Talk:Joan of Arc

Previous discussions

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. Previous discussions:

• Archive (Nov 2004-Apr 2005)
• Evidence and style (Nov 2004-Dec 2004, fork from "Archive")
• NPOV (Jan-Mar 2005)
• Cross-dressing (a previous subpage of the article from Oct 2005)
• Cross-dressing talk (discussion of the "cross-dressing subpage", including a vote for deletion)

• Archive 1 (6 Aug 2003 to 28 Nov 2005)
• Archive 2 (28 Nov 2005 to 22 Jan 2006)
• Archive 3 (22 Jan 2006 to 14 Mar 2006)
• Archive 4 (15 Mar 2006 to 24 Mar 2006, with a few Apr 2006 replies tossed in)
• Archive 5
• Archive 6 (26 May 2006 to 22 Aug 2006)
• Archive 7 (22 Aug 2006 to 21 Dec 2006)
• Archive 8 (21 Dec 2006 to 5 Apr 2007)

In the news

I heard that they have some results from those DNA tests they started doing about a year ago on what had been said to be Joan of Arc's relics. Any news?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was just added here. Quite interesting, not entirely unexpected I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not unexpected at all. Her ashes were thrown into the river — specifically to preclude the presence of any relics, as I recall.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The preliminary report had already been footnoted, so there isn't particularly much new here except for the identification of the remains as those of an Egyptian mummy. It may be undue weight to devote so much space to the current news. Suggest updating the existing footnote with the new information and moving the description of the purported remains' origin to Joan of Arc facts and trivia. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dangit, that old article version would have been perfect but a deletionist stripped a lot of content and converted the remainder into Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc. Seems like any mention of trivia in a title is the kiss of death. Vandal-fighting takes too much of my time these days - good luck with this. Durova^Charge! 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Death Legend

This section of the article seems really out of place. It doesn't state its sources, and seems to be OR. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 02:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the historical sources stated her final words was "jesus" repeatedly 6 times. She never said "thank you" Phu2734 04:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed that section. ElinorD (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Archive 8

Whoa, Archive 8 starts December 21, 2007?! That can't be right! For one thing, it would mean it starts eight months or so from now. And for another, it would mean the archive ran backwards to the beginning of April.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging from Name of Joan of Arc

I think the article Name of Joan of Arc is unnecessary. The creator of the page said he modeled it after the Canada's name article. I think the latter is significant enough to remain an article, but Joan of Arc's name article is only a paragraph long and should be incorporated into the Joan of Arc article. --Valley2city^₪‽ 04:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For a while we had a subordinate article called Joan of Arc facts and trivia that discussed surrounding and subordiante issues that would have been tangential to the main page but that could have borne relevance to some readers as background research. Apparently that name was a mistake because an editor objected to the word trivia in any title and gutted about half its content (for instance, we lost the part where two men actually fought a duel over her honor more than four centuries after she died and another part about a comet that was named after her). The name article got spun off from that page at around that time. Ideally I'd like to see that page restored. Durova^Charge! 05:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure if this is the proper place to "vote" on whether the pages should be merged. But if it is, I say merge. The page is about two paragraphs, almost the size of a biography stub. It would be much better served as a section in the Joan of Arc article proper. Drewcifer3000 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as the editor who raised this page to featured article status, I consider that particular matter rather digressive and better suited for a subordinate article. Does a general reader who comes to Wikipedia for an introduction to Joan of Arc really need two paragraphs about her name? I think not: they want to know who she was, how she was important, and why she remains famous six centuries later. Durova^Charge! 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• No - bad idea 63.215.28.17 19:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)gpscholar

• • well it seems obvious that a short article on the provenance of her name should be part of the main 'joan of Arc' page. but surely any editor would simply just Do that...why ask us? personally i feel that dissecting and then deleting the 'Joan of arc facts and trivia' page is in fact a much bigger issue...what happened to all the info?? why werent we asked about THAT before it happened? was a vote taken then? -- dont get me wrong i think that AGAIN a 'trivia' section of the main page called 'joan of arc' would be better & less confusing than two seerate pages...but lets not get too prescious here, deleting articles just because yuo dont like the term 'Trivia' seems quite snobby & self defeating - especially for an 'encyclopedia'!! 66.249.73.154

• In my opinion it is a good idea to merge. The article about her name is a very interesting one, yet would be much more useful incorporated into the main Joan of Arc article. When people are looking for information about Jean, they do not expect info about her name being on a separate page. Sapphire1000 , 23:25, 12 June 2007

Shakespeare?

What work did Shakepeare create about Joan of Arc please? I am unfamiliar with this. It seems unlikely as he was very much on England's side in the 100 years war. SmokeyTheCat 11:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC) If no-one produces one in a week or I will delete the reference to Shakespeare as I think that is a mistake. SmokeyTheCat 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

She appears in Henry VI, Part 1. The Legend of Julie Egbert 15:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The Joan of Arc Namey thing should definenetly be moved no doubt about it I speaking as a priest definently think it should be merged

Execution

Excuse me, but if a sexual assault in prison is not a rape, what is? Bcameron54 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

   I agree. The distinction between sexual assault and rape seemed unnecessary and contrived. I took the liberty of removing the offending line. Cwiki 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

to you guys who like to change it back to whatever: the issue is not whether she was raped in prison, it is what you are going to call it. alleged attempted rape by an allegedly english possibly lord? please. Bcameron54 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

I have no idea how often this comes up, but Nursenut added "January 6" as Joan's date of birth (over these two edits). As far as I'm concerned — and I think there was a fairly extensive discussion of this in Pernoud and Clin's Joan of Arc: Her Story as well — this date is purely legendary. Joan of Arc, who would certainly have been an authority on the subject, never connected her birthday to the Feast of the Epiphany: As someone living in the Middle Ages, and who (at the very least) claimed a mission from God, this isn't really a likely date.

So, my question is, do we simply remove the date outright? Add an explanation to the infobox, along with the date? Or just a question mark? Or something else?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

She only could estimate her age. She didn't know her own date of birth. The January 6th is based on 1 source. I think it should be removed. Phu2734 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)