Talk:Joan of Arc

FA concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sinking into reality. I agree with your 3 November point that the article should avoid foreign languages for citations as much as possible. In some cases, the foreign language source is the best one available. In working through it, I think the goal is to ensure every point is backed by an English-language one. So far, there have been a few.

• Contamine is a French source, but it is linked and translated. Any reader with a machine translator or knowledge of France can verify the accuracy of the translation.
• Classic works by Michelet, Champion, and Pernoud are cited to their English translations, which can be verified.
• The footnotes have Latin and French, but this is because they are quotes, mainly from the court record. Again, each is linked and verifiable, and directly translated. The translation can be checked and updated if needed. I've also tried to provide a "cf.," to a sample English translation. I think putting the source quote is important, as the translation of a quote can change its meaning or emphasis. (A good example is Baudricourt's first response to Joan in Vaucouleurs.) This process allows the reader to interpret or go to the sources for verification.

As to the 19 December point about relying on a single book per section. I see this differently. It seems to me that the best Wikipedia articles don't rely on a single source but present a reader with the consensus from a wide range of reliable sources. It also provides enough sources to allow the reader to explore divergent opinions and arrive at one's own conclusion. This issue seems particularly true in the cass of Joan. Each author sees her through a particular lens of intepretation (e.g., Saint, national hero, feminine warrior), each represented by a different book or author. It's important to catch them all, but only one could be misleading. For example, Guise pointed out that although Pernoud is a great source, she too has her biases, which could an editor depending only on her to miss some important points. Sticking with just one book per section seems to risk writing an article with the biases of a single point of view, even if it is the bias of a prestigious writer. My feeling is that each section should do its best to reflect the common ground of the various sources and pointing out places where a consensus may be missing.

In addition,you raise an additional important point. In my opinion, there is always the need to respect the work that's been already done throughout the years. Personally, I think it is critical to respect previous editor's work and ensure it remains integrated. The problems arise when points made are not supported by the sources. Even then, its worth trying to see if a reliable source for the point can be found. Also, if the source used does not represent the apparent consensus of the sources. Here too, I feel it is important to represent the point if it is documented, noting the lack of consensus. Wtfiv (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The previous FA of this article seemed like an advertisement for Pernoud's book. That seemed unfair to other editors that don't conform to the translations. I may be biased due to that, but as you see I haven't touched this article. The rules say no machine translations, so verification is done by human hands. Please, continue to edit these works. 😄 Sinking into reality (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree about the sources. As to the translations I provided, I try to follow the guidelines of WP:HOWTRANS which addresses the role of machine translation. Any grammatical and translation infelicities are mine. I'm hoping that if they do not adequately reflect the text's language, someone else can clean them up. But at least they allow anyone interested to verify. (And whenever you do feel ready to jump in as an editor, please do!) Wtfiv (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References

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

I would like to prepare this article for the short footnote format of citation (e.g., Aberth 2000). I'll wait to see if there are problems before going ahead. In the meantime I may begin silently moving in-article citations to the end of the article and templating them as needed. Wtfiv (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm just trying out silently moving references. It's a bit louder than I thought it would be. I'm temporarily using the rp template to save book page locations. If there are problems or concerns, let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GBRV Are you okay with my continuing the quasi-silent citation cleanup, or should I leave that alone as well? Wtfiv (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv Well, I think we almost had some edit conflicts earlier since we were editing at the same time, and it might be better to finalize the citations first anyway. I've been replacing or supplying new ones. GBRV (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GBRV In terms of editing, I've learned a few tricks to avoid conflicts. Edit the section: Much of my edits are in the bibliography, and I'm almost 100% sure there is no conflict there as it is rarely touched. In the rare case of a conflict. I usually save a copy of my work, which is usually minor and paste again. And 90% of the time, I can edit when its pretty clear things are quiet on the page. (Fortunately, today was an exception, as being able to interact with you—-even at the risk of editing conflicts—- is more productive.) Except for that rp fix, I stopped until you are comfortable with it. Though, I do think the work needs to be done.

