Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 14

Added OSM Map
I added an OSM map (inspired by Ruedi33a) to give readers a better sense of the geographical relation of the important locations in Joan's life. If the consensus is the older previous listing of her battles is preferred, it easily be reverted. Wtfiv (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Wtfiv, the OSM map is very useful in this great article. Especially the number of users who open this article with a mobile or a tablet can use it perfectly on their device. You can give to them additional Lists of links as it is shown in my OSM map in Napoleon in fullscreen mode. Please keep in mind that

the templates at the end of this article are not visible at all in mobile mode. Thanks for informing me Ruedi33a (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Joan of Arc
 * Symbols of the French Republic
 * Catholic saints|state=collapsed
 * Thanks for the headsup As we get to the final cleanup for FAR, I'll try to make sure to fix this. Maybe another editor that works with this markup, as these expandable areas are not my expertise. Wtfiv (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you believe merging the military person infobox into the main saint infobox as a module to consolidate the information would be warranted, or would that be too much information in one area? It would look something like this if it were done. Also, there appears to be considerable dispute over Joan of Arc's real name (see Name of Joan of Arc), so I think for the moment nothing should be listed in the "birth name" field (or like fields) for that reason. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When I built the OSM map, I figured it would replace the list of names of the battles that was in the military box. My main concern was that it might disrupt people who prefer the list.
 * But, my own feeling is that putting the OSM in the infobox would be overwhelming. Here's my reasons: I think that whoever put the military infobox where they did had a good sense of design. The picture goes well there in my opinion and the military infobox goes with the military aspect of Joan, which is just part of her story. The labels on the OSM also match the subheadings for the "Military Campaigns", so it serves as a kind of visual aid. Also, moving the OSM map up would visually compete with the map of the Hundred Years' War to the left (for people using a desktop).
 * I did see that you were thinking of footnoting links to the articles of the battles. I'm not sure that is needed if we keep the OSM map. In addition to helping readers get a sense of the geographical relationships of Joan's world. (I tried to get locations as exact as the sources allowed.) The interactive element of the OSM map already has this, it includes labels with descriptions, links, and their order. Though I'm somewhat biased to keeping the OSM map, having built it, do you think reverting back to the earlier military list would be better?
 * With the issues regarding Joan's name, I don't have a strong feeling one way or another. Maybe other editors could weigh in?  I do think putting a birthname there would be ideal.  The issue would be making a choice that works for editors and watchers.
 * Thanks for asking! (And I went through and put the copy edit fixes of your first two edits back in.) Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Visions and Cross-dressing
It'd be great if you take on the visions and cross-dressing sections. I have a couple of requests, if you are comfortable with them.
 * For the visions, I'm not sure why the section starts out problematizing the visions. In Joan's time, visions were an accepted phenomena of her world. Not exactly an everyday affair, but accepted as existing in a world of revelation. The big issue was the source (God or the devil.) Would you be comfortable opening the section with something along these lines? (Better put, of course!) Of course, all the modern explanations can be given too, but they seem secondary to the understanding of Joan and her time. Of course, its your section to run with.
 * Similarly with cross-dressing. It seems the argument that Joan's dressing in male attire was practical is the predominate theme in this article, so it makes sense to go with that. But could paragraphs with alternative views be presented too (e.g., Hotchkiss and Bullough). I think they deserve mention as this issue remains a source of controversy like visions, and there seems to be no final word. (Also, I found some sources on Joan's dress- though I'd have to figure out where I saw them. So describing Joan's clothes without relying on a French source may not be too hard. Just ask, and I'll look them up and send them your way, if you wish.)
 * Again, these are just requests. And I'm glad you've been (gently) copy editing what I've done so far.  I'll stick to working on the trial section for now.  Citation/text linkages in that section are a bit messy, but connecting the dots is definitely interesting. Wtfiv (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can begin the Visions section with a discussion of how the issue was viewed at the time. On the cross-dressing issue: Crane is a literature professor, Hotchkiss is described as a librarian and religious studies professor, and Bullough was known mainly as a "sexologist". We need to stick to the views of historians who were recognized experts on Joan of Arc. GBRV (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Rehabilitation Trial
[Moved this section here, as it is current.] The posthumous events section is brief and flows naturally into the retrial, so I'd like to suggest merging them, if there aren't major concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a list of recent edits that I made:
 * Merged both mentions of petition of Joan's family into one.- with citations that match statement.
 * Reworked mention of Viennese professor (he was Leonard of Brixenthal, though he is left unnamed in the article.) It was previously mentioned in footnote with citation, but reworked into a clause at end of sentence. Other sources mention that clerics and lawyers consulted were either from France or Italy (the papal court).
 * Mention of Guillaume d'Estouteville's relation to Charles was put back in. It is explicitly stated in all three citations.
 * Moved quote of Isabelle Rommée's opening words to a footnote with citation from Pernoud 1962.
 * Changed mention of "Rehabilitation trial" back to "retrial", as that is what was used in the text of this article.
 * Most of the major sources call it the rehabilitation trial or the nullification trial. I think choosing one of these names-rehabilitation or nullification- would be great to use throughout the article, as it is more descriptive than retrial and retrial implies that Joan herself was present to be retried. I'd opt for rehabilitation, as that is used in Quicherat, and has been used in footnotes to reference citations to his copies of the Latin transcripts of the trial.  Any thoughts for or against?  If there are no comments or consensus, I'll just leave it as is. Wtfiv (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Canonization and Legacy
Joan's canonization seemed very much tied to her legacy, and the canonization section is very short, so I'm thinking of merging these two. Please let me know if there are concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Lack of evidence that Cauchon was excommunicated
Trying to be consistent with the Pierre Cauchon article, I had added a footnote from a work by Cerf that Callixtus III had excommunicated Cauchon. I have removed it. The one "reliable" English-language source for this claim seems to be the [ Cauchon article in the 1910 Encyclopaedia Britannica], which relies on an French-language article in:
 * [ p. 15].

