Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've failed this article for inclusion on WP:V0.5 due to the unsourced statements and neturality dispute above. Feel free to renominate it once these issues are dealt with. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

THIRD INQUIRY: 1455-6. [A Rescript was issued by Pope Calixtus III. ordering the Procedure of Revision for the Inquiry of 1455-6.]

The process to right the wrongs done to Joan was begun on November 7, 1455. Isabelle Romée, who was now somewhere between sixty and seventy years old, her two sons and a group of friends from Orleans, came to the Cathedral of Notre-Dame. Tearfully and filled with emotion, Isabelle approached the Pope's representative judges and began to recite her request for justice for her daughter.

"I had a daughter born in lawful wedlock who grew up amid the fields and pastures. I had her baptized and confirmed and brought her up in the fear of God. I taught her respect for the traditions of the Church as much as I was able to do given her age and simplicity of her condition. I succeeded so well that she spent much of her time in church and after having gone to confession she received the sacrament of the Eucharist every month. Because the people suffered so much, she had a great compassion for them in her heart and despite her youth she would fast and pray for them with great devotion and fervor. She never thought, spoke or did anything against the faith. Certain enemies had her arraigned in a religious trial. Despite her disclaimers and appeals, both tacit and expressed, and without any help given to her defense, she was put through a perfidious, violent, iniquitous and sinful trial. The judges condemned her falsely, damnably and criminally, and put her to death in a cruel manner by fire. For the damnation of their souls and in notorious, infamous and irreparable loss to me, Isabelle, and mine... I demand that her name be restored."

Joan's mother, overcome with grief, had to be escorted to the sacristy of the cathedral and thus began Joan's Trial of Nullification. The court took testimony in the cities of Paris, Rouen and Orleans as well as the towns of Domremy and Vaucouleurs. A total of one hundred and fifty witnesses came forward to tell the court of their memories of Joan. Finally on July 7, 1456, the court rendered its official decision.

MANCHON: Second Examination, 2nd May, 1452. [Additional statements:]

I have heard that after Jeanne was taken captive by one of the company of the Count de Ligny, she was taken to the Castle of Beaurevoir and detained there three months; and then, by letters from the King of England to my Lord of Beauvais, she was taken to Rouen and put in prison.

The Bishop of Beauvais held with the English; and, before he took cognizance of the Case, Jeanne was put in irons: after he had informed himself, Jeanne, thus fettered, was given over to the custody of four English, although the Bishop and the Inquisitor had stated and sworn that they would themselves faithfully keep her. Jeanne was treated with cruelty, and, towards the end of the Trial, was shown the torture.

[...]

I, as notary, wrote Jeanne's answers and defense. Two or three writers, who were secretly ensconced near, omitted, in their writing, all that was in her favor.

The Judges desired me to write also in such wise, but I refused.

Third Examination, 8th May, 1452. [Additional statements..] I acted as notary in the Process, by compulsion of the Great Council of the King of England, not daring to contradict their order. The Bishop of Beauvais was not compelled to take up the Process against Jeanne. He did it of free-will. The Inquisitor was summoned and dared not refuse. The Process was carried Out by the English at their expense. The Promoter also was not compelled, but came of free-will. The Assessors and Doctors were summoned and dared not refuse.

[With regard to the comparison of the writing of the concealed clerks and the notaries, he adds that] the comparison of notes was made in the house of the Bishop.

Jeanne answered prudently and with simplicity, as might be seen in the Process. She could not have defended herself before such great Doctors had she not been inspired. The examination lasted for two or three hours in the morning, and sometimes as long again in the afternoon of the same day. She was much fatigued by the examination, for the examiners put to her the most subtle questions they possibly could.

Fourth Examination, 17th December, 1455. [Additional statements.] The sum of a thousand pounds, or crowns, was given by the King of England for the surrender of the Maid; and an annuity of 300 pounds to the soldier of the Duke of Burgundy who had captured her.

I was appointed notary in the Trial, together with a certain Guillaume Boisguillaume.