If you could, please make sure you stay in touch with FARC too about your plan and process, especially if there is going to be a lot of quiet time between edits. When I first encountered the article, the vote to delist had been made and the first vote to delist had been cast. It felt like a a close call, which is one of the reasons I felt it worthwhile to help out. Wtfiv (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GBRV I just saw that decision for delisting of Joan of Arc from Featured Article still continues and the consensus is building in favor of removing it, so I will see if I can edit a bit before the vote is done.Wtfiv (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv Only one person voted to delist, and I asked them to wait until the process of fixing the article is done. GBRV (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

GBRV Actually, it was the second. I had asked the first one to hold off, which was considerately done with the caveat that there would be a plan for improvement but the second posted anyway. My concern is the call for a vote has been posted in spite of a request to wait, but the pressure builds anyway. We'll see. Anyway, I've been messing with it. It shows there is meaningful activity. I'm glad you let them know, but I'll keep working on it when I can. I rather not see this delisted and there is a lot more work than just finding the citations that needs to be done, such as cleaning up, verifying the good citations where possible and aligning the text with those citations. Wtfiv (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

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

Article editing issues?

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

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

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

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

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

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

In text quotes of primary sources

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

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

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

You're conducting your own personal analysis, which is OR. We're supposed to cite historians, among whom Pernoud was among the foremost on this specific subject. Pernoud never questioned the accuracy of Pasquerel's testimony (as far as I recall, anyway). Nonetheless, we can leave out the quote if you want and merely summarize the issue as you've done in your latest edit, but this process needs to change (even aside from OR issues). We don't need to rewrite the entire article sentence by sentence, much less repeatedly rewrite the same sentences. Let's just fix the citations and other specific issues that were mentioned by other people on the FAR page, otherwise this is going to take months and become unmanageable. GBRV (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not adding original research to this article. Each point is backed by secondary source citations, and I often try to offer multiple sources for perspective, as many of the sources shades things differently. I do very much appreciate Pernoud, by the way. P&C is still the best "go to" summary. But I'm learning to appreciate the other historians and biographers as well. Most are careful, and each bring unique insights. I think that a review and comparison of sources to ensure they are indeed stating what they appear to state is reasonable. This is the heart of Wikipedia. In the case, my main points were that the attribution is not a direct quote and there may be better citations. The irony is that the source that makes this clear is Pernoud. (P & C, in this case) so quotation marks and direct attribution to Charles words are not reasonable. As mentioned, I certainly respect your decision if you decide they are important enough to add.

I will continue to edit as I go- trying to align text to quote. My goal general form of the article won't change. I'm hoping that all cited points match what is written. I'm just working with the article as I go along. I mentioned that it may take me a while. I do believe editing in light of the citations is reasonable. I'm glad that you are keeping an eye on it. (I'm also glad to see other editors keeping an eye on things as well.) I figure if I misstep majorly, you will let me know. And, if something critical gets lost, you'll make sure it gets back in. Wtfiv (talk) 06:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Georges de la Trémoille

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

It would be necessary to refer to Philippe Contamine & Olivier Bouzy's studies in order to diversify the sources and go beyond Gower and Régine Pernoud's old view of La Trémoille and the Archbishop of Reims as Joan of Arc's enemies, despite the opposition between Joan and the Grand Chamberlain - or the King himself ? - about the siege of Paris.

According to Contamine, the vision that emerges of Joan of Arc in Pernoud's texts remains that of a person "who had the misfortune to be surrounded by cynics and cunning, mediocre and cowards. Thus, "one should not [...] ask [Pernoud] to enter into the psychology of Pierre Cauchon or Charles VII or to account for the complexity of the political game. Research of pure erudition was not her forte either, even if she kept herself perfectly up to date. For Régine Pernoud, Joan of Arc was not only a French heroine but a saint".

