sources, that houseaux includes the meaning of 'boots,' far less 'outer boots.' The verb 'housser' means 'to cover' in general, and with a specific sense of 'to protect.' In Larousse houseaux are specifically referred to as a substitute for riding boots, made of leather or fabric. The modern English translation would be 'gaiters' but in our C15th context that would be incorrect and misleading. 'Leggings' is entirely the appropriate term to use.

I propose that 'nether garments' and 'hose' be reinstated, and that 'leggings' be reinstated, perhaps amended to 'over leggings' to avoid the possibility of confusion. Reference to 'Boots' should also be removed from the main text.

I shall wait 24 hours and then make the changes.

JF42 (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

JF42: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written for a very general audience as an overview of the subject for beginners - it's an encyclopedia, not a scholarly journal - which means we're supposed to use current vernacular language that would be readily understood by the average student of any age. We also need to keep in mind the main context: the section of the article we're debating is explaining why Joan's outfit was being used by her to prevent rape (otherwise there would be little point in going into the details of her outfit in the first place), which means we need to use clear language that gets this central point across to the average reader even if the terms are not technically precise. The phrase "nether garments" is not used by the general public; and "hose" is only used by the general public in the term "pantyhose", which is not the image we want to conjure up here. Granted, my own substitute ("hosen") isn't a common term either, so maybe we could use "trousers" (yes, it's not technically precise, but it gets the general point across).
On the subject of her "houseaux": the term "leggings", as you noted, has come to have a specific meaning beginning in the late 20th century which differs from its historical meaning that you want to use, in which case we should avoid it since the meaning has shifted in modern times. The reason I thought "boots" would be a good term is because Joan's "houseaux" were made of leather, like a boot; and at least the word "boot" is readily understandable for the general reader. The only problem I can see is that the term boot usually implies a short boot below the knee rather than something as long as Joan's houseaux, so we could use a term like "hip boots" or just explain that these went all the way up to the top of the thigh and hence could be fastened to the doublet. But in the end, there isn't going to be a good set of terms which are both historically relevant and also comprehensible for the average reader, so we're going to have to compromise by using vernacular terms which at least convey the gist for the average person. That's the best we can do. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


They didn't call her Jeannes D'Ark for nothing. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. They didn't call her that at all

JF42 (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Shucks. There goes my best addition to the "See also" section. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Commiserations JF42 (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Joan's nether garments; hose, leggings, etc- (2)

By way of confirmation, these excerpts from:

'Joan of Arc by herself and her witnesses,' by Régine Pernoud (Jeanne d’Arc par elle-meme et par ses témoins, 1966) Translated by Edward Hyam 1982

- quoting eye-witness testimony from the time of Joan's mission, should allay concerns about suitable terminology relating to her nether garments:

p.34 Durand Laxart "and the inhabitants of Vaucouleurs bought for her men’s clothes, hose, leggings and all that she needed

p.35 Jean de Novellompont "I gave her clothes and hose of my servants that she might don them. And that done the inhabitants of Vaucouleurs had men’s clothes made for her and choose and all things necessary to her"

p.36 Catharine le Royer of Vaucoulours "...certain inhabitants of the town caused a tunic to be made for her, hose, leggings, spurs, a sword, and other things… Henri le Royer "Later she was dressed in a vest, hose and other clothes proper to a man.

p.39 Bertrand le Poulanger "Every night she lay down… keeping her surcoat and hose, tied and tight. JF42 (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


JF42: "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses" was deliberately translated using archaic vocabulary and grammar, to the point that reviews of the book have sometimes complained that the language is difficult to understand. Wikipedia's rules require clear language that the average guy on the street (or young students) can easily comprehend, which is good practice anyway. We can't write it for historians. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020

Under the section: "CAPTURE"... ..."Joan, an ardent Catholic who hated all forms of heresy (together with Islam).....?!?....together with Islam....?!?....

Please remove *together with Islam*. I have many muslim friends...but this have absolutely nothing to do with this Joan of Arc article or her life directly nor the contexts and events involved at that time on those lands...

Thank you. 159.2.64.153 (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Although I do not know exactly what the source (Beverly Boyd, "Wyclif, Joan of Arc, and Margery Kempe" pp. 112–18, from Mystics Quarterly, Volume 12, Issue #3 September 1986 p. 116) says about this. This does not appear to be fully available on line. JSTOR link here Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
p.s. I have now opened the article and I see that, on page 116, Boyd writes: "Actually, Joan hated heresy, infidels and the Hussites, who were, of course the inheritors of Wyclif's teachings... ", so that wording might be justified, perhaps in quote form, attributed to Boyd? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
She encouraged crusading efforts against Muslims and compared the Hussites to Muslims for having "destroyed true religion and worship": see, for example, Pernoud's "Joan of Arc: Her Story", which has a full translation of her statements on both issues on pages 67 and 259. AgeOfPlantagenet (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Then the use of the word "Muslims" seems quite reasonable. Although I guess "infidels" might be a more accurate historically appropriate term. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