The copy of the Process was shown to me is the true Copy made. I acknowledge my own and my companion's signatures, and that it is the truth. Two other copies were made. One was given to the Inquisitor, one to the King of England, and one to the Bishop of Beauvais. This Process was made from a certain Minute written in French, by my own hand, which was given up to the Judges, and was afterwards translated from the French into Latin by Monsieur Thomas de Courcelles and myself, in the form in which it now stands, as well and as faithfully as possible, long after the death and execution of Jeanne. As for the Act of Accusation and other parts of the Process, Maitre Thomas de Courcelles had very little to do with these, nor did he greatly interfere with them.

With regard to the word Nota, written above certain Articles in the Minute, there was, on the first day of the Inquiry, a great tumult in the Chapel of the Castle at Rouen, where, that day, the interrogation was held, so that Jeanne was interrupted at almost every word, while she was speaking of her apparitions: Certain secretaries were there-two or three-of the King of England, who registered, as they chose, her words and depositions, omitting all her defense and all which tended to exonerate her. I complained of this, saying it was irregular, and that I would not be responsible, as clerk, in this matter: and, therefore, on the morrow, the place of meeting was changed and convened in a certain hall of the Castle, near the Great Hall, while two English were placed to keep order. When there were difficulties as to Jeanne's answers, and some said she had not replied as I had written, I wrote Nota at the top, in order that the questions might be repeated and the difficulties removed. Although it is mentioned in the Process that the Judges stated they had received preliminary evidence, I do not remember to have seen or heard of it; but I know that, if it had been produced, it would have been inserted in the Process.

Jeanne was brought to Rouen and not to Paris, because, as I think, the King of England and the principal people of his Council were there.

At the beginning of the Process, I was sent for to attend a meeting held at a certain house near the Castle, at which were present the Bishop of Beauvais, the Abbe' of Fecamp, Maitre Nicolas Loyseleur, and many others. The Bishop told me it was necessary that I should serve the King: that they meant to bring a fine case against this said Jeanne, and that I was to recommend another greffier to assist me. I therefore nominated Boisguillaume.

I met Lohier in the Church, on the day after the Bishop had asked him to give an opinion on the Process, and inquired what he you ght of it. He replied, that the Process was of no value, and could not be maintained, because it was conducted in the Castle and not in a legal court; that it concerned many who were not summoned; that Jeanne had no Counsel: and for many other reasons. He added that, in his opinion, it was their intention to put her to death.

A certain Maitre Nicolas de Houppeville was summoned to attend the Trial; and was in great danger, because he refused. Maitre Jean Lemaitre, Sub-Inquisitor, delayed as long as possible his attendance at the Trial, and was much vexed at being compelled to attend.

One day, when Jeanne was being questioned, Jean de Chatillon spoke in her favor, saying that she was not compelled to reply to the question put to her, or to that effect. This much displeased the Bishop of Beauvais and his following, and there was a great tumult at his words. The Bishop ordered him to be quiet, and to let the Judges speak.

On another occasion, when some one was advising and directing Jeanne on the question of submission to the Church, the Bishop said, "Hold your tongue, in the devil's name!" I do not remember the name of him who was thus spoken to.

One day, some one, whose name I do not remember, having spoken of Jeanne in a way which did not please the Earl of Stafford, the latter followed him, sword in hand, to some place of sanctuary; and, if they had not told Stafford that that place was sacred, he would have slain him.

Those who seemed to me most affected [against Jeanne] were Beaupere, Midi, and de Touraine.

One day, I went with the Bishop of Beauvais and the Earl of Warwick to the prison where Jeanne was, and we found her in irons. It was said that at night she was fastened with iron chains; but I did not see her so fastened. There was, in the prison, neither bed nor any kind of couch. There were four or five guards of the lowest kind.

[Manchon supplies a fuller account of the story given in 1450 as to the clerks having overheard Jeanne's confession to Loyseleur:]

After I and Boisguillaume had been appointed notaries, the Earl of Warwick, the Bishop of Beauvais, and Maitre Nicolas Loyseleur told us that Jeanne had spoken strange things in regard to her visions, and in order the better to know the truth about them, it was agreed that Maitre Nicolas Loyseleur should pretend to be from the Marches of Lorraine-Jeanne s own country and in the following of the King of France; that he should enter her prison in a layman's habit, and that the guards should retire and leave him alone with her: there was, in a room adjoining the prison, a hole, specially made for the purpose, in order that I and my companion might be there, and hear what was said by Jeanne. Thither we went, unseen by her. Then Loyseleur, pretending to have news, began to question Jeanne of the King's estate and of her revelations. Jeanne replied, believing him to be in fact of her own country and party: and the Bishop and the Earl desired us to put in writing what we had heard. I replied, that this ought not to be, that it was not honest to carry on the Trial by such means, but that, if she spoke thus in open Court, we would willingly register the words. And, ever afterwards, Jeanne had great confidence in this Loyseleur, who often heard her in confession, and would generally have private speech with her before she was taken before the Judges.

