Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

Introduction

The last line of the first paragraph mentions "the French decision", however, no French decision has been mentioned before, so it is not clear what decision is meant here. (it appears to be refering to her execution for heresy, however, this is said to have been an English decision just one line above) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.248 (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! I think this is the result of a recent edit to the text above it. Probably needs to be changed but also checked to make sure we have this right. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Godfather of Jeanne d' Arc was Jean Morel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.160.137.130 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it fits here or not, but you guys DO realize her name in French is Jehanne, not Jeanne. At least that's how she signed her letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.149.138 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Assult

St. Joan was NOT raped in prison.

This is probably one of the most controversial issues about Joan. This is even a subject of debate to this day. There is a whole amount of substantial evidence to refute this point. I will point out the 3 best arguments in favor of Joan *not* being raped::

1. St. Joan, when she was informed of her impending death, cried out loud, "Alas, they treat me horribly and cruelly, so that my body, CLEAN AND WHOLE, WHICH WAS NEVER CORRUPTED, must this day be consumed and reduced to ashes!" This is the most powerful argument in favor of a no-rape argument. Joan is praised today for her truthfulness, yet many historians today, almost 600 years later, think they know better!

2. If her guards would have raped her, it would have been a subject of bragging. Yet, it was not. The Duke of Bedford would have cited it as proof Joan was not sent by God, since He did not protect her from such an event. He(the Duke) never spoke of anything like this.

3. On occasion, she complained to Bishop Cauchon that she dreaded being raped by her guards, and that on occasion the guards wished to violate her. If she was unashamed of it enough to tell the bishop of her fear of it, why would she not tell the bishop if it happened? She would have told it like it was. Again, historians think they know better, and they do not know better.

Joan of Arc kept her virginity until her last moment. Mrs Virginia Frohlick,Mr. Williamson,Dr Judith Fein,Mr. Norman Butin and some others have proved that she was NOT raped. for more information visit the link below:

http://www.stjoan-center.com/

i believe that the term"rape victims" must be ommitted for it implies this historical lies that Joan was raped.--84.47.246.7 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That website is not citable as a reliable source for Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Jehanne was probably not raped. Those three reasons are mentioned again at maidjoan.tripod.com . If we all think she wasn't raped, why is it still on the page? -Lea (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Because tripod sites don't satisfy the reliable sources guideline. What matters for editorial discussion is not whether you or I believe one thing or another, but whether it's been the subject of serious scholarly discussion. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the heading on this page, just because the title "myth" really didn't fit. You can change it back if you want -Lea (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Life

Someone established needs to remove the red font off the "Jean de Metz" and "Bertrand de Poulogny" words- I have just created a page. Thanks. Stefinho360

Yeah, but neither of them satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements and their existence wasn't recorded other than in conjunction with Joan of Arc, and the source you attempt to cite doesn't work (and appears to be an unreliable personal website). Durova^Charge! 23:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Debate over sexual assault

Under the execution header, this point is delivered as a fact, siting only one source. However, this is a controversial matter, and even to this day, historians cannot agree as to whether or not she was actually assaulted during her imprisonment. I feel it is necessary to edit this article to present both sides, in order to maintain neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.38.192 (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a source that asserts she wasn't assaulted. The sources I've seen debate whether the assault went as far as rape, not whether it occurred at all. If there are reputable sources that argue what you say then of course we can incorporate them. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"[[1]]" Click on the "1", this webiste has something! You do have to scroll down aways, but it's there. -Lea (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tripod sites are not reliable sources and cannot be used as citations on Wikipedia. Durova^Charge! 23:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

what's wrong with tripod sites? -Lea (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