The Brittanica article appears to be a misreading of an isolated sentence. (It also claims it was done by a Callixtus IV, Callixtus III was the last Callixtus for now). Cerf's page is linked above. If read in full, he makes the argument that if Cauchon had been excommunicated by Callixtus III and his body thrown in a ditch, the Chapter at Reims would not have continued to celebrate a mass for his repose every December, and his remains would not continue to lie Liseaux as attested as late as 1620. Also see Olivier Bouzy's note in Fresh Verdicts on Joan of Arc that Cauchon's body remains in Liseaux. If a more reliable academic or theological source can be found that Cauchon was posthumously excommunicated, it could be put back in. Wtfiv (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Joan's Legacy
I replaced the points about Joan being a warrior and unifying the kingdom of France pending further discussion. Both of these are amply cited. For the first point,Richey and DeVries, both of whom are heavily relied on in this article, make this their key point in describing her military campaigns. Tyler makes the point in a slightly different context, but she makes it well. (Being a warrior or soldier does not implied she wielded a weapon. Richey and DeVries use the word "soldier". Similarly her role in unifying the French kingdom is well attested.  Both of these are important points as they make sense of her use in the Franco-Prussian War, World War I, and World War II, as well as naming warships after her.  They could be reworked into the following paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My own thought was "warrior" was apt as it also includes being a leader (i.e., General or standard bearer) who does not carry a weapon.). As mentioned, DeVries and Richey use the word "soldier", but maybe there is some other word? Perhaps "military leader"? Or something else? Wtfiv (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I did try to incorporate the previous information into the new edits. It is just organized differently and (hopefully) better cited. I removed the list of the three WWI songs, but they are still in the Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which seems a more appropriate location. Wtfiv (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Warrior" is a vague term that usually implies fighting or leading, whereas she didn't do either (the commanders mention taking advice from her, but that was due to her role as an accepted religious visionary. She didn't have formal command). She didn't unite France since she was captured by pro-Burgundian troops (the Burgundian faction didn't reconcile with Charles VII until 1435). The restored text additionally contains a typo ("whose leadership helped restored...", which should be "...helped restore..."); and the entire sentence essentially repeats material that is similar to the preceding sentences (as I recall anyway). GBRV (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Joan and the Catholic League
I deleted the unsourced sentence stating Joan was a symbol for the Catholic League. I've done a fairly extensive search and could find no strong connection in a reliable source. I did find mention of a sword in Dijon with engraved names associated with Joan of Arc (e.g., Charles VII, Vaucouleurs) in Pernoud & Clin, 1986, p. 266, that makes a passing statement that it might have been engraved by the Catholic League and the league had reverence for Joan, but that's not exactly the same as making her a symbol of the cause. I did co across an article discussing the role of women in the French Holy Wars, which mentioned Joan a number of times, but not in relationship to her role as a symbol to the Catholic League, or to either side of the conflict: I'll keep looking: an English-language study focused on the French Wars of Religion or the French Holy League that make the connection explicit would help. Wtfiv (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I remember seeing a 16th century painting that shows her image on one of the banners of the Catholic League, but I haven't been able to find it again. GBRV (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Legacy: Saint and Martyr
Substantially edited the canonization section and merged it with legacy. Noted Joan was not canonized as a martyr. Footnoted the details and sources. (Interestingly, the issue seems a technicality. The bull informally recognizes her martyrdom: her feast day is on the day of her execution and put in the Calendar of Martyrs, it quotes her voices declaring her a martyr, and it accusing her executors of making her martyr.) I also added noted that Brehal's acknowledgement of Joan's voices prophesizing her martyrdom in his brief of the retrial (the Recollectio). Nevertheless, I added emphasis that she is popularly seen as a martyr. Also added back the mention the Cao Dai that was in the article some time in the past. Moved the two last English-language "Further Readings" into sources. I titled the next section of legacy "Heroic Woman" to parallel current phrasing in section "brave and active woman". Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * She was described as a martyr by Brehal, the judge during the Rehabilitation trial, which was likely the original point of that statement. I think we could restore the term if the context is made clear (i.e. Brehal rather than the Pope who canonized her). GBRV (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Further reading in French
I'd like to remove the French Further Reading from this article. The articles are probably each interesting, but I'm not sure how useful they are to English readers. In addition to the language barrier, and most, except for Françoise Michaud-Fréjaville's article is not readily accessible. For interested readers who can read French, it seems to me the French Wikipedia article Jeanne d'Arc seems the go to place for a different perspective and accessible French sources. Any concerns? Wtfiv (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Legacy
I've added some additional information about Joan's legacy as a heroic woman and cultural legacy. The main purpose of the last section is to point readers to the separate article.

I see you are working on the "visions" and "cross-dressing" sections, so I won't go near them for now. If you could, let me know when you are done. (And if you want, I'll help out with any editing...or not...as you wish). For now, I'm going to work my way back up the article from where I ended, just doing a second-pass copy-edit working backwards from "Legacy". Wtfiv (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead
I haven't finished proofing backwards toward the lead yet. But I think the lead is ready to be updated to match the changes to the article. Wtfiv (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the lead to align better with the article.
 * Expanded the section on Joan's campaign history.
 * Deleted that she was declared a martyr by the church. She wasn't, in spite of her feast day being on the date of her execution. But she is venerated as a popular martyr, which is mentioned.
 * Explicitly mentioned that she was burned for heresy, as that was the charge. Deleted that Cauchon had her put to death.  He was in charge of the process, but the decision was a unanimous vote of the assessors, so they bear responsibility too.
 * Deleted point about Catholic league as it not verified in article (see note on this in talk above)
 * Deleted point about Napoleon. He did not make a national claim for Joan. He made a statement that she represented French genius in support of the nation when he allowed the reinstatement of her celebration in Orléans.
 * Reworded description of Joan's retrial. Her retrial nullified the findings of the original trial, and declared the taint on her reputation due to that trial was removed. This is slightly different than an outright declaration of innocence. (For instance, during her beatification, the promoters even argued that the status of her voices had never been clarified. See, Kelly 1996, cited in the article.)

In the main article, there seem to be a few more to-dos needed:
 * A sentence or two with a citation in the main article about Joan's place as a secondary saint in France, as it is claimed in the lead but unmentioned in the article. This should be easy to do.
 * Joan was subject to a breach of promise suite, this should be mentioned though there's not an easy place to put it.
 * I'm wondering if it is worthwhile to add a point that there was actually a vote by the assessors at her trial to have Joan tortured. This would further emphasize the nature of the trial. Thankfully the majority was against it. Wtfiv (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * These have all been added to the article. Wtfiv (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost Ready for FAR peer review?
I think we are close to sending this back to the FAR team for peer-review. Should I work on the Voices and Cross Dressing sections? I also know you took the lead editor role on those, and so if you like the way it looks now, I rather just leave it in the style you are comfortable with. (As I think you have a good sense of my editing technique and though I'd try to preserve the spirit of the section written, I'm not sure how it would look when I came out on the other side.) If you could, please let me know your preference.

I also wanted to let you know that I personally appreciated your inspiration of inserting the Gunn Wållgren photograph. (It'll be interesting to see if future editors agree.) It certainly isn't the hairstyle Joan wore, but almost none of the paintings correctly portray her hair as either bowl cut while she was at war or shaved at the end of the trial. The photograph enriches the visual appeal of the article, in my opinion. And I think it could be seen as supporting her legacy as an inspiring figure. Wtfiv (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll continue editing the Voices and Cross-dressing sections. GBRV (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Please post here when you are done and what you want to do.  I'll report in to the FAR team. Wtfiv (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Socking
Decades old, see Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson (eg, User:GBRV and others). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022
Change word 'fired' for 'shot'. Reason: Incorrect English. Arrows or crossbow bolts are 'shot', it takes a firearm using gunpowder to 'fire' a projectile. AWR7664 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm not entirely sure that the rationale given is correct, but I have made the edit anyway as - intuitively - I do think it sounds better. Cheers! — Sirdog (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Retrial" changed to "Rehabilitation trial"
Following up on an early note, the article uses both "retrial" and "rehabilitation trial" about evenly. For consistency, I changed "retrial" to "rehabilitation trial", where appropriate. In two places, I just left it as "trial", but the context should be clear. The reason for choosing "rehabilitation trial" is that it shows up more often in the article's notes and references, following Quicherat's usage for the original Latin source documents. It also seems to me to be more descriptive, as Joan herself was not retried, rather the trial sought to rehabilitate her reputation by nullifying the judgement of the original trial. Wtfiv (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Birth and Historical Details" section
The information in this section does a good job of setting up the confusion that led to the necessity for the march on Reims. But there seems to be a number of problems with this section, in my view. First, the relationships are a complex knot, but the story becomes quite confusing as the name references keep being swapped between first names, then titles. I tried to address some of this by going with titles, as later Bedford is called Bedford or the duke of Bedford.