I think the first sentence should state clearly the exact role Joan of Arc had during the Hundred Years' War, that of a military leader credited for expelling the English from France. The current sentence "Joan of Arc [...] is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War [...]" is problematic. The word "considered" seems to imply that her status was a latter fabrication, which is in part true, but in part only, as there is evidence that Joan of Arc participated to key battles in France. Also the word "role" is to vague for a description of Joan of Arc's "participation" in the 100 years war. Lerichard (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. Her role was wider than military. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC).

Joan of Arc was not born in France

She is even on record herself saying she went into France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.177.112 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Words to watch

Per WP:CLAIM which derives from WP:NPOV, it is better to use "said" to avoid casting doubt on statements made in our Wikipedia voice. Elizium23 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Blanket reverts again

I have been called to discuss my reverting of reverts on the talk page. May I remind the editor in question that this whole issue has been discussed before, here and that she should know that because even then she called for a discussion but then did not offer any substantive responses.

So read my point there. Str1977 (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The link you referred to consists of expressions of opinion unbacked by sources. It is the responsibility of editors who add material to give sources to back it. Please do so. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC).
The link I gave represented the status quo of the discussion. You failed to provide any valid reasoning then, you fail to do so now, for changing said status quo. Str1977 (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

Under Art and Film there could also be added: The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999) - film about her starring Milla Jovovich The heir of no hope 17:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See Cultural_depictions_of_Joan_of_Arc#Film Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done Run n Fly (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm going to look into helping out with this article. My goal would be to get better and corroborating references where needed, try to replace most of the French with English when possible, and make any remaining French verifiable. Of course, this implies substantial prose editing, particular to align source and citation.

I would like to prepare this article for the short footnote format of citation (e.g., Aberth 2000). I'll wait to see if there are problems before going ahead. In the meantime I may begin silently moving in-article citations to the end of the article and templating them as needed. Wtfiv (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm just trying out silently moving references. It's a bit louder than I thought it would be. I'm temporarily using the rp template to save book page locations. If there are problems or concerns, let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
GBRV Are you okay with my continuing the quasi-silent citation cleanup, or should I leave that alone as well? Wtfiv (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Wtfiv Well, I think we almost had some edit conflicts earlier since we were editing at the same time, and it might be better to finalize the citations first anyway. I've been replacing or supplying new ones. GBRV (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
GBRV In terms of editing, I've learned a few tricks to avoid conflicts. Edit the section: Much of my edits are in the bibliography, and I'm almost 100% sure there is no conflict there as it is rarely touched. In the rare case of a conflict. I usually save a copy of my work, which is usually minor and paste again. And 90% of the time, I can edit when its pretty clear things are quiet on the page. (Fortunately, today was an exception, as being able to interact with you—-even at the risk of editing conflicts—- is more productive.) Except for that rp fix, I stopped until you are comfortable with it. Though, I do think the work needs to be done.
If you could, please make sure you stay in touch with FARC too about your plan and process, especially if there is going to be a lot of quiet time between edits. When I first encountered the article, the vote to delist had been made and the first vote to delist had been cast. It felt like a a close call, which is one of the reasons I felt it worthwhile to help out. Wtfiv (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
GBRV I just saw that decision for delisting of Joan of Arc from Featured Article still continues and the consensus is building in favor of removing it, so I will see if I can edit a bit before the vote is done.Wtfiv (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Wtfiv Only one person voted to delist, and I asked them to wait until the process of fixing the article is done. GBRV (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
GBRV Actually, it was the second. I had asked the first one to hold off, which was considerately done with the caveat that there would be a plan for improvement but the second posted anyway. My concern is the call for a vote has been posted in spite of a request to wait, but the pressure builds anyway. We'll see. Anyway, I've been messing with it. It shows there is meaningful activity. I'm glad you let them know, but I'll keep working on it when I can. I rather not see this delisted and there is a lot more work than just finding the citations that needs to be done, such as cleaning up, verifying the good citations where possible and aligning the text with those citations. Wtfiv (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

To all editors: I'd like to start sorting the notes into two groups: Notes and citations. It would include the addition of a notelist. I think one of the confusing issues is that the primary material is interesting, but should be put in its own notes section. That way it is clear when they are supporting a point made in the text. I just found a great quote while cleaning up the material, and put it in notes. Wtfiv (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Article editing issues?