For further reading, see the bibliography in the French article about La Trémoille [2]. --Guise (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Guise! Would you be willing to add an expansion in the appropriate location- maybe the footnote, but possibly elsewhere. Ideally, it'd be great if the French citations could be accessed. But, if citing the French sources is the one worth taking, would you be willing to do it?

Alternatively, I could work harder to scour accessible English language sources to better reflect the complexity. I have little doubt they can be found.

Or maybe its best to just delete the footnote to La Trémoille altogether? I put it in to respect the aside on La Trémoille that had been in the article. What are your thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Charles's response to Joan's capture

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

Sounds good, but not a subject I know anything about! Johnbod (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Pernoud's "Joan of Arc By Herself And Her Witnesses" (p 158) takes a fairly neutral view of the issue and gives a summary of some of the evidence, similar to Champion, except while leaving out the military campaigns. Lottin's "Recherches sur the la ville d'Orleans..." part 1, tome 2, p 267 says that the Battle of Savignies was the result of a rescue attempt. This view is probably more common among French authors than English-language ones, which makes the process of using only English-language sources problematic because it skews the "consensus" view on this topic. I would add that the authors who think "Charles did nothing to save her" do not present any evidence at all: they generally just repeat the allegation by itself, or claim that there isn't enough evidence for the opposing view while presenting none whatsoever to back up their own. At least Champion, Lottin, etc present evidence. But if you don't want to state the latter position in the main text we could always just provide a neutral and brief summary of the known evidence on that point but without promoting any conclusion or "side" of the argument, and then the footnote can retain the current examination of the opposing views. GBRV (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in JohnBod!

GBRV Yes, this is a hard one. The "Charles didn't help sources" rely on negative evidence for their point. (i.e., the absence of unambiguous sources) and Champion's "Charles did help" positive evidence is ambiguous or in the case of Morosini, quite second hand (as Pernoud notes). For example, the Normandy sorties cannot be unambiguously as rescue attempts. According to the English-language sources, there were two times when the Armagnac court argued for the Normandy option for taking out the heart of English-held France- right after the raising of the siege and after the coronation at of Reims. Once Joan's voice is taken out of the council, the forays into Normandy could've been a continuation of the preferred strategy with the coincidence that Rouen would be the ultimate prize with or without Joan. The sources I cite-usually with a "Charles didn't help" perspective- seem to present them more as part of a the larger war. If you see a way to present the issue in a more balanced way to put the footnote that would represent the issue- either as opposing views of of the historians and biographers or just presenting the ambiguity of the evidence, that'd be great. I tried to give a balance, but I think it could be done better and perhaps even a bit briefer.Wtfiv (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the reason Champion, Lottin, and others believed these campaigns were rescue attempts was because they would seem to have been operating "behind the lines" (to use a modern term) rather than the more usual practice of capturing a wide, contiguous swathe of territory to secure a normal line of advance with a protected supply route. The sources that mention Charles VII's views on the matter (his attempt to ransom Joan, etc) may be secondhand but there aren't any 15th century sources, of any kind, claiming he simply abandoned her: that's a modern assumption with no actual primary sources to back it up. Since there are thousands of books about Joan of Arc, it would be impossible to determine a consensus, but the more knowledgeable historians who were considered experts - Pernoud, Champion, etc - tended to either support the idea that Charles tried to save her or took a fairly balanced stance (Pernoud's exact view is difficult to determine from her many books on the subject, but she seemed to take a nuanced position). I'm just suggesting that we make a slight change in the current wording to provide a brief mention - without taking any position either way - of the sources which cite Charles' attempt to ransom her and the campaigns which are believed by some historians to have been rescue attempts; while leaving the footnote essentially as-is so it presents both sides in more detail. If that's acceptable, I can change it. GBRV (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Either would work. Making it briefer works if you think it would make the article stronger. My concern is that we keep the sources and note the lack of consensus. Champion's claim is the strongest English-language claim in the sources I could find, and as you note footnote is long because it aims to back up Champion's general statement with specifics from the other sources without judging whether they reflect an actual rescue attempt or not.