The interrogations sometimes lasted three or four hours in the morning; and sometimes difficult and subtle questions arose on the answers, on which she was further examined after dinner for two or three hours. Often they turned from one question to another, changing about, but, notwithstanding this, she answered prudently, and evinced a wonderful memory, saying often, "I have already answered you on this," and adding, "I refer to the clerks."

Long before the [Seventy] Articles were included in the Process, Jeanne had been many times examined, and had given many answers; and from these questions and answers the Articles were drawn up, with the advice of the Assessors. This was done by the Promoter, in order that the material, which was diffuse, might be put in order. Afterwards, she was examined on the whole; and it was concluded by the counselors principally those who came from Paris-that it would be well, and according to custom, to reduce these Articles and answers to shorter Articles, bringing together the principal points, in order to have the material in brief, for better and more prompt discussion. On this, there were drawn up the Twelve Articles; but I had no hand in them, nor do I know who composed or extracted them.

[With regard to a Note, dated April 4th, 143 I, written in French and contained in the Process, concerning these Twelve Articles, the other two Notaries Guillaume Colles or Boisguillaume, and Nicolas Taquel were summoned and questioned, together with deponent. They testified that:]

The Note is in the handwriting of Manchon, but as to who drew up the Twelve Articles we do not know. It was said to be customary that such Articles should be made and drawn up from the confessions of one accused of Heresy, even as in a matter of Faith was usually done, in Paris, by the Doctors and Masters in Theology. The corrections of these Articles were, we believe, put down as appears in the copy before us; but, whether these corrections were added or not to the copy of the Articles sent to Paris and to those invited to submit an opinion, we do not know. We believe not: for a note, in the handwriting of Maitre Guillaume d'Estivet, the Promoter, shows that they were sent by him on the following day without correction.

[Manchon was then asked, if he believed the Articles to be truthfully composed, and if there were not a great difference between them and Jeanne's answers. He replied that, what was in his Process was true. The Articles were not his doing.]

I believe that deliberation was not made on the whole Process, because it was not then in shape. It was brought into its present form only after Jeanne's death. Opinions were given on the Twelve Articles. The Twelve Articles were not read to Jeanne. [Asked again, if he had ever perceived a difference between these Articles and Jeanne's confessions, he said he did not remember. Those to whom they were shown said, that it was the custom to draw up such Articles; but that he had not given his attention to it, and that he should not have dared to argue with such great men.]

During the Trial I was seated at the feet of the Judges with Guillaume Colles and the clerk of Maitre Guillaume Beaupere, who was also writing; but there was a great difference in what we had written, and from this arose much contention.

--Whoever keeps on deleting this question, please STOP!

I read an article in El Mundo, one of the biggest newspapers in Spain, that lists Joan of Arc as a gay symbol. Saying that, "Her masculine attire was also a cause of controversy. As well as the fact that she had lived with two women - and slept with one of them two nights. (Su atuendo masculino fue también causa de litigio. Así como el hecho de que había vivido con dos mujeres −y dormido con una de ellas dos noches −.)" Does anyone have anything to substantiate this? Has anyone heard of this before? I find this very interesting as I never thought of her as that sort of icon, but now that it mentions it, it does make some sense. --Cazador 04:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Historians have debunked all variations of that idea. The page you cited (a blog connected with the newspaper, not an article in the newspaper) which mentions Joan of Arc's alleged relations with "two women", is referring to an internet rumor that appeared a few years ago concerning two women named La Rousse and Catherine de La Rochelle. That one was based merely on the fact that Joan of Arc, and her family, had stayed at an inn run by a widow named La Rousse for several days (Joan didn't "live" with La Rousse); and Joan later tried to verify the visions of Catherine de La Rochelle by staying up with her for two nights to see if her apparition would appear (she didn't "sleep with her" for two nights). The issues concerning her male clothing are also based on misconceptions (see, for example: http://primary-sources-series.joan-of-arc-studies.org/PSS021806.pdf) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by En1 (talk • contribs). (for confirmation see this diff)