Working on this, I realized a greater concern is the length of this section. I can see the complexity almost demands it, but it feels odd having such a huge section near the beginning of the biography be about the background. Joan's biography seems to be treated more like an article on battles, in which the campaign background is given before the battle starts. Joan is in the background for nearly 800 words of text (slightly less than 10% of wordcount of the article's text). Very few biographies push their topic into the background for so long. I'm wondering if anyone minded me trying to keep trim this section. I'd try to keep the main points relevant to contextualize Joan's narrative, but leave the details for the articles on the Hundred Years War. (It seems challenging, but do-able.) Thoughts or concerns? Wtfiv (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've cut it to around 550 words, and tried to make it more Joan focused. (reference to Joan starting all but one paragraph, final paragraph ending with foreshadowing of Joan from the prophecies.) I've moved the information about the Siege of Orléans directly into Joan's narrative as it was going on in her life and was the start of her direct involvement. I left "cn"s to note where more references are needed, but didn't have time to do them at this time. They should be fairly straightforward to obtain as they are relatively non-controversial historical references. Wtfiv (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Vosges removed from lead
Removed mention of Domremy in Vosges from lead. Link went to the mountain range. Domremy does lie in the Vosges department, but that's a modern development. Where exactly Domremy lie in Joan's time, remains controversial. It did lie in the Duchy of Bar, but that won't help most casual readers. As the citations in the article say, there is a debate about the province it belonged to. Most historians opt for Lorraine, some Champaign. As the article says, the feudal relations were unclear. Wtfiv (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Given name "Johanne"
If the signature shown in the article is correct, then her given name was "Johanne".

"Jeanne" and "Joan" are then only transcriptions into French and English.

--2003:C3:F737:DE00:1460:823C:D990:5AD8 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, this version could be "Jehanne", and from other versions of her signature this reading appears to be correct. Bear in mind that people's signatures are often difficult to read, and she could have been semi-literate. PatGallacher (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The first footnote in the main text has a page link to Pernoud and Clin's two-page discussion of her name. It supports PatGallacher's point and is a good starting place to start to get a sense of the complexities in what Joan's name was. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Alt texts
Z1720 just edited this article many times adding alt texts with edit summary "Adding MOS:ALT". But many of these alt texts are in the weeds of detail rather than saying what's pictured. MOS:ALT shows a picture captioned "Blair and Bush agree on a strategy for peace in the Middle East on 12 November 2004." The suggested alt text is "Tony Blair and George W. Bush shaking hands at a press conference." It says:
 * The  text shouldn't say "Two men shaking hands", because that's not why the picture was chosen; it needs to identify the men. The   text shouldn't say they were in the East Room of the White House, because that isn't clear from the photograph. That the men are dressed identically is conveyed by the photograph, but it isn't relevant to the article.

But here we have several new examples of just this unhelpful type of alt text, failing to mention Joan.


 * I removed this as it improperly adds a second alt after the existing
 * I removed this as it improperly adds a second alt after the existing







As MOS:ALT says, a picture of Queen Elizabeth needs an alt text identifying her as Queen Elizabeth, and not. —:: Anomalocaris (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you  for adding the alt text and cleaning up the MOS! And thank you  for the point about creating alt text.  I modified each item  mentioned above in  reply text above. Z1720, please fix my "fixes" as you see fit. Wtfiv (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I encourage editors to make improvements on my edits. I will read through MOS:ALT today so that I can make better edits in the future. Z1720 (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

joan of arc
she is a girl who became a guy this could be part of the pride history to — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.80.23.42 (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Date of Joan's Canonization
I removed the date of Joan's canonization from the first paragraph of the lead again. The reason was the last paragraph of the lead had an almost identical sentence with the data and the first paragraph contains no other dates except of her birth. The date of her canonization was at the end of the lead in the context of first becoming a symbol of France and later becoming a secondary patron saint and and icon of France. With the date, the final paragraph on the canonization was almost identical to the sentence in the first paragraph. I previously rewrote it a bit when removing the date from the lead. Now the two paragraphs complement each other. The first mentions notable points about Joan without dates, the last paragraph of the lead gives the details. If there are strong feelings that 1920 needs to be in the first paragraph, could you please rewrite the last paragraph of the lead so it isn't giving the same information again? Wtfiv (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Joan's Saints again
Removed description of Ss. Margaret and Catherine, Joan never specified which Margaret and Catherine she was refering to. The links were kept, as most historians infer that it was these Margaret of Antioch and Catherine of Alexandria, given Joan's sociohistorical context. But the issue remains open. Please see the linked citations in the footnote about Joan's visions in the "Early Life" section about the ambiguity: Pernoud & Clin (1986) and Sullivan (1999). Sullivan's discussion goes into more detail of the context and compares it to the trial record. Also, as per the sources in the "Visions" section, the source of the visions themselves remains uncertain. Wtfiv (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph of Lead
, Thanks for shortening the first paragraph of the lead. Doing so made it clear that there is a glaring absence in the first paragraph, which was a concrete description of what Joan actively did that made her a heroine. So, although your shortening the first paragraph lead me to lengthen it, I think your addition pointed out a major issue. Also, I replaced "considered", since the preposition "for" seems to need a verb (e.g., "considered for", "honored for"), and whether Joan is indeed a heroine seems to be a judgement call, and considered captures this. If you think the hedge "considered" is unneeded, please delete. Wtfiv (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph and Joan's execution
and, L'Origine du monde's added a sentence in the first paragraph about Joan's executation. A comment on FAR requested attributing Joan's execution to the English: I added "by the English" address the request. It was reverted.