GBRV (and anyone else). I'd like to move two elements of the article I'm working on around. First, I think a biography should begin with the birth of a person. The article seems to background La Pucelle to the hundred years war, rather than foregrounding her. I'd like to shift some of the information of Joan's birth and a general description to Domremy- about two or three sentences- to the very beginning of the article, and mention she was born during the Hundred Years War. Then, the article can flow into the Hundred Year's war to contextualie what this means. After that, the next section can start with Domremy's political situation in the War, and the Baudricourt episode can flow from there. Also, I'd like to paraphrase the Richey quote. I think it can also be merged and supplemented with similar points made by other accessible sources as well. Are you okay with these changes? (Or, I could just give it a try and it can be reverted if it seems to lose something or be too clumsy.) Wtfiv (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Contamine, Bouzy and Joan's historiated initial in the infobox

Can anyone provide some help with one of the references at the beginning of the article about the miniature of Joan's standard being a forgery? That seems quite likely. The Contamine reference is solid. It is accessible and makes the point, though a translation may be helpful.

But it's not clear what the Bouzy citation (Olivier Bouzy, "Remarques sur la tapisserie d'Azeglio", Centre Jeanne d'Arc, Orleans, France, 10 April 2019.) is pointing toward. It looks like a web reference, but there's no link. I looked through the Centre Jeanne d'Arc site and found this: Les étendards de Jeanne by Bouzy. In the link section Les représentations et reconstitutions postérieure [Later representation and reconstructions], it seems likely that Bouzy is referencing this article's historiated initial (especially once one compares Contamine's description of the Spetz collection):

Ces deux bannières inspirèrent les illustrateurs des livres consacrés à Jeanne d’Arc jusqu’en 1858. A partir de cette date apparurent sur le marché la tapisserie dite d’Azeglio, trois miniatures représentant Jeanne à l’étendard, et une miniature inspirée par la tapisserie d’Azeglio, à moins que ce ne soit la tapisserie qui ait été copiée sur elle. Elles ont pour point commun d’avoir été découvertes entre Lucerne et Strasbourg à peu d'années d'intervalle. Elles inspirèrent dès lors une bonne partie des reconstitutions. Quickly machine translated as: [These two banners inspired the illustrators of books devoted to Joan of Arc until 1858. From this date appeared on the market the so-called Azeglio tapestry, three miniatures representing Joan with the standard, and a miniature inspired by the Azeglio tapestry, unless it was the tapestry that was copied onto it. They all have in common that they were discovered between Lucerne and Strasbourg a few years apart. They therefore inspired a good part of the reconstructions.]

Bouzy avoids naming any of these items in this article. Does anyone have access to anything better that would serve as a verifiable reference? or would such a vague allusion be acceptable? I'm not comfortable it would be. A webpage would be perfect. An unlinked book in French, less so. (They are doubly hard to verify. First, is the challenge to obtain a copy of the work, second is the language barrier. A linked source- even in French- would be best.) Or would referencing Contamine- who is also a bit indirect, but definite- be enough? Wtfiv (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In text quotes of primary sources

Hi GBRV Thanks for cleaning up the recent additions. While editing the edit, I removed the statement using Pernoud's "Witnesses" as a source.since he said she had revealed "certain secrets that none knew or could know, excepting only God". I would like to share my reasons.

I think the apparent quote illustrates why the reliance on the "primary sources" of Pernoud by itself is one of the criticism that got this article on the featured article removal list.(Pernoud is great resource though, I'm not sure what I'd do without it. I use it to navigate between the primary source of Quicherat and the other secondary sources, and give it supporting credit.)