Actually this topic might fit within the Joan of Arc facts and trivia article. It could make an interesting read within that article to show how this interpretation originated and why mainstream scholars rejected it. That page already discusses some of the other fringe theories, such as the contention that she was a royal bastard or that she escaped death at the stake. Durova 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I found this very interesting page about Joan of Arc [1] which clearly states that she was not a lesbian. A curious fact is that she used to "sleep" only with young women, although the article states that to stay warm at night, single women slept with each other without having any sexual relations. Puerto.rico 03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Joan of Arc article is a prime example of why Wiki will never be a rational source of knowledge. It is usurped by religious zealots who - in the same way they promote creationsim as science with a straight face - actually claim that hearing voices is not a sign of mental illness. The cold hard truth is that believing in god is in and of itself a sign of mental illness. What other explanation is there for someone who thinks there is an invisible man in the sky telling them what to do?

And even sadder, the article is touted as a fine outstanding example of Wikipedia! It's very sad. This is the same mentality that lets religious people fly airplanes into buildings. I fear for the human race. Will we never outgrow this childish superstition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.223.17 (talk • contribs) .

It's fine to express this opinion on the Talk Page. But can you please not post it on the page itself? The Joan of Arc page is about Joan of Arc, and not about your views on religious belief. Thanks. - David Cleave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.23.191 (talk • contribs) .

I have to admit, though this is an excellent article, the "Visions" section really does read as if it's arguing that Joan's visions wern't due to mental illness, and thus takes on a POV- that Joan of Arc recieved visions from God, which is normal and to be celebrated. The section either needs to be seriously culled until it's balanced, or added to until the "more scientific" POV that people who see visions have some sort of mental illness is better represented, thus restoring the section's NPOV. Barnas 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As an atheist, I'd have to say while it is indeed irrational to believe in God, a normal human mind is most certainly not composed entirely of rationality. Furthermore, back then, people were more heavily indoctrinated by the church and less free to think. If believing in God is "mental illness", then almost everyone back then was mentally ill, and even now probably more than half of this planet's population is ill to some level or another. Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientifically speaking, of course Joan d' Arc's "vision" was some kind of internal, subconscious generation. But it is perfectly possible to have these while being a normal human - dreams or daydreams for example, which may have been interpreted as a vision by someone religious and ignorant of science (the norm in the 1400s) if said dream involved God. Yet I don't think current medical science regards either as a mental illness Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The debate, therefore, is not mostly centered IMO on whether her views came from God. There are, of course, the "devout Roman Catholics", who probably indeed believe her visions came from God along with believing the Earth is 6000 years old, but they are a significant group so by our NPOV policy we must at least have a one-liner on them. The important point-of-debate is whether having "visions" necessarily mean she's ill. The definitive answer, of course, depends on what her visions really are (abnormal hallucinations or normal dreams, for instance). But we can't have that information, so it is perfectly logical to have two sides arguing Kazuaki Shimazaki 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

This has been covered many times before. The Visions section does little more than cite the point, made by Dr. Hoffman and others, that the medical community does not consider visions of God to be automatic proof of mental illness. In some cases, especially if coupled with other symptoms, it would be considered a potential proof, but not by itself.

Concerning 68.122.223.17's comments: every few months we get another angry post claiming that any belief in God is itself proof of insanity. Given that 40% of scientists say they believe in God (see this article at the National Center for Science Education website), evidently nearly half the scientific community is insane.