In my opinion, arguments can be made either way. It was English mechanizations that led to her execution and she was held in English custody. But she was executed by the act of the Bailiff of Rouen, who was French but answered to the English and managed the crowd with English soldiers. (See the sources in citation 252.) But even the role of the bailiff—whose name is not mentioned— is unclear. (see Pernoud, 1955 p. 244, but even this testimony is problematic, as the footnote following citation 252 points out.) In the big picture, her execution was a complex collaboration between the English, the University of Paris, and the Burgundians. I'm good with either—slightly leaning toward L'Origine du monde's solution of not drawing conclusions—but can we get a consensus? Wtfiv (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, not Sandy, but I have been sporadically following the progress here, which is impressive. That said, I've not been following the FAR (don't have it on my watchlist). The best thing at this point is to invite Origine du monde to discuss on the FAR talk page at the relevant thread or comments with yourself and reviewers. At this point you don't want to run into a stability issue. Just to offer, without sources open in front of me, "by the English" is in line w/ the reading I've done. Hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily saying we need "by the English"; just that there is a gap in the flow of the first para of the lead that should be somehow addressed. We get that later ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you and .  It looks like the FAR comments are winding down, so I'm just hoping to do what I can on to wrap up the FAR process. I figured this particular issue is more "Joan" related, so I put it here. I'll wait for  Origine du monde to reply. Wtfiv (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I added this sentence to the lead to give some context: Maybe that clarifies.  If it needs to be modified, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will change to "She was captured by the Burgundians and sold to the English". I find the reduction of a complex historical situation, with competing kings of France and other actors, to a combat between French and English sad. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 20:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do however think that details of her capture and imprisonment are not needed in the first paragraph. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 20:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding,{L'Origine du monde}! The original change was to just implement a quick solution so that the review process could be wrapped up quickly. Your reversion reminded me that it is important to preserve the complexity of the politics. I think your latest edit is a good solution for resolving the issue. (The silent partner is now the University of Paris- who have an even different vision of France- but that's all detail implied in the main body). I agree that the reduction to "France" vs. "England" is really a simplification. It seems more like a competition for different vision about the territories that comprise modern France: The major players being Plantagenet, Valois-Armagnac alliance, Burgundian, and the University of Paris. In my opinion, it is to some extent an artifact of Joan's eventual transformation to "Defender of France" as part of her legacy. With appreciation. Wtfiv (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I reworked the addition "at the hands of the English", as the English were mentioned in the previous sentence. The subsequent sentence implies they were complicit in her execution. (Her trial for heresay was as much the doing of the University of Paris as the English, but the English did arrange the trial and perform the execution.) It is technically correct to state that she was burnt at the stake by the English. Will that work? Wtfiv (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Cauchon and procedure
A recent change about Cauchon's following of inquisitional procedure. The line said "Cauchon attempted to follow correct inquisitorial procedure". The secondary literature makes it clear that he did try to adhere to procedure, but as the rehabilitation trial makes clear, he didn't do so. A recent edit change this to "Cauchon attempted to demonstrate"... A previous editor, GBRV, made a similar change, which seems to focus more on Cauchon's intention (i.e., attempting to demonstrate). It is not clear what Cauchon intended. His intentions have argued in the literature. It is clear what he did, which was to attempt to follow procedure. Wtfiv (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2022
In opening paragraph, change “Fifteen years later,” to “Twenty-five years later,”. Her 1431 verdict was overturned 25 years later in 1456, as stated later in the article. Pretentiousnerd (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cannolis (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Image change in cross-dressing section
I've tentatively swapped out the photograph of Gunn Wållgren playing the role of Joan in Armor. I mainly did this because in contrast to the photograph, the Frémiet statue shows her in more elaborate armor, with a hairstyle closer to what she probably wore, and taking on a more active role. (As an aside, it is interesting that there seems to be relatively few images place Joan in an active role of inspiring leadership. ) In my view, the image of the statue also captures the section's points about the significance of Joan's cross-dressing. Yet, I can also see that using a sculpture may not be an ideal image, particularly since an image of the same sculpture appears earlier in the article. And, the Gunn Wållgren version gives a more twentieth century perspective on how Joan has been represented. If the Gunn Wållgren photograph works better, it may be best to revert the change. Wtfiv (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 July 2022
213.44.110.214 (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Is not "Joan of Arc" but Jeanne d'Arc
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review ongoing
This article is undergoing some large changes as it undergoes a more active phase of the featured article review process, which is trying to address problems that have arisen since it became a featured article. If anyone has concerns, comments or suggestions, please post them! Wtfiv (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

At the part where she is judged, it says "refusing to" where it should say, looking at the context "refused to" i am pretty sure. Could not find a way to correct it myself, maybe someone who (maybe) will read this, could give it a go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G Wijnsma (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, along with some other changes. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add a hatnote to handle the incoming redirect

Please add

-- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Done, a bit differently to combine, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent Reversions
Hello I saw you reverted some changes that I made in response to comments made during the  Feature Article Review. Many of the changes are to notes I added, but reviewers have determined are not adequate. Here is a summary of the reviewer's comments:
 * Joan's banner: "Joan testified she preferred her banner to a sword and never killed anyone." If this isn't covered in secondary sources, its WP:UNDUE. If you'd like me to source this can get it back in let me know.
 * Lightfoot's comment on the bias: The reviewer argued that since Lightfoot is a 50 year old citation, it shouldn't be used WP:UNDUE
 * On the problematics of the psychiatric explanation: I was askto get a direct source.  I will put the footnote back in to serve as examples that demonstrate the footnote.