Here's the problem: All apparent quotes of Charles are indirect. Charles was not directly involved in the rehabilitation trial, which Pernoud uses as the source. And, this particular quote is doubly indirect. It comes from Friar Jean Pasquerel's testimony 20 years after an event that he was not present at. He puts the quote in a report where he claims to be quoting Joan, as he served as her confessor. In turn, Joan is quoted by Pasquerel as claiming to quote the Dauphin. (see Pernoud & Clin, 23.) So in a sense, Joan is testifying on her own behalf on the impact she had on the Dauphin. Then there is also the translation problem for this quote. Pernoud is referencing a Latin quote- which is Pasquerel's Latin translation of a remembered conversation from 20 years in the past that occurred in one of the dialects of Langues d'oïl- translated into French by Pernoud (I assume, but may it is DuParc's translation?), then that is translated into English by Edward Hyams. My own view is that the evidence and source for this point is weak. Nevertheless, I tried to imply it through the footnote, the point there has a bit more independent support, though it too is conjectural. But if you think it would be best to explicitly make the point, I'd suggest a paraphrase based on Pernoud and Clin, who clearly describe the context of the indirect quote, as well as Sackville-West, who is assertively sympathetic to that interpretation of Charles's response. Wtfiv (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You're conducting your own personal analysis, which is OR. We're supposed to cite historians, among whom Pernoud was among the foremost on this specific subject. Pernoud never questioned the accuracy of Pasquerel's testimony (as far as I recall, anyway). Nonetheless, we can leave out the quote if you want and merely summarize the issue as you've done in your latest edit, but this process needs to change (even aside from OR issues). We don't need to rewrite the entire article sentence by sentence, much less repeatedly rewrite the same sentences. Let's just fix the citations and other specific issues that were mentioned by other people on the FAR page, otherwise this is going to take months and become unmanageable. GBRV (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not adding original research to this article. Each point is backed by secondary source citations, and I often try to offer multiple sources for perspective, as many of the sources shades things differently. I do very much appreciate Pernoud, by the way. P&C is still the best "go to" summary. But I'm learning to appreciate the other historians and biographers as well. Most are careful, and each bring unique insights. I think that a review and comparison of sources to ensure they are indeed stating what they appear to state is reasonable. This is the heart of Wikipedia. In the case, my main points were that the attribution is not a direct quote and there may be better citations. The irony is that the source that makes this clear is Pernoud. (P & C, in this case) so quotation marks and direct attribution to Charles words are not reasonable. As mentioned, I certainly respect your decision if you decide they are important enough to add.
I will continue to edit as I go- trying to align text to quote. My goal general form of the article won't change. I'm hoping that all cited points match what is written. I'm just working with the article as I go along. I mentioned that it may take me a while. I do believe editing in light of the citations is reasonable. I'm glad that you are keeping an eye on it. (I'm also glad to see other editors keeping an eye on things as well.) I figure if I misstep majorly, you will let me know. And, if something critical gets lost, you'll make sure it gets back in. Wtfiv (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Georges de la Trémoille

Section in military campaigns on Georges de la Trémoille removed. Though it seems clear he advocated for a treaty with Burgundy and was not supportive of advancing on Paris, none of the sources place the blame solely on him. Gower ch. 4.[1] is quite impassioned, but Gower argues more that he was Joan's enemy that a blunderer. Also, he implicates the Archbishop of Reims. DeVries definitely argues Termoille was an advocate against military efforts toward Paris, but he also includes Regnault of Chartres (Archbishop of Reims), and "perhaps others". Pernoud & Clin, similarly point out that Termoille and the Archbishop were Joan's enemies, which is different than being responsible for blunders. Many of the biographers imply much of the blame can go to Charles. Perhaps this is good material for a section on the court intrigue against Joan? Wtfiv (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Added footnote on Trémoille and Regnault of Chartres to keep citations. Noting they both wanted a negotiated solution and resented Joan. Wtfiv (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be necessary to refer to Philippe Contamine & Olivier Bouzy's studies in order to diversify the sources and go beyond Gower and Régine Pernoud's old view of La Trémoille and the Archbishop of Reims as Joan of Arc's enemies, despite the opposition between Joan and the Grand Chamberlain - or the King himself ? - about the siege of Paris.
According to Contamine, the vision that emerges of Joan of Arc in Pernoud's texts remains that of a person "who had the misfortune to be surrounded by cynics and cunning, mediocre and cowards. Thus, "one should not [...] ask [Pernoud] to enter into the psychology of Pierre Cauchon or Charles VII or to account for the complexity of the political game. Research of pure erudition was not her forte either, even if she kept herself perfectly up to date. For Régine Pernoud, Joan of Arc was not only a French heroine but a saint".
For further reading, see the bibliography in the French article about La Trémoille [2]. --Guise (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Guise! Would you be willing to add an expansion in the appropriate location- maybe the footnote, but possibly elsewhere. Ideally, it'd be great if the French citations could be accessed. But, if citing the French sources is the one worth taking, would you be willing to do it?
Alternatively, I could work harder to scour accessible English language sources to better reflect the complexity. I have little doubt they can be found.
Or maybe its best to just delete the footnote to La Trémoille altogether? I put it in to respect the aside on La Trémoille that had been in the article. What are your thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the featured article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

  • There are citation needed tags from 2017
  • Many sources used in the article have been added after its 2006 FAR. Considering the vast amount of literature written about this person, I am skeptical that all of these sources are of the highest quality. If someone is willing to help me check them, I can go into more detail below.
  • References need to be standardised. Book sources either need to be in the footnotes or listed in the bibliography, not both.
  • The sources in the "Further reading" section need to be evaluated and either incorporated as sources or possibly removed from the article.
  • The "See also" section is bloated and needs to be trimmed.
  • I'm surprised there isn't a Legacy section. Many of the "See also" links could be incorporated into that section.

If anyone is interested in bringing this back to FA standards, please indicate below and I will give a more detailed review. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

From just a very quick look at the sources, history.com and International Business Times are definitely not high-quality RS, and I have doubts about the Oliphant source. Hog Farm Talk 21:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The BIO is not suitable for FA as it has so many fanboyz and fangurlz expressing their idiosyncratic views in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC).