welll; i read a book on her in social studies, it never said anything about anything like an assault. But, she was treated cruely, so that could fall under that catagory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.129.244 (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. Durova^Charge! 06:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, tripod site or not, there still is debate on whether she was assulted or not, so shouldn't the article mention no one's certain whether she was assulted or not? -Lea (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The debate is about how far it went. One of the men who was present during her captivity later testified under oath that he had attempted to molest her by putting his hands on her breasts, so she had shoved him away with all her strength. There's a rather large continuum between that and rape. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In the box, under Patronage, there is parenthesis reading ...(though she was not raped) which I think aught to be removed. There should be consistency here. If there is not good source to back up one side or the other maybe it's best to make no reference at all, or else mention that it's disputed. --Cammacleay (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Durova, let me quote you: "One of the men who was present during her captivity later testified under oath that he had attempted to molest her by putting his hands on her breasts, so she had shoved him away with all her strength. There's a rather large continuum between that and rape." Putting hands on breast is rather large continuum with a rape... I do believe there is no neutrality in your sentence and you only let us see your own point of view. Plus the reference of that is Régine Pernoud who said in her book something around "could have been raped". In the retrial's second deposit of Martin Ladvenu (reference of Mrs Pernoud), he talked about somebody who only tried to rape her. Sorry but I don't see either affirmation of a rape nor the opposite. Finally, I think there is a modification to do about the alleged sexual assault, in order to respect the wikipedia neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.156.111 (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It must be specified in the article, because "sexually assaulted" sounds like "raped". That causes confusion.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a web cite that argues that Joan of Arc was not raped (http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_rape_refutation.html). It also has a supporting text document that provides an extensive reference list supporting this argument (bottom of the page "Primary Sources of Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing." I feel, at a minimum, that it should be explained that there is debate whether she was raped. The article currently states that she was sexually assaulted, which is somewhat unclear as this term implies (to most) rape but may refer to any unwanted and/or uninvited sexual contact. I think it would be better to explain that attempted rape is supported by historical record and that Joan denied being raped.

citation needed?

"Among the specific challenges that potential diagnoses such as schizophrenia face is the slim likelihood that any person with such a disorder could gain favor in the court of Charles VII."

This assumes the court had means of knowing that Joan had schizophrenia or some other disorder. If we know that they had ways of knowing this, shouldn't we be able to that up with a citation? Also, if they were willing to accept a woman (in a male-dominant time) who claimed to have visions from God (when direct contact with God was believed to be something only male priests had) is it really that unlikely they'd accept someone with schizophrenia when they were as desperate as the French were, regardless of what Charles VI had?

Also, the page on schizophrenia says that the paranoid subtype lacks the disorganized thinking, speech, and behavior symptoms, so I don't see how that subtype conflicts with any aspect of Joan's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.134.37 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This question is hard to parse because mainstream paradigms have changed so much over six centuries. Schizophrenia is a modern diagnosis. The closest the court might have come to this would have been a general designation of madness. It was not particularly unusual for someone of either sex to claim to have visions from God--quite a few female visionary saints date from the late Middle Ages--and assertions of divine guidance garnered substantially more respect during the fifteenth century than in the twenty-first.

So it's unclear what type of citation is desired: none of the original sources asserted Joan of Arc was a madwoman, and no pre-twentieth century scholar proposed that idea. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does the article seem to imply that we know, or at least have good reason to believe, that the court of King Charles VII would know if Joan had schizophrenia? If some source gives us good reason to believe this, it should be cited. If nobody in her time ever proposed that she was insane, than she probably seemed quite sane weather she was or not, so it makes sense that she might gain favor in the court as a result of the court not knowing about her condition (assuming she had a condition, of course). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Schizophrenia as we now call it was unknown to the fifteenth century, likewise epilespy and a range of other modern diagnoses. What the fifteenth century court did have a concept of was madness, and this is cited in the discussion of Charles VI and in the Marguerite de Touroulde testimony. Durova^Charge! 01:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt she was insane or had some serious mental illness, i would put it, she was deeply religious and the angels she mention in the trial is those who inspire her to do her missions, from reading her trial records, and myself visited France and the places she went at that time, and reading documents about her life, her battles and etc, I find it funny to think someone this brave and heroic can have some sort of mental illness, surely it would affect her decision at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.144.67 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"I find it funny to think someone this brave and heroic can have some sort of mental illness" Why? Who says mentally ill people can't be brave and heroic and vice versa? In my personal opinion, this seems more logical than a god who waits 75 years for France to reach its most desperate point before finally sending them help, then allows that help to be captured and burned at the stake 22 years before the end of the war.