As an aside, Pernoud may indeed be nuanced. I rely on Pernoud and Clin's as much as I can because it seems to be her final published summary of her position. (I cited P & C's position, which seems to be clearly negative)). And, I do think many of the English sources cited are equally as knowledgeable and methodical in their sources as the French. Though admittedly, Pernoud's four-decade focus on Joan demands respectful consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeanne D'Arc du Lys

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

A quick check has two of the biographers stating that "du Lys" was added after Joan's family was conferred letters of nobility. (Gies, p. 134; Sackville-West, p. 370.) Pernoud & Clin are less direct- perhaps the issue is more complex in France- but they do make it clear that Joan's brothers, Jean and Pierre, did go by the name "du Lys" later in their life. If the name is added, it should be mentioned that it was part of conferring nobility. Please add the information, if you think it is appropriate. I'd suggest the written biographies above would be more reliable sources. Wtfiv (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sinking into reality, I saw that this was still an open issue, so I put the information I found on "du Lys" in a footnote after the sentence regarding her family's ennoblement. I hope thats useful. Wtfiv (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is useful. I thought about updating her dad's page for the link about nobility. The note on her page is good, too. Sinking into reality (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Trial

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

Re: La Maître. I just update the reference to sfn with link and noted the eyewitneses were testifying at the rehabilitation trial. Trying to fairly reflect La Maître's role based on the sources was difficult. The evidence seems clear that he was personally hesitant to participate and may have been coerced. The problem is that testimony from the nullification trial twenty years later is just as political as the original trial. In the nullification, there are good reasons to minimize La Maître's role, as he represented the French Inquisitor. What is clear is that La Maître was required to represent Graverent, the Inquisitor of France. who ordered La Maître to be present on his behalf as he was working on another case. (The University of Paris presented one of the first calls to have Joan tried for heresy after she was captured, and used Graverent's name.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Recognized experts such as Pernoud did not dismiss the Rehabilitation testimony just because it was given 20 years later, in fact Pernoud relied heavily on the Rehabilitation testimony and wrote an entire book about it. Several eyewitnesses said LeMaitre was threatened, and Pernoud included some of the testimony on this point in her book "The Retrial of Joan of Arc".

True, Pernoud takes the source very seriously and the testimony is not dismissed. However, a number of sources make the point that 20 year old memories in a new political context need to be addressed cautiously. Pernoud illustrates this point very well. For example, in her discussion of the testimony of Thomas de Courcelles in the The Retrial of Joan of Arc pp. 265-270. Because he played such an active role in Joan's persecution, his retrial testimony is contradicted by the condemnation trial's record. (As I'm sure you know, he attempted to expunge his name from the list of the three out of ten assessors who voted in favor of torturing Joan.) Others at the trials may have their testimonies distored by their own perspectives and similar motivations, I would think the fairest solution is to mention it is testimony and leave the judgement of the degree of its veracity to the reader. Wtfiv (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

But the fact that Courcelles tried to whitewash his record does not have any bearing on the several eyewitnesses who all said that LeMaitre was threatened: none of the latter witnesses were Courcelles, they were testifying about someone other than themselves (LeMaitre wasn't whitewashing his own record since he didn't testify at all), and the problem with Courcelles' testimony was not due to the twenty-year passage of time but rather to his own deliberate dishonesty. And if you really want to use the passage of time as a justification for dismissing testimony at the Rehabilitation trial, you would need to dismiss all of it since all of it was given over twenty years after her death, not just the testimony about LeMaitre. GBRV (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the chief problems with the Condemnation Trial were not merely technicalities but rather far more serious violations: e.g. the fact that a secular government manipulated the process using their own supporters as tribunal members, which was forbidden by the Church's doctrine. Eyewitness after eyewitness testified that the judge, Cauchon, corrupted the trial, and this was one of Pernoud's main themes especially in books such as "Joan of Arc By Herself and Her Witnesses". After the execution, the English government issued a Writ of Guarantee on 12 June 1431 agreeing to protect the tribunal from Papal prosecution for their role in the trial, which Henry Charles Lea (a famous historian) pointed out would be clear proof that the government knew their trial was itself an act of heresy. The Rehabilitation trial, by contrast, was conducted by a much more balanced group and therefore was far less politically motivated.