Let me know what your concerns are, and share any ideas on the best way to proceed. Though I want to ensure the reviewer's concerns are addressed, I also want to make sure that information that you think needs to stay, does remain. Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Crossbows
A crossbow does not fire arrows, but a smaller projectile called a bolt or a quarrel. Anything we can do to amend this? John (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Changed to bolt. John, all your copyedits have been solid, and very much appreciated! If you see other problems like this, please feel free to jump in and edit.  If there's a change that needs to be discussed, I'll ping you here. Wtfiv (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the positive feedback. I have been right through the article and I think the prose works fine overall. I haven't looked at the sourcing but I know others I trust have. John (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Cities and towns
We have 5 instances of city and 17 instances of town in the article. That isn't necessarily a problem, but we also seem to use them interchangeably. Troyes is currently called both. I understand that modern France, like most of Europe, makes little distinction between the two. The reader may expect "city" to be reserved for the larger settlements. John (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It sounds like town is the way to go based on your analysis. If any of them refer to Paris, we'll save city for that one. I'll go do the cleanup, if you haven't already.  Thank you so much for all your editing. It's been much improved! Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt that "modern France, like most of Europe, makes little distinction between the two" is at all true! Certainly not for the UK. Troyes, a cathedral city and capital of a province, was much more important then than now, & I think should certainly be a city. Orléans even more clearly. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Changes made. Three references to Orléans are now city. Troyes was not referenced as either a city or town. Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see you had made a change before I got to it. I should've waited a bit. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * , no, not in the modern UK or the United States, but across mainland Europe. Certainly in France and Germany (the countries I know best and can speak a bit of the language in), it's normal to talk about "Ville de Paris" and "Stadt Berlin". Modern German doesn't even have a different word for "city", and the French "la cité" has a more specialised use, maybe akin to "The City of London". In any case, my point was that it looked a bit random, and elegant variation is not a sign of top-quality writing, especially when, as in this case, it could be confusing. What words would contemporary sources have used for the various settlements the article discusses? John (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, what words do modern sources in English use (for the medieval place) is really more relevant. Paris of course has the Île de la Cité, but for some reason even major cities have eg Hôtel de Ville, Paris for what Americans call the city hall, and the English a town hall. The wp:fr article on ville illustrates New York, London, St Petersberg, Chicago etc, which I don't think really reflects French usage. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this worked out yet?  is your (awesome) copyedit done yet?  I think we are getting close to Keep ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for the compliment! Nearly there. Just a few more nips and tucks. Yes, I can see that is coming soon. It's been a pleasure. John (talk) 22:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. John (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I second Sandy. The copy edits have been great! Wtfiv (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * About time to ask Z-whatsit to return and actually do his much-promised review. I expect we know from FAC what this will look like ("non-expert prose review" with about 5 points) but we might as well have it. I wonder what plans he has for the rest of your summer Sandy? Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll ping the FAC. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Age and execution
I totally get why her age (with all its uncertainty) is worth stating. This sentence strikes me as very awkward though, and I wonder how it could be recast. John (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * At about the age of nineteen, Joan was executed on 30 May 1431 ??? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That sentence alone doesn't say who executed Joan. This is another example of passive voice mixed up with active. "At the age of nineteen, WHO executed Joan on 30 May 1431." Simple right, just replace the WHO with the name. Why is that so hard? Sinking into reality (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Got a name? (With a source.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_d%27Arc Sinking into reality (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't use another Wikipedia as a source. French Wikipedia repeats, unsourced, the legend about the Cardinal of Winchester doing the deed. Our article Henry Beaufort points out that this was a legend, and sources this to Pernoud, Regine (1955). The Retrial of Joan of Arc. Translated by J. M. Cohen. Methuen & Co. I think we score over the French Wikipedia on this one. I'm pretty sure WP:V is a thing over there too. What's the French for "citation needed"? John (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is more: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffroy_Th%C3%A9rage Sinking into reality (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. It's [réf. nécessaire]. We can't use something that is marked as unsourced on another Wikipedia to support a statement on a Featured Article. Even if we wanted to. Are there any better sources? John (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, I pointed it out. I assumed you knew how to go form reference numbers to the actual source. My bad. Sinking into reality (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I see what you mean. Stylistically this is a classic case where the passive is justified. If you mean "what was the executioner's name?", that probably isn't important unless sources have mentioned it. If you mean "What authority was Joan executed under" I think the article is pretty clear that it was the English. Stylistically, the execution was done to the subject of the article, who is important. This is why, stylistically, the passive exists. We have a prejudice for loading significant information into the front (or occasionally the back) of a sentence. Informationally, it might be interesting to know the name of the executioner, if it was recorded. But even then, we'd still prefer the passive:
 * This is because Joan of Arc is still more important to us in this context than Maurice de Chop-Chop. So she goes first. So passive. John (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. And if any reader insists on an executioner's name, and can't get the gist of who was responsible for her execution, it may be a reading comprehension problem.  I think our time is being wasted here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't agree. There are two names, so I guess the reader will have to figure that out somewhere else because you want it passive despite consensus. Sinking into reality (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't agree. There are two names, so I guess the reader will have to figure that out somewhere else because you want it passive despite consensus. Sinking into reality (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

English
I read the change log and what got changed. It appears this article is moving away from American English, as I read the fold. Most significant is the use of passive voice and "by". It makes a huge difference. Sinking into reality (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide some specific examples? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is one: Sinking into reality (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's one of my edits, and I utterly stand by it as an improvement to the article. Thank you for taking an interest in style, and well done for knowing what the active and passive voice are. If you are coming at it from the point of view that the passive voice should be avoided entirely, I respectfully disagree, and so do most experts. Read the article I linked you to below, and come back if you are still unhappy. John (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like an improvement to me. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The experts I know say use the passive voice only if necessary. Not all the time. (You can google that). I'm not going to nazi this article, so this is it. Sinking into reality (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly glad that you're not going to "nazi" the article as we've spent ages getting it as good as it is. I absolutely agree that the passive voice should only be used if necessary, and I am fully confident that the article currently does this. It certainly doesn't use the passive voice "all the time". Here's an exercise for you (besides reading the article I referred you to); count the instances of the two voices in the article. It's not a precise science, but many stylists suggest between 15 and 30% passive voice is typical in educated writing. I'll be very surprised if we are above 30% here. Thank you again for taking an interest in these matters. John (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Between 15% and 30%? This site tallies positives and gives a percentage: https://datayze.com/passive-voice-detector It tells me 45% currently on the fold. You probably can input the entire article and it will specifically give you all the examples to fix. Sinking into reality (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What an interesting site! Thank you for sharing it. I'm not sure how you got 45%; I uploaded the article as a text file and got "2.8% of the sentences in your passage are written in passive voice." A scan of the "(134) Sentences with Passive Voice" it produces shows many false positives and double or triple counting of sentences. (One false positive was "Nonetheless, after almost a century of war, the Armagnacs were demoralized".) I imagine there must be false negatives too, to get such a low percentage. As peripherally interesting as this is, I'm going to continue to believe that the prose of this article is pretty good. If you have any more specific and actionable suggestions, you should feel free to propose them here. John (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Try again. Copy-n-paste each text section by section and without the images. These errors just don't go away when you copy the entire article. Something went wrong with your text file. Sinking into reality (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * As a self-considered expert on the different dialects of English I am baffled by this comment. Are you suggesting that American English does not use the passive voice or the word "by"? John (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Sinking into reality (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, I don't see anything reasonable for the use of passive voice in this case. If students want to study this page, it leaves too many question and ambiguous writing, which makes it hard. It also avoids accountability of the words written here. Sinking into reality (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with using passive voice if it's carefully and thoughtfully done. It isn't anything to do with American v British English either. Have you read our article on the subject? John (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know of five English professors that will fail you quickly if you turned in a paper with passive voice. I studied. You don't sound like you are on the same page as me. I think wikipedia calls the opposite mode "active". What I'm saying is active voice requires a "careful" and "thoughtful" due diligence. Someone changing it all to passive voice will lose all that truth in the essay. Sounds like you are saying the tense doesn't matter, so change it? Sinking into reality (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not to be rude, but this is nonsense. The page is not an essay, it's not being turned in for a grade, if a given professor insists only on active vs. passive then they do their students a disservice by explaining why passive is sometimes needed (i.e that last clause). Looking for "by" isn't a good barometer - rather ask who's doing what to whom. Furthermore, who is the subject or what is the topic of the article. Encyclopedic writing is not academic writing in a plethora of ways and the two shouldn't be compared. Finally, please provide examples.  Victoria (tk) 19:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is rude and I cannot honor the rest of your reply. Again, American English: essay is an attempt, not a page. Sinking into reality (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What was it about "by" though? I'm curious. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not an American paradigm. British English uses it. Sinking into reality (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue about who Joan was executed by is interesting. From reading the article, I'd say she was executed by a collaboration of the English, the Burgundians, and the clergy of the University of Paris, with Pierre Cauchon playing lead role as ordinary judge. But that's been covered earlier and implied in the last sentence.  Most people like to keep it simple and blame the English, but that's not quite correct. Hopefully, a careful reader of the article can draw her or his conclusions about who executed Joan.
 * Technically, Geoffrey Thérage did execute Joan. He was the person who got his hand's direty. It was all in a day's work, I would imagine. But his role was one of contingent instrumentality, and the proposition "by" would denotes the instrumental case in English.