This article is subject to interpretation and opinion, as it draws upon sources in French and not strictly English. One solution is to move such references to the https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d%27Arc (french wikipedia). It's not FA quality due to that. Sinking into reality (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't find it in policy, but I swear that editors are suppose to keep each section dedicated to a book. With all "main articles" listed on each section, it should be easier to sort it. Will it help? I mean, the main article should be about the subject, books, and resources with neutral glue. Should-do or must-do is debatable. I mean, that's a lot of work done over the years. Sinking into reality (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Sinking into reality. I agree with your 3 November point that the article should avoid foreign languages for citations as much as possible. In some cases, the foreign language source is the best one available. In working through it, I think the goal is to ensure every point is backed by an English-language one. So far, there have been a few.
  • Contamine is a French source, but it is linked and translated. Any reader with a machine translator or knowledge of France can verify the accuracy of the translation.
  • Classic works by Michelet, Champion, and Pernoud are cited to their English translations, which can be verified.
  • The footnotes have Latin and French, but this is because they are quotes, mainly from the court record. Again, each is linked and verifiable, and directly translated. The translation can be checked and updated if needed. I've also tried to provide a "cf.," to a sample English translation. I think putting the source quote is important, as the translation of a quote can change its meaning or emphasis. (A good example is Baudricourt's first response to Joan in Vaucouleurs.) This process allows the reader to interpret or go to the sources for verification.
As to the 19 December point about relying on a single book per section. I see this differently. It seems to me that the best Wikipedia articles don't rely on a single source but present a reader with the consensus from a wide range of reliable sources. It also provides enough sources to allow the reader to explore divergent opinions and arrive at one's own conclusion. This issue seems particularly true in the cass of Joan. Each author sees her through a particular lens of intepretation (e.g., Saint, national hero, feminine warrior), each represented by a different book or author. It's important to catch them all, but only one could be misleading. For example, Guise pointed out that although Pernoud is a great source, she too has her biases, which could an editor depending only on her to miss some important points. Sticking with just one book per section seems to risk writing an article with the biases of a single point of view, even if it is the bias of a prestigious writer. My feeling is that each section should do its best to reflect the common ground of the various sources and pointing out places where a consensus may be missing.
In addition,you raise an additional important point. In my opinion, there is always the need to respect the work that's been already done throughout the years. Personally, I think it is critical to respect previous editor's work and ensure it remains integrated. The problems arise when points made are not supported by the sources. Even then, its worth trying to see if a reliable source for the point can be found. Also, if the source used does not represent the apparent consensus of the sources. Here too, I feel it is important to represent the point if it is documented, noting the lack of consensus. Wtfiv (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
The previous FA of this article seemed like an advertisement for Pernoud's book. That seemed unfair to other editors that don't conform to the translations. I may be biased due to that, but as you see I haven't touched this article. The rules say no machine translations, so verification is done by human hands. Please, continue to edit these works. 😄 Sinking into reality (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree about the sources. As to the translations I provided, I try to follow the guidelines of WP:HOWTRANS which addresses the role of machine translation. Any grammatical and translation infelicities are mine. I'm hoping that if they do not adequately reflect the text's language, someone else can clean them up. But at least they allow anyone interested to verify. (And whenever you do feel ready to jump in as an editor, please do!) Wtfiv (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles's response to Joan's capture