There is no scientific consensus that either belief in, or visions of God would be proof of insanity, and the article should not be modified to claim that there is such a consensus. 64.83.227.60 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about claiming a consensus. I said that more fully representing both sides of the argument would be a good idea, if someone with knowledge of it can find appropriate sources. The cited sources at the moment are mostly from the "It's not mental illness" argument. That's fine. She might not have been mentally ill. She might not even have had visions, but made them up, and in doing so made herself a rallying point for her country. She might have been insane. She might have seen visions from God. It doesn't matter. What matters is that, as it stands, the section doesn't represent the most common (or, what I percieve to be the most common- there could well be a difference) sides of the argument equally, and thus isn't NPOV and could be improved. Barnas 16:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

(A brief aside to apologize for accidently overwriting someone else's comment. I didn't notice, and wasn't my intention. Barnas 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

The "visions" section does cite sources, and as far as I can see it reflects what most historians think about Joan: her visions are no proof of mental illness. I would add that most historians who write about Joan are not very interested in whether Joan was insane; this question is essentially unanswerable, because Joan is not available for observation, and historians generally try to answer questions that can be answered with the evidence available. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the Joan of Arc article is featured on the front page! Either through a photo or another "anniversary" of something related to this pathetic historical creature, she is again featured and the religious propaganda is displayed.

I have removed all the disgusting "there's nothing wrong with hearing voices" tripe and maybe it will stick. Not only is hearing voices a sign of mental illnes, but believing in any god is in of itself a sign of mental illness (sorry, you religious types, no other way to say it). Please note that I didn't say it means you're INSANE, I said it's a sign of mental illness. Like neurosis, or low self-esteem, or OCD, or, hmmmmm.....lemme see: THINKING THERE'S AN INVISIBLE MAN IN THE SKY WHO MADE YOU. And not only did JoA think there's an invisible man in the sky (a common mental illness), but she actually claimed he talked to her. That is one of the first signs of schizophrenia, which is a couple of miles down the path to insanity.

How can anyone claim that the providers of wikipedia are not engaged in a religious evangelical crusade in the guise of "knowledge" when these types of articles are constantly being featured and allowed to remain so blatantly unscientific? This type of religious blather is as appropriate as me going into a church and telling them all about evolution while they're down on their knees talking to their invisible man in the sky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.223.110 (talk • contribs) .

Maybe she was faking the visions? In reality, perhaps she was just an extremely intelligent girl that had some ideas about how to lead a mostly failing campaign, but she had to come up with a way to get the males to listen to her. So she told everyone she was informed by god, and they would have believed her. Because, after all, how could a lowly woman do the things she did? The general mind set of the period would make it difficult for a female's voice to be heard. But if there was one voice that was being heard by the people of the day, it was god's.

This section has been tagged with neutrality and unverified claims tags. Can someone explain why this section is so tagged? I would like to remove those tags, as now archaic, unless someone can justify why they are here. Thanks. Wjhonson 23:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I added them; the comments were archived. The visions section was added to please POV-pushers (see 68.122.223.17's rant above for an example of the sort of thing). It isn't material found in biographies of the subject, as can be seen from the refs to that section. I haven't read every bio of Joan, life's too short, but none of the four and a half I checked had any comparable material. They all treated the court's long experience of visionaries, sorcerors, fortune tellers, et al, and the procedures which existed to tell the possibly-genuine from the definitely-fake. Beaune's bio and others habe long sections on the interpretation of visions in the C15th, but that's something else. My objection remains as it was: historians do not, as a rule, attempt to rationalise claims of visions and miracle made in the dim and distant past, but this article does and that is evidently WP:OR. To justify this, we now read that "some scholars have suggested that Joan of Arc's visions were hallucinations or delusions caused by a mental illness". And who do we get to support this ? Lucie-Smith. A well-known historian maybe ? No: "John Edward McKenzie Lucie-Smith (born 27 February 1933) is a British writer, poet, art critic, curator and author of exhibition catalogues." Did anyone read WP:RS ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the visions section is not that great, and doesn't reflect the concerns of contemporary scholarship; however, given that a rant about how this article is pushing "religious propaganda" seems to crop up on a regular basis, it's necessary to have something like this. If the section had more about how 15th century people interpreted Joan's visions, that would be a definite improvement. But, even though Lucie-Smith is not a notable historian, it does seem that at one time historians paid more attention to the possible insanity of Joan and various psychiatric/psychological evaluations of her condition; Pernoud's scorn for the theory that unpasteurized milk caused Joan's visions is probably directed not just at a single writer, but a body of sub-par ideas of Joan's visions.