"surely it would affect her decision at that time" What decision at what time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To whoever added the comments I responded to above: [Mayoclinic] says schizophrenia can range from mild to severe and that some who have it can function quite well in daily life. The bottom of its page on paranoid schizophrenia lists disorganized thinking as a symptom that those with paranoid schizophrenia (as opposed to other subtypes of schizophrenia) might not have and that is mild for those who have it. So no, I don't think it would necessarily affect her decision making, except that it would make her quite determined by making her think she'd been chosen by God. I know the article must remain NPOV, but ignoring a possible natural cause seems POV to me.

How could Jehanne's visions come from mental illness when they told her that things that happened would happen. Like they told her she would be wounded above the chest, and she was. They told her she had one more year on her mission a year before she was caught. Explain that! -Lea (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1436, Queen Isabeau of Bavaria concluded the Treaty of Troyes, which granted the French royal succession to Henry V and his heirs in preference to her son Charles. This agreement revived rumors about her supposed affair with the late duke of Orléans and raised fresh suspicions that the Dauphin was a royal bastard rather than the son of the king.

someone change the date, it didn't happen in 1436 it happened around 1420. I think it should be locked by guests, since people have easy access to edit this page and it goes unnoticed because it's usually dates changed which is quite annoying. 124.183.240.60 (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, a bit of vandalism that slipped past. Yes, 1420. Fixing. Durova^Charge! 07:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to "How could Jehanne's visions come from mental illness when they told her that things that happened would happen. Like they told her she would be wounded above the chest, and she was. They told her she had one more year on her mission a year before she was caught."

1. You haven't cited any evidence that Joan's voices or visions said what you claim they did. 2. It's easy to predict that someone on a battlefield will be wounded in the chest. 3. Wouldn't someone trying to help her tell her she was going to be caught? Only having one more year on her mission could just as easily mean "you will win next year" or "the French will be defeated next year" or "You'll be shot down on the battle field next year". 4. It could have been a coincidence. 5. We have only her word that her voices and visions actually said these things.

You're attributing words to me in quotations that I have never stated, and asking me to defend them. Durova^Charge! 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not the one I was replying to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I remember where I read about what her Voices told her. It was in a book titled Joan by Donald Spoto, and it's a really good biography with very little POV. What her voices told her as far as time was: "You have only one year to complete your mission" or something like that. -Lea (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Visions

are there any details of what she saw? Also I heard from an unreliable source that she had the sword of Charlemagne, whose location she learned from a vision. is this completely false, a claim she made, or an addition by later story tellers? Rds865 (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

She lived in an era when swords were sometimes donated to churches as devotional offerings. Contemporary sources reported that she did predict a sword would be found beneath the altar of a certain church (offhand I don't recall which one, but if memory serves it wasn't far from Chinon). And beneath the altar was indeed a sword that had several fleurs de lys inscribed on it, and the weapon hadn't rusted beyond repair. The earliest claims about that sword's origin were recorded well after her death. Haven't looked that legend up in quite a while, but I seem to recall later writers attributed it to Charles Martel. Durova^Charge! 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, it was Saint Catherine's sword, I think. I could be wrong, though.

The church was dedicated to a Saint Catherine. Durova^Charge! 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to "are there any details of what she saw?". According to my history teacher, she said she saw angels. She might have mentioned other things, but I can't remember what they were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand something:

"Potential diagnoses have included epilepsy, migraine, tuberculosis, schizophrenia, and Meniere's disease.[59] None of the putative diagnoses have gained consensus support because, although hallucination and religious enthusiasm can be symptomatic of various syndromes, other characteristic symptoms conflict with other known facts of Joan's life."

How would paranoid schizophrenia conflict with any known aspect of Joan's life, and why aren't hallucinations listed as a symptom on the Meniere's disease page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Also, there's a conversation in the archives where someone named AWilliamson claims to have sent proof to a journal on epilepsy proving Joan of Arc didn't have it. Does anyone know where to find the article he was responding to, and what the proof was? The conversation is under the "epilepsy theory" section of Archive (Nov 2004-Apr 2005)

Also, the implication that an astute person can't be mentally ill is incorect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.65.16 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AWilliamson has been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia as the Joan of Arc vandal. Among other things, he mocked up a PDF file to resemble a scholarly journal in an attempt to make his own ideas appear authoritative. Regarding current article content, I'll take out the Meniere's disease mention because that was added without citation to existing cited material. Durova^Charge! 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

She was "visited" by St. Catherine, St. Michael, and St. Margaret (check spelling)...i read a book about her in social studies..so i'm pretty reliable ;D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.129.244 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Biopolar / Manic Depressive?