 * We often don't need the instrumental case unless the vehicle or executor of the action is key to understanding the narrative. Take the following example: "Joan dictated a letter, Her letter was sent to to Bedford." Do we need the instrumental case?  Do we need the name of the scribe or messenger one-time roles in the narrative? If so it reads "Joan dictated a letter to [insert scribe's name here]. Her letter was sent by [insert messenger's name here] to Bedford." In my opinion, I don't think adding an instrumental case has a direct impact on the narrative.
 * About Thérage: During the rehabilitation trial 25 years later, Joan's confessor claimed that Thérage said after the execution that he thought he might be damned for killing an innocent woman. But a lot of second-hand information was shared at the rehabilitation trial, which occured in a very different political climate.
 * Wtfiv (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out MOS:PASSIVE, which was recently updated to the following wording after a lengthy discussion: The passive voice is inappropriate for some forms of writing, such as creative writing and instructions, but it is widely used in encyclopedia articles, because [...]. So I'd say the current article follows the MOS. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you implying we should remove the American English tag/box? The link seems broken to MOS. I'm looking at it scientifically, so technicalities matter. Sinking into reality (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The link is to footnote "o". I don't see a relationship to AmE vs BrE here, but you could always ask at WT:MOS. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Images
As we suggested at FAR, we might want to have a chat about the images. I understand there was a debate about medieval v Victorian; my 2c worth is I like images as unformatted as possible, so the thumbnails display at similar sizes on the desktop edition, unless there's a special reason they need to be big (e.g. maps). I may have a view on medieval v Victorian too, but I don't know what it is yet. John (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good point, John. I've removed the upright syntax throughout, diff, so we can discuss. The size of the display seems to depend on a number of factors - I'm continually surprised at the difference between skins. Recently I had to switch from Monobook to Vector b/c of vision issues and now will need to go back through and reformat all the articles I formatted during 10+ years of using Monobook - images are displayed larger on Vector. Image resolution affects the display as well, so some might need the 'upright' syntax, so they're not overly tiny. I got interrupted when I was working on these earlier in the week, and unfortunately just got interrupted again. But let's use this as a starting point. Victoria (tk) 23:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your changes are fine on all four devices in my household (desktop, laptop, tablet, iPhone). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See what you think now. I added the "upright" tag to four of the upright images, leaving one (File:Scherrer jeanne enters orlean.jpg) which I think needs to be that little bit bigger to see the detail. It would also be easy enough to produce a cropped version of that painting showing more detail of our subject. John (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In John's last version, there is no sandwiching, and everything is fine on my iPad and other computers, but most (many?) of the images are too small to see on my iPhone. In this version, where I increased those I couldn't see to upright= 1.6, I can now see them, and something like 1.2 or 1.4 would probably suffice. Analyzing currrent pageviews by All, Desktop and Mobile shows that two-thirds of viewers are on mobile devices; our images should be large enough to be seen on an iPhone, but we need to know what Victoria sees on her computers and devices. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See MOS:UPRIGHT for this. These days I think we use that syntax throughout. Because they're wide, some of murals and such need boosting to 1.x. Others might be okay at "upright", which equals 75% of the default 220 px. Will take another run through right now and rejig a bit. Then I'll post back here. Victoria (tk) 19:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So it looks like the first time I went through, I set the syntax to "upright" throughout. Anyway, I've gone through again and reset everything throughout. Newest version is here. Fwiw, File:Louis Maurice Boutet de Monvel, The Trial of Joan of Arc (Joan of Arc series - VI), c. late 1909-early 1910, NGA 195567.jpg is a pain to get right. Also, apparently I am having caching problems on this page, so excuse the many weird edits before I de-cached. The commented out files can be removed any time (if we're satisfied with these files). I leave that to someone else. Any files that are rendering too small or too large can now simply be scaled up and down w/ the "upright" syntax vs. the old px syntax. Victoria (tk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that trial image was one of the problematic ones; now good. Everything looks good on my end, except the Miniature of Pierre Cauchon in the Trial section, which is too small to see on iPhone. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I stopped with this version. Pierre Cauchon is now huge for me, so it's obviously rendering differently on different devices, operating systems, skins, etc. It's very difficult to get it absolutely perfect. Stopping now. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's see what someone else sees; change my Cauchon edit as needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've left it. Probably my skin or browser. Mobile view looks good imo. Victoria (tk) 21:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think its because Pierre Cauchon wanted to be huge! He'd take over Joan's story if he could! Thanks for pitching in to save the "Trial". I appreciate the support with that. In terms of information, its so rich that a viewer could learn a lot of just clicking on it and examining the images.   Overall, I think the images look good. I checked them out on a couple of devices. Wtfiv (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I feel like Rip van Winkle here... Here's the cropped version, I think it looks good. Here's the cropped file: File:Scherrer jeanne enters orlean crop.jpg John (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been mostly gone since you have been and am learning the new image syntax, but I like it. Anyway, crop looks good to me. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi John, The crop does make Joan even more of a focus and captures the essence of the image: Joan of arc, defender of the people and maid of Orleans. I'm good either way. Wtfiv (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the original better ... more context. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I like the original better as a composition and as a work of art. As an encyclopedic illustration of Joan, I like the crop. Especially on a small screen you can see the detail better. But I'm not dogmatic about it. John (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the crop. Generally the 19th century images tend more towards veneration and depicting Saint Joan, which is why swapping with some others seemed wise imo. Two last points: three images of statues w/ Joan in armor on a horse seems like too many; and would prefer to see the word "fanciful" removed from the note for File:Contemporaine afb jeanne d arc.png. Victoria (tk) 23:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Fanciful" is gone.
 * If we avoid the crop, then we somewhat reduce the "Saint Joan" focus by giving the larger context, which includes the relief army streaming in to Orleans. I do think the image gives a sense of how important she is to the mythology of the city.
 * It seems that Frémiet is duplicated and though the two images do different work, they are too close to each other now.
 * I see two solutions to the statues. Delete the Frémiet in the double portrait. This would leave the Orléan equestrian statue as a stand-alone, which works.  The close-up of Frémiet could be used to illustrate Joan in armor with banner.
 * Alternatively, delete the close-up of Joan and leave the multiple image for compare and contrast purposes. As mentioned, I like the Frémiet close up because it seems to illustrate the point made, but if an image that shows Joan in "men's clothes" or armor can be found to replace it, that would work.
 * Which seems preferable? Wtfiv (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indifferent, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't really know, but here are a couple of suggestions. The gold statue to illustrate her armor, the Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres to illustrate symbol of France. Otherwise, also indifferent, except that 3 statues are too many imo. Victoria (tk) 03:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How's this look? It removes the double images and I replaced the Orlean statue with a different image as well. Once I did it, the strength of this version is that it goes well with the description that Napoleon allowed the celebration of Joan in Orlean again, and though it took years, this statue is the result.
 * I'm also good with removing the "Clothing" Fremiet with Ingres. I'm less fond of Fremient's Joan in front of the house though, even though the angle is good (but for the loss of the banner). Wtfiv (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's one way of doing it. Victoria (tk) 03:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which sure? The tentative change I made, or putting in Ingres?
 * Give me about 20 minutes, and let me see if I can work on the Fremiet you provided. I want to see if I can foreground Joan a little more. Then, I want to know what you think. Wtfiv (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as there aren't three horses, any change is fine. The change you made works, swapping in Ingres works, playing around w/ Fremlet might be interesting. Take your time. I'm not fussed about this. Need to call it a night. Victoria (tk) 03:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, enjoy your night! I'll post an alternative with the blurred background Fremient and the updated Orleans statue...see what you think!...I'll make it easy to revert. Wtfiv (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That one does a better job of showing her in armor; thanks for switching. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And the horse looks good too! Thanks Victoria! Wtfiv (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding a source
I'm adding another major source biography that is more recent: Harrison's (2014) Joan of Arc: A Life Transfigured. It is a more recent biography, so it should be included. I'll try to avoid adding more citations, but I will be replacing some citations with Harrison's well-documented biography at those places where Harrison's perspective seems to complement or juxtapose with the others. I don't foresee any major changes to the prose, though Harrison's wording may modify a paraphrase of the sources here and there. It shouldn't change the status of the FARC so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv (talk • contribs)
 * Done with adding Harrison as a source. Major change was addition of a footnote that had been previously deleted due to lack of more updated source. Wtfiv (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