Something similar happens with the Delphic oracle, where in the 19th/early 20th centuries many scholars concentrated on whether the prophecies were authentic, or the oracle was insincere political propaganda; most scholars now start from the fact that the Greeks regarded the oracle as an authentic source of prophecy, and don't worry so much about the mental health or sincerity of the Pythia. However, the recent wave of studies that argue that the Pythia was inspired by ethylene testify that many people still want to find a cause for visionary activity, be it a physical cause like gaseous emissions or a mental cause. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that, as a high military professional in the army of Charles VII, Joan would have become acquainted with Gilles de Rais, she the embodiment of virtue, he of vice? Xxanthippe 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that he committed his crimes after her death. They certainly knew each other - they fought on the same side in several battles and both attended the coronation - but there's very little evidence about how well they knew each other. The culture page does list a fictional work based on that observation. Durova 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, Anne of Burgundy, the duchess of Bedford and wife to the regent of England, declared Joan a virgin during pretrial inquiries. For technical reasons this prevented the court from charging Joan with witchcraft.

Is this because (as I recall it) witches were believed to have had intercourse with the devil as part of the pact granting them their powers? If so, we should mention this specifically. If not, we should specifically mention what those technical reasons actually were. This is Wikipedia; we can spare the room. 194.151.6.67 09:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be another fine topic for the facts and trivia article. You're right. It's also tangential. Durova 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again this disgusting article is perpetuated by the wikipedia authorities. The fact that "visions" section of this article is allowed to exist refutes any claim the wikipedia people can make of being scientific. Or rational. This ridiculous blather about what may or may have not been JoA's mental state is clearly biased and written by another mentally ill person (aka religious) satifying their primitive need to justify their own irrational beliefs in the supernatural.

How can this be allowed to happen over and over and over again?

And why does JoA keep appearing as a link on the front page every few weeks?

Clearly, only through the consent and cooperation of the people who control this site. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they are party to the evangelical nature of the article (if only by tacit consent).

Wikipedia is a joke if they continue to allow this to happen. They may as well rename themselves "The 700 Club."

I urge all rational people to never give any money to wikipedia until they cease their religious agenda and embrace rational thought. Remember the difference between Reason and Faith: Reason is what allows man to build airplanes, Faith is what makes him fly them into buildings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.223.110 (talk • contribs) .

Concerning 68.122.223.110's latest appearance: several persons already explained, the last time you did this, what the views of the scientific and historical communities are (e.g, since 40% of scientists believe in God, such a belief cannot be characterized as "unscientific"; historians do not regard Joan of Arc as mentally ill, etc).

At any rate, Wikipedia talk pages are not the place for Usenet-style attacks against people or religions you personally dislike. AOL chat rooms are available if you want to engage in this type of behavior. 205.188.116.10 19:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The history and talk archives are a useful way to trace the development of this article. Since fall 2005 (when I began editing), it underwent two peer reviews, two requests for comments, and moved up to featured status. As one of the more active editors during that phase, I'd like to allay a few concerns.

That the article appeared on the main page appears to have been an administrative goof. When I nominated it for the name page, the instructions asked for a requested date. Several anniversaries connected with Joan of Arc were upcoming, so I mentioned a variety with the intention that the administrators would select whichever one fit their calendar.

When I revised the article and cited it to bring it up to featured status, I looked for someone better suited than myself to work on the Visions section. No one stepped forward. I did the best I could, attempting to respect both people who revere her as a saint and people who have no particular belief in religion who regard her as an important historic figure.

One or two editors have wondered whether she faked her visions. If anyone can cite a historian who asserts that viewpoint, please do so and edit the text accordingly. I have not found such an author. That she risked her life repeatedly, and ultimately died in defense of them, is strong evidence to the contrary. Durova 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention of 'mental illness' such as 'temporal lobe epilepsy' and 'schizophrenia' - epilepsy is a brain disease, schizophrenia is a 'mental illness' - there is a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rory Carrol (talk • contribs) .

Good point. A recent copyeditor introduced that confusion. Durova 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________

MORE RELIGIOUS PROAGANDA PERPETRATED BY DUROVA

I have tried once again to remove the christian propaganda from the page, but it is reverted within minutes by the evangelicals who run Wikipedia. The blatantly unscientific apologia for her insanity continues.