The previous version of the "Capture" section stated that Charles attempted to ransom and rescue Joan. This assertion was based on Pierre Champion's Dramatis Personae in Barrett. But almost every English-speaking biographer used here agrees that the evidence that Charles attempted to intervene is minimal. (The others I looked at tend to remain silent on the issue.) Since this issue is contentious with respect to the previous version in the article, I put both sides in a large footnote. Though I used many citations (though not exhaustively) to justify the use of "most biographers", I think each citation is interesting in its own right because it has a slightly different perspective. Even Vale, whose goal was to redeem the version of Charles created by likes of Bernard Shaw, and show Charles as an effective ruler, agrees no attempt was made. I still included Champion's counter-arguments and provided the specifics backing his claim from the other sources. I'm inclined to think that Champion's argument is far from strong. but wanted to make sure that the argument in the previous version was given its due. I'd prefer to just put in the main article a sentence to the effect that there's no reliable evidence that Charles tried to save Joan, and put Champion's argument in the footnote by itself. But, if anyone thinks the issue still lacks sufficient consensus, sidelining both sides to the footnote seems appropriate. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, but not a subject I know anything about! Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Pernoud's "Joan of Arc By Herself And Her Witnesses" (p 158) takes a fairly neutral view of the issue and gives a summary of some of the evidence, similar to Champion, except while leaving out the military campaigns. Lottin's "Recherches sur the la ville d'Orleans..." part 1, tome 2, p 267 says that the Battle of Savignies was the result of a rescue attempt. This view is probably more common among French authors than English-language ones, which makes the process of using only English-language sources problematic because it skews the "consensus" view on this topic. I would add that the authors who think "Charles did nothing to save her" do not present any evidence at all: they generally just repeat the allegation by itself, or claim that there isn't enough evidence for the opposing view while presenting none whatsoever to back up their own. At least Champion, Lottin, etc present evidence. But if you don't want to state the latter position in the main text we could always just provide a neutral and brief summary of the known evidence on that point but without promoting any conclusion or "side" of the argument, and then the footnote can retain the current examination of the opposing views. GBRV (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in JohnBod!
GBRV Yes, this is a hard one. The "Charles didn't help sources" rely on negative evidence for their point. (i.e., the absence of unambiguous sources) and Champion's "Charles did help" positive evidence is ambiguous or in the case of Morosini, quite second hand (as Pernoud notes). For example, the Normandy sorties cannot be unambiguously as rescue attempts. According to the English-language sources, there were two times when the Armagnac court argued for the Normandy option for taking out the heart of English-held France- right after the raising of the siege and after the coronation at of Reims. Once Joan's voice is taken out of the council, the forays into Normandy could've been a continuation of the preferred strategy with the coincidence that Rouen would be the ultimate prize with or without Joan. The sources I cite-usually with a "Charles didn't help" perspective- seem to present them more as part of a the larger war. If you see a way to present the issue in a more balanced way to put the footnote that would represent the issue- either as opposing views of of the historians and biographers or just presenting the ambiguity of the evidence, that'd be great. I tried to give a balance, but I think it could be done better and perhaps even a bit briefer.Wtfiv (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason Champion, Lottin, and others believed these campaigns were rescue attempts was because they would seem to have been operating "behind the lines" (to use a modern term) rather than the more usual practice of capturing a wide, contiguous swathe of territory to secure a normal line of advance with a protected supply route. The sources that mention Charles VII's views on the matter (his attempt to ransom Joan, etc) may be secondhand but there aren't any 15th century sources, of any kind, claiming he simply abandoned her: that's a modern assumption with no actual primary sources to back it up. Since there are thousands of books about Joan of Arc, it would be impossible to determine a consensus, but the more knowledgeable historians who were considered experts - Pernoud, Champion, etc - tended to either support the idea that Charles tried to save her or took a fairly balanced stance (Pernoud's exact view is difficult to determine from her many books on the subject, but she seemed to take a nuanced position). I'm just suggesting that we make a slight change in the current wording to provide a brief mention - without taking any position either way - of the sources which cite Charles' attempt to ransom her and the campaigns which are believed by some historians to have been rescue attempts; while leaving the footnote essentially as-is so it presents both sides in more detail. If that's acceptable, I can change it. GBRV (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Either would work. Making it briefer works if you think it would make the article stronger. My concern is that we keep the sources and note the lack of consensus. Champion's claim is the strongest English-language claim in the sources I could find, and as you note footnote is long because it aims to back up Champion's general statement with specifics from the other sources without judging whether they reflect an actual rescue attempt or not.
As an aside, Pernoud may indeed be nuanced. I rely on Pernoud and Clin's as much as I can because it seems to be her final published summary of her position. (I cited P & C's position, which seems to be clearly negative)). And, I do think many of the English sources cited are equally as knowledgeable and methodical in their sources as the French. Though admittedly, Pernoud's four-decade focus on Joan demands respectful consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeanne D'Arc du Lys

I was surprised that there is no mention of her surname in this article. I think it was her father that carried the name. I traced it back, here, to about 2006, the previous FA version. Ancestry.com now has an entry for her family and includes the surname (note: it does not have all her siblings mentioned). What do we need to include her surname somewhere in this article? Sinking into reality (talk) 11:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick check has two of the biographers stating that "du Lys" was added after Joan's family was conferred letters of nobility. (Gies, p. 134; Sackville-West, p. 370.) Pernoud & Clin are less direct- perhaps the issue is more complex in France- but they do make it clear that Joan's brothers, Jean and Pierre, did go by the name "du Lys" later in their life. If the name is added, it should be mentioned that it was part of conferring nobility. Please add the information, if you think it is appropriate. I'd suggest the written biographies above would be more reliable sources. Wtfiv (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Sinking into reality, I saw that this was still an open issue, so I put the information I found on "du Lys" in a footnote after the sentence regarding her family's ennoblement. I hope thats useful. Wtfiv (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes that is useful. I thought about updating her dad's page for the link about nobility. The note on her page is good, too. Sinking into reality (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossdressing Charge section

This section seems to me to mix two related, but distinct issues.