, I'm wondering if you can help me clean up this statement, which is slightly misrepresentative: Later witnesses testified that Charles had hidden himself in the crowd among members of the court, but Joan quickly identified and approached him. These were witnesses at the rehabilitation trial 25 years later, not witnesses to the event. Both Gies and Harrison make this point explicitly. Gies is direct; Harrison amplifies the context. Pernoud describes the scene, but is more circumspect (Pernoud mentions one witness is "in some senses the official historian of the court"; the other "arrived at Chinon a little afterward"); the in slightly different ways. Folk who see Shaw's play, think its a fact. My first draft attempted to nuance this, but was obviously clumsy. Do you think you rephrase the claim to make it clear that the evidence is only second-hand in a way that makes the prose smooth? Wtfiv (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to take a look. Probably tomorrow. John (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Witnesses at the rehabilitation trial 25 years later testified that Charles had hidden himself in the crowd among members of the court, but Joan quickly identified and approached him." John (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thought about it a bit more. I think the problem with the rewrite, which I appreciate, is that it no focuses more on the evidence being 25 years old. But that's not the major problem with the testimony.  Rather, it is second-hand evidence by people who were not present at the event itself. I rewrote it, but it strikes me as confusing to a casual reader: "Witnesses at the rehabilitation trial who were not at Chinon at the time testified that..."  The awkwardness is "witness" vs. "not at Chinon at the time".  Both are true, but seem to contradict each other when casually read.  Part of me just wants to delete this, but it is so much part of the Joan myth due to Shaw, that it should be addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Ok, leave it with me. John (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

"Witnesses at the rehabilitation trial later testified that Charles had hidden himself in the crowd, but Joan quickly identified and approached him, though they had not seen it themselves." is the best I can do. I took another hack at this whole section, see what you think. John (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't all the way caught up on this thread when I partially reverted. I do think there's a way to phrase this that can work. My first question is: must we include this here? If the testimony is that far removed, can we mention it later, in §Aftermath and rehabilitation trial? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. That seems like a good suggestion., are there sources for ? If there are, that would maybe be better in the Legacy section. John (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the evidence is unreliable, maybe we should just delete it?
 * If we did keep it, my preference is that it should remain in the Chinon section at its normal place within the narrative. It is often presented as if it is a near certainty, For example, even Pernoud & Clin . pp. 22-25. who know the evidence is second-hand testimony describe it in such a way that's ambiguous by not explicitly mentioning that Chartier was not present and wrote his story in the Chronical de Charles VII years later see (P & C, p. 241). I also don't think we have to single out Shaw. Harrison's biography discusses how many different cultural representations of Joan have intruded what people "know" about Joan that is not in the record. (e.g., her status as martyr saint was in her infobox for years before the FARC)  But here, if we tell the story with the facts as best as we can get them, it allows the reader to draw her or his own conclusions. Maybe it did happen?  And it's clear that soon within at least a few years after the event, people were talking as if it did. But all we have as a source is second-hand testimony delivered as part of a trial whose explicit purpose was to exonerate Joan from the charge of heresy. Wtfiv (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did an edit deleting it. Does it look okay? Wtfiv (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks great. John (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm glad it works. Wtfiv (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Dates
But Siege of Orléans says the dates of the siege were 12 October 1428 – 8 May 1429, so it hadn't yet started at the beginning of 1428. What's going on? John (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it is a typo, It should be 1429. But should we say since October 1428? Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the exact date, and extended the Barker citation by a page. Wtfiv (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I reworked the chronology according to the correct dates, and accidentally edit conflicted with you. Sorry. Please check carefully that it is still true to the sources, which you know better than I do. John (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks good! Wtfiv (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

, I think mentioning Domremy is in Northeast France is a good idea, but would it be possible to squeeze mention of Lorraine back into the description of her birth in some way? Later on, the importance of Lorraine as her province of birth for French patriotism after the Franco-Prussian war is mentioned, and it'd be good if this could be set up now. It also matches the citation, which mentions Lorraine. Wtfiv (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2022
Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc pronounced [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431) was a patron saint of France, honored as a defender of the French nation for her role in the siege of Orléans and her insistence on the coronation of Charles VII of France during the Hundred Years' War. Debjit Saha11 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