Wkikipedia is a joke if they allow this evangelical right wing christian nonsense to continue.

I cite sources that indicate why hearing voices is a mental illness and other historical cases of people who hear voices, but it is deleted.

WHY??? hmmm...because this site is run by evangelical right wing fascist republicans must be the answer.

CORRECTION: The editor "Durova" explains previously that he is the one responsible for this laughably innacurate and unscientific page. Since he doesn't even understand the difference between science and faith, he is clearly not qualified to edit this or any other page that is reality-based instead of faith-based. He argues that since some scientists believe in god, then believing in god is not unscientific! Man, if I have to explain that to him, then clearly he is beyond the reach of reason. That's like saying "If an oncologists smoke cigarettes, then clearly cigarettes do not cause cancer." Come on people! HOw can you let right wing religious nuts like Durvoa keep this page as is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.223.164 (talk • contribs) .

Please read the site policy Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. That approach gets in the way of productive editorial discussion. 68.122.223.164, you criticize me for comments another editor posted. Your guesses about my gender, politics, and religion are badly off the mark, nor should personal ideology matter when an editor follows WP:NPOV. Bear in mind that this article has passed peer reviews, requests for comment, and featured article selection with input from dozens of Wikipedians of all backgrounds. Thousands of people visit this article and you are the first in many months to raise this objection (we used to have another editor who did advance a religious agenda - read the history files regarding that). Perhaps the problem is not what is actually on the screen, but what you interpolate into it. Durova 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When this article was featured on the front page on April 16, 2006, the first sentence was: Joan of Arc, or Jeanne d'Arc^[1] (1412–30 May 1431),^[2] is a national heroine of France and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church.

Since that time Joan's name has been changed to St. Joan of Arc, Protectress of France and other forms of her name have been added. There hasn't been much discussion of these changes. However, it is clear that "Joan of Arc" is the most common form of our subject's name in English; "St. Joan of Arc" is comparatively rare. "protectress of France" appears to be a rare phrase, if Google is any guide. Therefore, I'm going to change the beginning sentence to: Joan of Arc, also known as Jeanne d'Arc or Jeanne la Pucelle, (6 January 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a national heroine of France and a saint of the Roman Catholic Church. (I've left out the footnotes here, but they will appear in the article.)

Complaints about this article being "religious propaganda" seem to have gone up since the lead was changed to "St. Joan of Arc, Protectress of France" and the saint box was moved to the top of the article; perhaps going back to "Joan of Arc" will reduce these complaints somewhat. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone resolved one of the two concerns that had moved the saint box to the legacy section: the saint box no longer generates a large amount of empty white space when it's at the lead. The archives include a few discussions on the matter of saint boxes and NPOV balance. We might want to wait a few more weeks with the box at its present location and see whether it generates more complaints. Durova 22:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In order to maintain FA standards I'm giving the article a good look - it's been several months since I was a frequent editor. Posting a few observations for discussion:

• Why was the political poster from the 2002 French presidential election removed? It was the only recent image in the article - if there was some specific objection to that, it would be good to know so that editors can find something else that demonstrates Joan of Arc's connection to current events.

• The mention of Judy Grundy - could we have a reference for this please? The current text implies that the footnote at the end of the paragraph cites her, which it does not. Although her comments seem germane, I'm not familiar with her work or her qualifications. If no one can verify this then WP:V forces a cut.

• The French forensic study of Joan of Arc's putative remains should be publishing its results around now. Has anyone seen a report? We ought to update as soon as it becomes available.

• Does the administrative move of Joan of Arc's home village from the duchy of Bar to the province of Lorraine deserve mention? Does the specific inclusion of exclusion of Joan of Arc's actual home village among French cessions to Germany after 1870 affect the political overtones of her depictions in late nineteenth century French art? The article has lost some of its depth and nuance to these geographic quibbles.

Otherwise a skim of the current version looks pretty similar the original FA. One collaborative phenomenon has continued: contributors who attempt to copyedit sometimes change a line into something vague or misleading. One such example, as another editor notes above, is the assertion that Joan of Arc was too intelligent to have been mentally ill. Another is a confusion between psychiatric and neurological conditions. In addition to hyperbole about the Visions section, some weasel words have lodged throughout the article and unexplained deletions make the Legacy section harder to read. A few sly editors in the past changed cited passages to misconstrue an expert's meaning. I intend to see whether this has happened since my last careful read. I also plan to cross reference the current version against the original FA, restoring or fact checking as time allows.