Stephen Fry has a documentary called something like "The Secret Life of the Manic Depressive". One of the people he interviews has frequent visions of angels. The disorder is such that you cycle through phases, and many (like Fry) live very productive and creative lives (perhaps because of their disorder). It is possible, but pure speculation, that Joan of Arc had a similar mood disorder, where the up-mood (mania) produced a sort of religious hallucination. It makes more sense to me than any of the other non-religious explanations. Of course, she's been dead for centuries, so it's all just speculation. Has anyone heard anything like this about Joan? Might be worth looking into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.174.13 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, interesting observation. The article already has a section to discuss the competing psychiatric/neurological theories. Durova^Charge! 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This idea fascinates me, and is actually something that I thought of last night while watching "The Messenger" (regardless of what you think of the movie's quality, it deals with her religious visions in an interesting light). I have a friend who is bipolar, and he can be very capable at times, and has similar strange sensations (during these moods he's usually quite witty and quick as well, even able to do things like rhyme well). Perhaps if he was religiously inclined he'd think of these sensations differently? It's so interesting! Has anyone come across any scholarly articles about a manic depressive explanation? Currently the section on mental illness seems to confuse mental illness with something that makes one incapable of leadership or success, which is actually somewhat insulting. Certainly Charles thinking himself made of glass is a bad crazy, but seeing St. Michael... well... that might have made people think differently about him. Manic Depressives are often known as much for their charisma and charm as for their otherwise "crazy" outbursts. Any psychology majors in the house? I don't really have a background in this, beyond personal connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.48.85 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

title

did she have a title, or a description of her position, or was she just head of the army? Rds865 (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Her preferred title was la pucelle which means the maiden. Durova^Charge! 06:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Or "La Pucelle d'Olreans" I think. At least in English she's refered to "The Maid of Orleans", but I'm not sure if she was called that back in her day. -Lea (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The of Orleans designation made its first appearance after her death. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

MOTHER GODDESS?

Can anyone who has researched Joan of Arc help me out with a query? The story seems to indicate to traces of matriarchal 'living' goddess cults. The case appears to be an incorporation of 'pagan' (non-Christian) matriarchal ritual forms or a transition from pre-Christian rituals to a Christian one. Is there any research which can help me out with this? Many thanks Modern Tribal (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The trial transcripts examine some non-Christian rituals that were practiced among French peasants during her time: mandrake roots, laying wreaths upon a tree near her village, and a few other things. Joan of Arc was aware that such customs existed, but carefully avoided them. That seems to be along the lines of your question, although none of it specifically posits the existence of matriarchal goddess cults. Durova^Charge! 06:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I SEE FROM the entry that Joan of Arc could not be tried for witchcraft due to technical reasons. However, are there any formal or substantial similarities between her trial and contemporary trials of people accused of witch-craft or shamanism? Modern Tribal (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, witchcraft trials in general were far more common in the sixteenth century than in the fifteenth. Suggest you look into histories of the Inquisition. Quite a while ago I read one that treated her trial as something of a special case, but didn't cite it here because it was tangential to a basic biography. Durova^Charge! 18:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help Modern Tribal (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was mentioned or if it even relates to what this is about, but Jehanne was found not to be a witch because she was a maiden. -Lea (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

DESCENDANTS TODAY?

Does she have any descendants living today? from her brothers line or any relatives line? sorry but google isn't really useful and i have a project on French national icons and I picked Jehanne La Pucelle (her real name, not what people call her after she died ;) ), have to ask here, thanks. 124.184.77.41 (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There probably are, but we don't know who. A couple of years ago when a scientific team examined bone fragments that were reputed to be hers they didn't attempt a genetic comparison against living relatives because of the likelihood that intervening generations had falsified their family trees.

