Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 9

message: 74.76.152.162 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it was just added here. Quite interesting, not entirely unexpected I think. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 04:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news

message: 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)
thread_title: Death Legend

message: 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)
thread_title: Archive 8

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 05:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging from [[Name of Joan of Arc]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: She appears in Henry VI, Part 1. The Legend of Julie Egbert 15:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: The information is already footnoted.  What I've always done is remove it.  It's fairly common for popular readership works to repeat that date uncritically, so this crops up periodically. DurovaCharge! 21:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthdate

message: She is so cool. And i think the information you show on this site is really good, well done to the guys and girls who do it! 
can you tell me what other female's to look up, i find it so interesting.
:Try Kathleen Hanna, Allison Wolfe, Nancy Pelosi and Martha Stewart. - Throw 20:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan, Oh Joan 

message: I would like to bring up two omissions in the article.  First, her real name was Jeanne Darc -- the French mistook this for Jeanne d'Arc and the mistake has been carried into other languages such as English.  Brecht corrected this in his play.  There is no such place as Arc!
Secondly, there is how Joan fit into the political propaganda of the time.  Both the English and French were looking for "miracles" that would prove that their respective kings were chosen by God.  For the English, the lopsided victory at Agincourt was a pro-English miracle, reflected in Shakespeare's Henry V.  The French needed a miracle of their own, and found it in the victories of a "mere" peasant girl.  To refute this the English had to blame Joan's victories on the Devil -- hence the accusations of witchcraft.  It all sounds silly now but had a powerful propaganda effect in its time.  Shakespeare was still parroting the "witch" accusation two centuries after Joan's time.
Incidentally, the Joan of Arc display at Madame Tussaud's in London claims that some of the judges tried to mitigate the sentence by ordering the executioner to secretly stab Joan to death, then burn the corpse (this sort of thing was not unusual in an age of savage executions).  The plan failed.  Any citations on that beyond Madame Tussaud's?
CharlesTheBold 02:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles, see Name of Joan of Arc.  The full explanation is too digressive to include in the main article.  For the second point, what source other than Shakespeare do you have for that?  We can't accept a fictional account as a historical source.  And you might ask the Tussaud staff what their source is.  At any rate, the original sources include eyewitness testimony that she not only burned to death, but the English prevented any of the usual methods for making the death more humane.  The most common of these was for sympathizers to bring bundles of sticks so that the condemned would die of smoke inhalation before being touched by the flames.  I know of no surviving record that states any of her judges tried to implement the plan the Tussaud museum describes. DurovaCharge! 12:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name, also psychology 

message: Can someone explain this article to me about a book? Because I find it hilarious!
link:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/happy-ending-for-joan-of-arc-she-was-saved-by-133-the-english/2007/09/23/1190486137759.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.102.244 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A very old fringe theory, warmed over. DurovaCharge! 17:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, none of those theories are particularly new.  -- Rei 19:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy ending for Joan of Arc, she was saved by the English? 

message: the main page for this article has this link below. I think it's a silly suggestion and I think it should be removed.
http://www.globalspot.com/know/joanarc.shtml  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.74.88 (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Old fringe theory, warmed over. DurovaCharge! 15:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Vandalism. DurovaCharge! 06:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone vandalized the date.  I'll fix that. DurovaCharge! 18:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan of Arc was a man? 

message: I think in my opinion, this popular article should be locked from editing and vandalizing sentences. CookCityPenn 13:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  It's a frequent target while school's in session.  I've put some semiprotection onto the article for a while.  Cheers, DurovaCharge! 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: My name is Tom and i have contributed some articles & some messages. Soon I would be handing in a Joan of Arc Essay. Thanks for this info.
Tom (Scrth)
tom 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Information 

message: many protesstant christians say that Joan of Arc's visions were demonic shouldn't this be listed under the section about her visions since it includes the theories of them being a divine revelation as stated by the catholic church who declares her a saint and the theory that she had mental delusions such as schizophrenia i am adding that theory under the vision section of this article unless some one posts a response to this and tells me why i shouldn't  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieh7337 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  witchcraft theory