Another note: hundreds of people are responsible for this article. I created about 85% of the footnotes and - although I'd like to boast of having raised the article from a POV flag to an FA - I cannot be held responsible for every word. One recent editor accuses me of biases that I do not possess. This introduces a danger that my actual biases may remain unrecognized and unchallenged. So in the interest of candor I'll confess them: I regard the evidence of Joan of Arc's visions as too historiographically tainted to be conclusive of anything. My principal bias - which I have long worried affects the article - concerns her military career. I am a female war veteran and adopted my username from Nadezhda Durova, the first female officer of the Russian army. This article has gained input from advocates of various points of view, but none who oppose my particular fascination. So I became my own devil's advocate and the positions I cite my against my genuine POV are (I hope) not straw man arguments. Durova 22:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: the only Google results for Judy Grundy in connection with Joan of Arc are a single page here [2] and Wikipedia mirrors. Deleting the mention per WP:V. Also, no results of the forensic study have been published yet. Durova 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please import the map image from the French language edition of this article? It's a better quality JPEG of the same picture we have. I'm too busy to handle that myself. Durova 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've found the cause of the Front National image deletion: an editor removed it with a claim it was irrelevant to the article. Upon visiting that editor's userpage I also discovered this person is on indefinite block for various policy violations. The image got auto-deleted from Wikipedia's database because no article linked to it. There's another task for downloading when time becomes available. Durova 03:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I posted the following to both Wikiproject Atheism and Wikiproject Catholicism:

Hi, I'd like to ask some editors from this project to evaluate Joan of Arc and its talk page, particularly the Visions section. This FA has come under criticism from a particular editor who thinks it is religiously biased. In the interest of fairness I'm seeking input from both Catholics and atheists. No specific expertise about Joan of Arc is necessary - just seeking fresh eyes and general impressions. Please leave reactions on the article talk page. Thank you.

Appropriate NPOV for this article has always been a delicate balance. As other sections of this page show, this has become an issue again in the last six weeks. In your opinion, are these criticisms valid? To what degree (if so) and what would you suggest to address any problems?

While this article is featured, it has never had an expert editor for the Visions section. Durova 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Per WP:V I reverted the entire clothing section to the version from 24 March. This required some sleuthing and deserves explanation.

The deleted version of this section made extensive reference here [3], which has the superficial appearance of a legitimate academic journal. None of the people listed on the cover page is an academic historian. Allen Williamson, the author of the study, is a former Wikipedia editor who repeatedly tried to circumvent WP:NOR and WP:Reliable sources on this article. His efforts degenerated into sockpuppetry and vandalism before apparently ceasing when other editors threatened to initiate a formal complaint with his service provider AOL. Now, I submit, he has vanity published in order to quote himself on this website.

The Clothing section's former references to this dubious journal supplied little content other than rehashing Adrien Harmand's work of eighty years ago. Durova 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a media report concerning a woman who is currently sending out Joan of Arc medals for U.S. troops to wear in battle, as a form of "spiritual armor". Perhaps this would be appropriate for mention in the article?

(From Catholic News Service - http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602683.htm )

(material removed because of copyright violation concerns --Akhilleus (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

It looks like Ms. Benincasa is certainly devoted. The sort of recent events that get mentioned in this article are on a larger scale such as the political party that finished second in the 2002 French presidential election. I'm not sure where to suggest you take this, but if it gets reported in half a dozen or so newspapers it might qualify for its own article. Best wishes, Durova 07:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Another news article on the phenomenon, from The Oakland Press

(material removed because of copyright violation concerns --Akhilleus (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Please do not post full news reports here. I suggest that if you collect several news stories about Ms. Benincasa you start a new Wikipedia stub about her and her project using those articles as references. You could link from that to Joan of Arc under the See Also heading and add that article to Category:Joan of Arc. It is impossible to mention all efforts of this scale on the main article. See Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for representative examples. Regards, Durova 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)