In "Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc pronounced [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a patron saint of France, ....." here the is will be was because it is past event.Thanks... Debjit Saha11 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: that is not an event; it is a state of being which continues. Elizium23 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Gender
Why all this gender stuff, cross dressing, feminism etc, perhaps she was just being true to herself, perhaps she did see visions. Who knows. Why must we try to see the past through modern eyes, so patronizing, what will the future say of us? 2A00:23C6:F680:2C01:85C8:FC8D:B49D:D430 (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that one way of reading her story is to try and read it without discussing modern interpretations. That's the goal of the biographical narrative up to the execution.   The "Visions", "Clothing", and "Legacy" sections all address how her life was interpreted. Some like the assessors evaluated her during her lifetime, others like psychiatrist evaluate her in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Even the rehabilitation trial is an interpretation of Joan in the eyes of the French Roman Catholic Church after the victories of Charles. The modern interpretations of Joan as heroic woman in the "clothing" strike me as sympathetic to the idea that she was being true to herself in her role as "La Pucelle". Wtfiv (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wtfiv, the picture of Frémiet's gilded bronze statue would be appropriate to illustrate the section Military leader and symbol of France but it's rather redundant in the section Clothing since several other pictures (including the statue by Denis Foyatier) show the armor (the statue in the Strasbourg Cathedral would be more appropriate here since it depicts the male bowl cut). But the modern attempt of reconstitution drawn by Adrien Harmand is a far better choice to illustrate the male clothing. --Guise (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply  I'm open to the idea, though I think seeing Joan in Frémiet's depiction of her armor does emphasize her apparently masculine presence in armor. And the Frémiet is a masterwork. I like the Strasbourg's statue emphasis on the bowl cut, which gets lost in both Harmand and Frémiet. Let's see if other's weigh in.  And if we do go with the Harmand, is it possible to provide an accessible link?  That'd be ideal. Wtfiv (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , you're right, the statue of Frémiet is a masterwork: inaugurated in 1874, it's perfectly suited as an illustration for the section Military leader and symbol of France which evokes the national sentiment in the Third Republic after the military defeat of 1870. The statue of Foyatier is clearly less evocative.
 * In order to illustrate the Clothing section, I think Octave Denis Victor Guillonnet would have been the perfect choice since he depicts both the male garment and the bowl cut, (unlike Louis Maurice Boutet de Monvel who portrays the usual and inaccurate pageboy cut)... But we cannot use a high resolution image (the artist died in 1967), therefore Harmand is a satisfactory choice that stands out in view of all the fanciful miniatures, troubadour style / romantic artworks. Indeed, Joan's headgear unfortunately hides her bowl cut but it's still a detail that reinforces the historical credibility of Harmand's drawing. :-)
 * There's no accessible link to Harmand's book (I own a copy) but the website www.stejeannedarc.net displays some of his artwork. --Guise (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We can give it a try. Aesthetically, it feels weak, that's why I don't care for it. But it is informative, and it doesn't violate copyright.  We could experiment with moving the Frémiet down, replacing the Orléan sculpture.  The Harmand might need to go on the the right.  I not a fan of inaccessible sources, but if you could cite (sfn with page number) Harmand in the caption and template the citation (with translation of title) in sources, that should do the trick. (And we avoid citing a website.) Wtfiv (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are two diffs to consider, what do you think?
 * Diff of Joan's head from Strasbourg Cathedral
 * Diff with Harmand
 * They could both work, I think. Personally, I like the Strasbourg better.  But its mainly for aesthetic reasons. It creates a personality, but emphasizes the bowl cut, which makes the point about Joan's behavior in this section. The problem with Strasbourg is that it was erected in 1937 and I don't know how French copyright works.  It's a public object in a church, but does the French government recognize this?  And it is still another armor picture, not a clothing picture.  As you point out, the Harmand gets to the point of the article, though I do wish it was more like Guillonnet's in terms of color. But in terms of being good information for a reader, I have to agree it is good. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wearing safety suit of armor doesn't constitute "transgender " ridiculous...lies!! 2600:8800:2495:D500:20ED:A976:DC65:321 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2023
Change Charles to King Charles VII Popsiclestyxs (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Charles is referred to as Charles VII in the first mention of the lead. For the remainder of the article, he is called by his given name as per other articles on nobility (see WP:surname and the Elizabeth II article for example). He is sometimes called Charles VII in the article when there is the possibility of confusion with Charles VI.
 * Wtfiv (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Spelling convention
Why does this article use American English when the subject concerns a French national who liberated her country from British control? English is formally taught and used in France with British English, not the American variant. This makes no sense and should be rectified for accuracy’s sake. 172.98.147.167 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That is like asking why don't we use more of the french wikipedia page on joan of arc here on this version. Sinking into reality (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A better argument is that she has "strong national ties" with England, having fought against the English, and been executed partly by them; of course she has no ties with the Americas. I'm fine with changing this, if we can reach consensus. There don't seem to be many changes required. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I am an American myself and this article has no connection to the US at all. This should be changed. CharlieEdited (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My preference is to leave it in American English as it reflects the editorial history of the article. Wtfiv (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wtfiv. 69.117.214.206 (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the MoS, given the connections to England as opposed to the USA it seems like British spelling would be preferable. XeCyranium (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears the front page uses Oxford English. That can be improved to American English. The editors settled on such a hybrid result. Sinking into reality (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's really odd to have US English for an article that has no connection to America. I would support English English. Anna (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's odd when a single book on here can amass authority. By that same logic, most of the things about this family originates in France. I haven't seen compliance. Sinking into reality (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe the creator of the article is American and wrote it using American English. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is true. There were consistently three editors and two are American. Sinking into reality (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I love that in this entire debate, nobody once checked if there is a Style Guide for EU English, a document that doesn't use -ize once. Sure, it's mainly for EU institutions but there are "Use so-and-so language" templates that don't seem to have any style guide other than the one Wikipedia made, if any that is, and there are more English speakers in the European Union alone than many of them combined. Perhaps someone should make a template? Vive la France! The Education Auditor (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
Change “(aged c. 19)” in the Death field to something like “(aged approximately 19)” or “(aged ~19)”. The use of “circa” or “c.” is incorrect here. 69.117.214.206 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅! Wtfiv (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeanne
she was 19 years old when she died on my 30 1431, and born 1412 the day and month is unkown. 184.96.216.24 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Reply to concerns raised in edit summary of recent reversion
Nightscream's concerns raised are in italics.
 * 1. I'm AGREEING with you by adding the source YOU presented on the talk page.
 * I appreciate that you see the value of this source. When I reworked the previous edit you added, I tried to incorporate the point of your inclusion into the reworking, mentioning that this rationale is supported by statements attributed to Joan. I think we are getting close to agreement and I think your reworking this makes this section stronger.


 * 2. The sources here I'm removing DO NOT SAY what you claim that do. Policy is clear on this.
 * I think this is where we may differ. The reason for the edit that was reverted is that this view is not attributable to a single scholar, but more of a consensus issue. During the FAR review, we went over the sourcing fairly thoroughly. However, :I do appreciate this conversation because it makes me reconsider the sources: moving some, adding some, and deleting some.  There are convenience links to each citation, but I'll put the relevant quotes to the current set in a collapsible section so that you and other interested editors may consider their relevance. Perhaps some are stronger than others.

Quotes from cited sources

Crane, 1996 Joan's insistence on God's command that she crossdress even in prison contrasts with the explanations generated during the nullification trial around threats to her chastity... Joan was guarded by English soldiers and kept in fetters day and night. A witness at the nullification trial recalled that one of her guards had threatened to rape her...but it is important not to exaggerate the degree to which it could have protected her chastity from forcible rape.

Gies, 1981 Friar Martin Ladvenu...said that he had heard from Joan herself that a "a great English lord had tried to rape her; that is why she had put on male clothing.

Harrison, 2014 Joan had taken what measures she could against assault. Period illustrations allow historian to augment the descriptions culled from the trial record...Joan complained she couldn't tie all of her laces tightly enough to defend herself from the unrelenting predation of her guards...

Pernoud, 1962 Pierre Cusquel...was able to talk to her...[she] was not wearing this male attire excepting in order not to give herself to the soldiers with whom she was... Martin Ladvenu's evidence is in the same sense...

Taylor, 1999 Ladvenu claimed...that Joan had told him...she had been attacked by an English Lord who tried to rape her. She said this was why she was forced to resume wearing men's clothes.
 * What I've been trying to capture here is that this conclusion is not just from Pernoud, but a consensus of multiple sources. Pernoud does not need to be mentioned in the main text, she is in the citations, one opinion amongst many.


 * 3. If you look at the diff, there is LESS TEXT in your version, not mine. What is the issue here?
 * I'm not sure length is relevant here. Once we agree that what needs to said is said succinctly, we should be set. Wtfiv (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)