There is the issue of the biography at this point. As part of the narrative, the section after the trial cover how she was charged as a relapsed heretic within the context of a political trial with the pressure for a particular outcome. At this point, the importance of Joan resuming men's clothes is not whether it was justified but that it violated the terms of the abjuration document (at least the version given in the trial record).
The issue of her cross-dressing, or wearing men's clothes and hairstyles is an important one: How it was understood, explained and addressed. It seems to need to be addressed as its own topic, as it spans Joan's life from Vaucouleurs to Rouen, and the debate continues to contemporary times. (e.g., Sackville-West's emphasis on Joans's crossdressing) This is a complex issue with a lot of literature, including the points made in the article.
I'd like to move the detailed discussion of cross-dressing section into its own section, right before the visions section. That would allow a more streamlined biography but keep the information already in the cross dressing section and allow the addition of perspectives from additional sources. Wtfiv (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Previous "Cross-dressing" section merged into execution. Remaining material on "Cross-Dressing" added to section following "Visions", so that material is not lost and topic remains to be addressed. The paragraph describing execution may need a sentence on a further technical irregularity, which is that Joan was not submitted to secular trial before being executed. (e.g., P & C, p. 135) Wtfiv (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Point about the possibility that Joan was not being judged by the secular authorities. Stated it in a definite manner, as it seems to be the consensus I could find, but added Lightbody's evidenced caveat in a footnote. Wtfiv (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I slightly edited latest point about Joan wearing men's clothes. (Implied by not stated in references in "Execution" section, as this is the context of Pernoud's citations, who is explaining why Joan could be accused of "relapse" Details may need to be addressed in Cross-dressing section.) Pernoud, 1962, puts the three witnesses- Pierre Cusquel, Martin Ladvnu, and Isambart de la Pierre- who state that Joan explained her reasons to them.

I couldn't find any place in the citations where she explained how putting the clothes together impeded rape, though later sources for this argument may be found. I left it but, it seems appropriate for the Cross-dressing section where sources making the argument could be added.
(As an aside, some sources-Crane, 1996 & Hotchkiss, 2000) dispute that Joan's clothes were resumed to impeded abuse, given that she was chained up and had multiple guards.)
Also, When I tried to find Pernoud, 1955 p. 168, I got this entry on p. 168, which doesn't mention the clothing issue. But, I did find this on p. 269-270, but I'm not sure this is the intended citation because it seems to be a repeat of one of the testimonies given in Pernoud, 1962, 219-218. Are there additional sources in Pernoud 1955 different from Pernoud 1962? If so, we can add them. Wtfiv (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Added new source, Taylor 2009, to further support above point about Joan being harassed in prison. Taylor seems like a great source for the role the Dominicans played in helping Joan during her trial, but unfortunately access (and verifiability) is limited. Wtfiv (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Trial