I agree with the key points. The rehabilitation trial clearly established that the original trial was flawed and the original trial's findings were correctly annulled Also, that the flaws were not merely technical; they were profound. (I only raised the technical problem of Cauchon's appropriateness to oversee the case, because it was stated as clearcut in the original article, but is actually contentious issue amongst the academic writers. It's best to list the clear cases, as other issues move the discussion away from Joan herself.)

Many of the sources point out that the second trial was very much political. One concise summary of a view that is also repeated in other sources by historians is Waugh (History of Europe; the chapter on Charles VII and the Church, 96–97). But I don't think this needs to be emphasized in the article. The citations are there for interested readers.

I think the most important point that the rehabilitation trial invalidated the condemnation trial because of its profound problems is most important. In particular, the sources suggest Bréhal was extremely thorough, as just a glance at his Recollectio shows. Wtfiv (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason I removed the mention of certain clergy being related to Charles VII is because most of the upper nobility and clergy were related to each other, in fact the English Royal family and the Duke of Burgundy were related to Charles VII, but opposed him nonetheless. The inclusion of this information seems designed to imply bias in favor of Charles VII, which is misleading since there were also many Italians (including prominent members of the Papal Court) who took part in the Rehabilitation trial, and Charles VII didn't have many partisans even among his own family members. Certainly it wasn't nearly as biased as the Condemnation trial, hence the latter fact needs to be emphasized rather than implying that the two were somehow comparable. Additionally, some historians have questioned whether Charles VII even supported a full appeal of the case, or whether he only supported the initial investigation in 1450. Joan's family seems to have pushed it forward. GBRV (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The separate section for the cross-dressing issue is fine as long as it will not become a repository for every opinion on the subject. You mentioned Sackville-West, who was a novelist rather than a historian. GBRV (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't want it to be a repository for that either. But the academic environment has its debate. Interestingly, I'm not so sure they are much in contradiction with the "necessity" argument.

I agree Sackville-West needs to be cited carefully. She indeed writes novels, but her Saint Joan is a nonfiction biography that is respected, well-cited, thoroughly researched, and sourced with footnotes. In addition, she sometimes states a point elegantly. But it would be problematic to forward her interpretation of events in contradiction to a researcher like Pernoud. I mention her in the talk because she focuses on the cross-dressing issue from a more feminist perspective. This open-access article from [jsotr daily] is a fascinating read and it has a great link to a critical article by Sproles (1996) on the strengths and weaknesses of Sackville's biography, particularly in the context of Joan's crossdressing. Wtfiv (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossdressing Charge section

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

There is the issue of the biography at this point. As part of the narrative, the section after the trial cover how she was charged as a relapsed heretic within the context of a political trial with the pressure for a particular outcome. At this point, the importance of Joan resuming men's clothes is not whether it was justified but that it violated the terms of the abjuration document (at least the version given in the trial record).

The issue of her cross-dressing, or wearing men's clothes and hairstyles is an important one: How it was understood, explained and addressed. It seems to need to be addressed as its own topic, as it spans Joan's life from Vaucouleurs to Rouen, and the debate continues to contemporary times. (e.g., Sackville-West's emphasis on Joans's crossdressing) This is a complex issue with a lot of literature, including the points made in the article.