On the other hand, a statistical argument could be made that just about anyone in France is probably descended from somebody among her siblings and first or second cousins. She was born almost exactly six centuries ago, so if we assume four generations a century each person would have 2²⁴ ancestors from her generation, or approximately 16.8 million. According to Wikipedia's demographics of France article, France had around 16.6 million people in 1400. Several factors would complicate the estimate if we did a careful analysis, but the bottom line is that if she had a normal number of relatives who averaged a normal number of descendants, then a very large number of living people would be distantly related to her. Durova^Charge! 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You put the figure X^(YZ) where Y is six centuries and Z is four generations, why does X equal 2? — Dzonatas 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while, Dzonatas. How've you been? Durova^Charge! 01:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because people have X=2 parents, I imagine. -- pne (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Could someone who has edit permissions for this article please rewrite the introduction? I also think there needs to be more information on Joan's childhood and the nature of her visions including what mental illness, if any, explains them. Thank you.Risssa (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you are new, you WILL have permissions to edit this article in about two days if I recall correctly. So go ahead and edit the article yourself after those two days, which can serve you to gather reliable sources for the changes you want to make. Also, in those two days you could read WP:NOR,WP:V and WP:NPOV which are the basic policies of Wikipedia. I encourage you to make the edits that you want, providing they comply with the policies I have mentioned. Thank you for wanting to make this encyclopedia better and good luck. If you need any help don't hesitate in contact me at my talk page.--Legion fi (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually the introduction has expanded significantly since the page passed featured article candidacy and probably needs to be trimmed down. The navigation bar makes it fairly easy to find that information within the main body of the article. Durova^Charge! 06:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction repeats itself a few times without really expanding on any points. I'll change this when I get home from work, though I suspect whatever I do will just be reverted. 12.192.132.130 (talk) 17:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the version that passed FAC would be a good point to start from. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For comparison, here's how it stood on 9 March 2006 when the FAC was closing. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Joan of Arc, also Jeanne d'Arc in modern French, various historical versions (1412^[2] – 30 May 1431) is a national heroine of France and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church. She believed she had visions from God that told her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege at Orléans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence when she overcame the light regard of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Rheims and settled the disputed succession to the throne.

The renewed French confidence outlasted her own brief career. Court intrigues slowed further offensive action. Her leg was wounded during an unsuccessful attempt to recover Paris and she was captured the following spring during a skirmish near Compiègne. A politically motivated trial convicted her of heresy. The English regent John, duke of Bedford had her burnt at the stake in Rouen. She had been the heroine of her country at the age of seventeen and died at just nineteen. Some twenty-four years later Pope Callixtus III reopened the case and a new finding overturned the original conviction.^[3] Her piety to the end impressed the retrial court. Pope Benedict XV canonized her on 16 May, 1920.

Joan of Arc has remained an important figure in Western culture. From Napoleon to the present, French politicians of all leanings have invoked her memory. Major writers and composers who created works about her include Shakespeare, Voltaire, Schiller, Verdi, Tchaikovsky, Twain, Shaw, and Brecht. Depictions of her continue in film, television, and song.^[4]

Also to note, it's spelled "Jehanne" in French, not "Jeanne". ;-) 71.108.149.138 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We have an entire sourced article on the subject. I would have no objection to a qualified statement in slightly greater detail, but it simply isn't accurate to assert that either Jeanne or Jehanne is the definitive spelling of her name in French: convention changed over time. If you wish to argue otherwise, please provide sources to counter the ones already provided. Durova^Charge! 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed edit creep

I have removed the following section from the article, none of which was in the version that passed FAC and which mostly appears to be geared to send traffic to one particular website. None of the citations are adequate: no page numbers for Mora, and the other site probably doesn't pass the reliable sources criteria. Durova^Charge! 06:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many stories of miracles and predictions made by Joan of Arc, some of which are likely fiction, while others may have a basis in reality.

• When first meeting Robert de Baudricourt, Joan claimed that there was a prophecy that stated that France, let down by a powerful woman, would be saved by a peasant girl. The woman in question would have been Isabeau of Bavaria, wife of the late King Charles VI, and who was the driving force behind the Treaty of Troyes which handed France over to the English..