Trial has been updated. I tried to touch on all the points in the original, updating them based on the new sources. The section also ends at about the same point as the previous version. A reading of the new sources make it clear that interpreting canon law gets complex, and some of the irregularities were accepted after the first trial and then questioned during the nullification. Both trials are political, so sorting the details is tough. If it was clear from the sources that the irregularity brought the trial legitimacy into question, I mentioned it with the supporting sources. If it didn't, I noted it in Joan's objections. Examples of the latter issues include Joan's last minute request for the pope's hearing, which could be rejected. A number of the sources make this clear. The other is Cauchon's legitimacy to try the case, which seems legitimate from most sources. The major issue was that Cauchon used a technicality to move the trial to Rouen. (See Lightbody, p. 102 footnote.) I also added a footnote on two assessors who objected to the process during the time of Joan's trial. Wtfiv (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: La Maître. I just update the reference to sfn with link and noted the eyewitneses were testifying at the rehabilitation trial. Trying to fairly reflect La Maître's role based on the sources was difficult. The evidence seems clear that he was personally hesitant to participate and may have been coerced. The problem is that testimony from the nullification trial twenty years later is just as political as the original trial. In the nullification, there are good reasons to minimize La Maître's role, as he represented the French Inquisitor. What is clear is that La Maître was required to represent Graverent, the Inquisitor of France. who ordered La Maître to be present on his behalf as he was working on another case. (The University of Paris presented one of the first calls to have Joan tried for heresy after she was captured, and used Graverent's name.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Recognized experts such as Pernoud did not dismiss the Rehabilitation testimony just because it was given 20 years later, in fact Pernoud relied heavily on the Rehabilitation testimony and wrote an entire book about it. Several eyewitnesses said LeMaitre was threatened, and Pernoud included some of the testimony on this point in her book "The Retrial of Joan of Arc".
True, Pernoud takes the source very seriously and the testimony is not dismissed. However, a number of sources make the point that 20 year old memories in a new political context need to be addressed cautiously. Pernoud illustrates this point very well. For example, in her discussion of the testimony of Thomas de Courcelles in the The Retrial of Joan of Arc pp. 265-270. Because he played such an active role in Joan's persecution, his retrial testimony is contradicted by the condemnation trial's record. (As I'm sure you know, he attempted to expunge his name from the list of the three out of ten assessors who voted in favor of torturing Joan.) Others at the trials may have their testimonies distored by their own perspectives and similar motivations, I would think the fairest solution is to mention it is testimony and leave the judgement of the degree of its veracity to the reader. Wtfiv (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
But the fact that Courcelles tried to whitewash his record does not have any bearing on the several eyewitnesses who all said that LeMaitre was threatened: none of the latter witnesses were Courcelles, they were testifying about someone other than themselves (LeMaitre wasn't whitewashing his own record since he didn't testify at all), and the problem with Courcelles' testimony was not due to the twenty-year passage of time but rather to his own deliberate dishonesty. And if you really want to use the passage of time as a justification for dismissing testimony at the Rehabilitation trial, you would need to dismiss all of it since all of it was given over twenty years after her death, not just the testimony about LeMaitre. GBRV (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, the chief problems with the Condemnation Trial were not merely technicalities but rather far more serious violations: e.g. the fact that a secular government manipulated the process using their own supporters as tribunal members, which was forbidden by the Church's doctrine. Eyewitness after eyewitness testified that the judge, Cauchon, corrupted the trial, and this was one of Pernoud's main themes especially in books such as "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses". After the execution, the English government issued a Writ of Guarantee on 12 June 1431 agreeing to protect the tribunal from Papal prosecution for their role in the trial, which Henry Charles Lea (a famous historian) pointed out would be clear proof that the government knew their trial was itself an act of heresy. The Rehabilitation trial, by contrast, was conducted by a much more balanced group and therefore was far less politically motivated.
I agree with the key points. The rehabilitation trial clearly established that the original trial was flawed and the original trial's findings were correctly annulled Also, that the flaws were not merely technical; they were profound. (I only raised the technical problem of Cauchon's appropriateness to oversee the case, because it was stated as clearcut in the original article, but is actually contentious issue amongst the academic writers. It's best to list the clear cases, as other issues move the discussion away from Joan herself.)
Many of the sources point out that the second trial was very much political. One concise summary of a view that is also repeated in other sources by historians is Waugh (History of Europe; the chapter on Charles VII and the Church, 96–97). But I don't think this needs to be emphasized in the article. The citations are there for interested readers.
I think the most important point that the rehabilitation trial invalidated the condemnation trial because of its profound problems is most important. In particular, the sources suggest Bréhal was extremely thorough, as just a glance at his Recollectio shows. Wtfiv (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
The reason I removed the mention of certain clergy being related to Charles VII is because most of the upper nobility and clergy were related to each other, in fact the English Royal family and the Duke of Burgundy were related to Charles VII, but opposed him nonetheless. The inclusion of this information seems designed to imply bias in favor of Charles VII, which is misleading since there were also many Italians (including prominent members of the Papal Court) who took part in the Rehabilitation trial, and Charles VII didn't have many partisans even among his own family members. Certainly it wasn't nearly as biased as the Condemnation trial, hence the latter fact needs to be emphasized rather than implying that the two were somehow comparable. Additionally, some historians have questioned whether Charles VII even supported a full appeal of the case, or whether he only supported the initial investigation in 1450. Joan's family seems to have pushed it forward. GBRV (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The separate section for the cross-dressing issue is fine as long as it will not become a repository for every opinion on the subject. You mentioned Sackville-West, who was a novelist rather than a historian. GBRV (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't want it to be a repository for that either. But the academic environment has its debate. Interestingly, I'm not so sure they are much in contradiction with the "necessity" argument.
I agree Sackville-West needs to be cited carefully. She indeed writes novels, but her Saint Joan is a nonfiction biography that is respected, well-cited, thoroughly researched, and sourced with footnotes. In addition, she sometimes states a point elegantly. But it would be problematic to forward her interpretation of events in contradiction to a researcher like Pernoud. I mention her in the talk because she focuses on the cross-dressing issue from a more feminist perspective. This open-access article from [jsotr daily] is a fascinating read and it has a great link to a critical article by Sproles (1996) on the strengths and weaknesses of Sackville's biography, particularly in the context of Joan's crossdressing. Wtfiv (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

There is a typo in the "Trial" section.

"The interrogation procedures were below inquisitorial standards,[258] subjecting Joan to lengthy interrogations[259] without legal council." This should read legal COUNSEL not legal COUNCIL.

Thank you. 24.69.136.252 (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done SpinningCeres 02:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joan_of_Arc/Archive_13&oldid=1084518960"