I'd like to move the detailed discussion of cross-dressing section into its own section, right before the visions section. That would allow a more streamlined biography but keep the information already in the cross dressing section and allow the addition of perspectives from additional sources. Wtfiv (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous "Cross-dressing" section merged into execution. Remaining material on "Cross-Dressing" added to section following "Visions", so that material is not lost and topic remains to be addressed. The paragraph describing execution may need a sentence on a further technical irregularity, which is that Joan was not submitted to secular trial before being executed. (e.g., P & C, p. 135) Wtfiv (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Point about the possibility that Joan was not being judged by the secular authorities. Stated it in a definite manner, as it seems to be the consensus I could find, but added Lightbody's evidenced caveat in a footnote. Wtfiv (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I couldn't find any place in the citations where she explained how putting the clothes together impeded rape, though later sources for this argument may be found. I left it but, it seems appropriate for the Cross-dressing section where sources making the argument could be added.

(As an aside, some sources-Crane, 1996 & Hotchkiss, 2000) dispute that Joan's clothes were resumed to impeded abuse, given that she was chained up and had multiple guards.)

Also, When I tried to find Pernoud, 1955 p. 168, I got this entry on p. 168, which doesn't mention the clothing issue. But, I did find this on p. 269-270, but I'm not sure this is the intended citation because it seems to be a repeat of one of the testimonies given in Pernoud, 1962, 219-218. Are there additional sources in Pernoud 1955 different from Pernoud 1962? If so, we can add them. Wtfiv (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Added new source, Taylor 2009, to further support above point about Joan being harassed in prison. Taylor seems like a great source for the role the Dominicans played in helping Joan during her trial, but unfortunately access (and verifiability) is limited. Wtfiv (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

More editing notes

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

• Joan of Arc
• Symbols of the French Republic
• Catholic saints|state=collapsed

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)

Thanks for the headsup Ruedi33a 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)

@Wtfiv and Ruedi33a: 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)

HapHaxion 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

GBRV 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)

Further Reading

I've begun removing items from further reading and will be merging what is left in the English-speaking sections. There are 1000s of books on Joan, so it is unclear why these were given precedence over others. Here's my reasons for removing them.

• De Quincey's essay is not a biography, but a meditation. It mainly attempts to argue with Michelet's anti-English interpretation of Joan's life.
• Kaiser's book on Joan and woman's charismatic leadership looks fascinating, but doesn't appear to be a biography and is not accessible, even in Google Books snippet form.
• The link to Spoto's biography is broken, though it stays within the Joan story, it does not source its information, and has not been used as a source (and it has few references). It's unclear why this biography would be added to the more sourced ones already being used.
• Brooks biography is available for preview. It has a more novelistic story approach, doesn't focus on sources, and is more targeted for young adults.
• The translation of Bloys "Joan of Arc and Germany" is not available for preview, thought Bloy's 1915 French original is in archive.org. This French work is historically dated as Bloys focuses on interpreting Joan of Arc in light of WWI and the German invasion of France.
• Move Heimann's Joan of Arc in French Art and Culture to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, where it seems more appropriate.
• Moved Heimann's Joan of Arc: Her Image in France and America to Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc.

I've left the others for now as they may serve as sources and merged them into a single group "In English". If they become integrated as citations, they'll be moved to sources. If anyone feels any of these are valuable additions to the article and need to be put back, it may be worth discussing. My main purpose is to clean up, and the sources already provide much of the material provided by many of these sources. Wtfiv (talk) 19:18, 9 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:

Cerf, Charles (1898). "Pierre Cauchon de Sommiévre, Chanoine de Reims et de Beauvais, Évéque de Beauvais et de Lisieux, Son Origine, ses Dignités, sa Mort et sa Sépulture" [Pierre Cauchon of Sommiévre, Canon of Reims and Beauvais, Bishop of Beauvais, his origin, his dignities, his death and entombment]. Des Travaux de L'Académie de Reims [Transactions of the Academy of Reims] (in French). 101. 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:

• Sandberg, Brian. "'Generous amazons came to the breach': Besieged women, agency, and subjectivity during the French Wars of Religion". Gender & History. 16 (3): 654–688.

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)

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)

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.

GBRV 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, her 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?

GBRV 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

There is a typo in the "Trial" section.

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

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

 Done SpinningCeres 02:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)