• Joan finally convinced Baudricourt to help her by telling him that the French had recently suffered a defeat at Orléans known as the Battle of the Herrings, days before messengers officially confirmed it.[5]

• When Joan first arrived in Chinon to meet the Dauphin he had ordered another man to take his place while he mixed with the other courtiers. However, Joan ignored the other man and proceeded straight to Charles, kneeling before him and announcing that he was the true King of France.[6]

• When offered a sword, she announced that hers was buried behind the altar of the chapel of Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois. It was found and taken to her. It has been suggested that it was the sword of Charles Martel who drove the Muslims out of France in the 8th century AD. By all accounts she did not use her word in battle and was more of a standard-bearer, though there are claims that she struck prostitutes with the sword following defeats in the siege of Paris.[7]

• During the battle of Orléans, Glansdale, an English commander, insulted Joan who warned him that he would die without losing any blood. A few days later Glansdale fell into a nearby river and was held down by the weight of his armour.

I'm uncomfortable about the reinsertion of this list. It was originally added without discussion, then got reinserted wholesale although only one concern has been resolved out of a number of problems that I first expressed in the edit summary and this thread, then elaborated here. The section is still inadequately sourced linkspam to a commercial site that fails to satisfy WP:RS and is sub-notable for top level article. The editor who is interested in the material has not responded to my alternative suggestion of incorporating material into a subordinate article. I am taking it down again because, in addition to these unresolved problems, the poorly sourced section fails featured article criteria 1a, 1c, and 2c. Please discuss what you want to accomplish and reach an acceptable compromise. Durova^Charge! 07:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

These Myths and Legends are part of Joan of Arc's appeal and are mentioned in many history books. What exactly have you got against them and what will convince you to let them stay?--Marktreut (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This material is inherently list-oriented and list sections are incompatible with featured article requirements. The material would be fine for a subordinate article, particularly with better referencing. That's why I reposted on the talk page instead of simply deleting, because I agree something could be done with it. There once was a subordinate article along these lines and reviving that under a new name with a slightly different orientation seems like the best solution. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

50 acres are 0,125 square kilometer or 12,5 hectar, not 0,2 sq.km as in the article, under Life; please correct.

50 acres are 0,125 square kilometer or 12,5 hectar, not 0,2 sq.km as in the article, under Life; please correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelsbrunner (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

Why isn't her birthdate listed as 6 January? The 15th century source sounds correct and plus I've a source here from the Catholic Encyclopedia that says 6 January.jeanne (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There's an extensive footnote regarding that. Durova^Charge! 15:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We're currently showing it as "c. 6 January". I'm not sure about this. Either we have evidence that it was precisely 6 January, or we have evidence that her date of birth is not known. I think we have the latter. The traditional date is 6 January, but this may be months away from the real date for all we know. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, someone came along and did that inappropriately. We don't even know whether she was born in 1412, and have no idea what season it was--much less what month or day. In sworn testimony, neither Joan of Arc nor anyone from her village could give her exact age. That "c. January 6" is what Wikipedians call edit creep. Durova^Charge! 16:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Place of execution

In that history,like journalism is all about the who,what,why,when and where I was surprised to see the actual reputed place of Joan of Arcs execution in this wiki article to be missing. According to several tourist brochures I have seen and also E.Britanicca,she was reputed to have been executed in the Vieux-Marche [old market]in the centre of Rouen. I added it yesterday and it was removed,so I added it again today. Why add it? well,a tourist to Rouen might want to try to find the place for one thing but it makes the point also that she was executed in a public and secular location.Will it be deleted again? Lee Brown (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I apologize for the removal; it was accidental. Someone had made a lot of hagiographic POV insertions and I thought I was just removing that, plus some unsourced editorializing and poorly sourced redundancy. The text did name Rouen in earlier drafts; when I double checked the photograph of her execution site the name of the city wasn't linked there. A process known as edit creep sometimes damages the best articles, especially at high traffic pages. Regards, Durova^Charge! 16:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW is it appropriate to refer to the part of town as the Vieux-Marche? I doubt it was known by that name in the fifteenth century. Durova^Charge! 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Can someone explain to me how is it possible that IPs can edit this article although it is semi-potected?--  LYKANTROP  16:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question. You might ask at WP:RFPP? Durova^Charge! 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not semi-protected. The tag is erroneous (or perhaps out of date.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, now it is fixed, but the vandalism is so intense that it could be semi-protected...--  LYKANTROP  18:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mostly school vandalism. Usually we semiprotect it for a good part of the school year. The article gets around 150,000 page views a month. With that much traffic vandalism is inevitable. If it gets bothersome you can request another semi. Durova^Charge! 07:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)