Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 8

message: 72.131.5.129 posted an unsourced assertion recently that the article incorrectly uses visions to describe experiences that were solely auditory and today made wholesale changes to that effect, again without citing any reference.  Here are some quotes from the trial that contradict the IP's claim:
*she answered that the voice was the voice of St. Catherine and of St. Margaret. And their heads were crowned in a rich and precious fashion with beautiful crowns. (p. 58)
*she answered that it was St. Michael whom she saw before her eyes; and he was not alone, but accompanied by many angels from heaven. (p. 59)
*Asked if she saw St. Michael and these angels corporeally and in reality, she answered: "I saw them with my bodily eyes as well as I see you; and when they left me, I wept; and I fain would have had them take me with them too." (p. 59)
*Asked if there was a light, she answered: "There were three hundred knights and fifty torches, without counting the spiritual light, and I seldom have revelations but there is a light." (p. 61)
*Asked if she always saw them in the same dress, she answered she always sees them in the same form; and their heads are richly crowned. Of their other clothing she does not speak: of their robes she knows nothing. (p. 71)
*Asked what part of them she saw, she answered the face.  Asked if the saints which appeared to her had hair, she answered: "It is well to know that they have." (p. 71)
These ought to be sufficient to establish the point.  Per the above I'm reverting the IP changes. DurovaCharge! 07:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visions/voices 

message: The article in the picture caption of her birth village states
:"The village church where she worshipped is on the right behind several trees."
This strikes me as erroneous because Catholics do not worship saints, but venerate them. If this article were not a featured article I would have corrected it immediately as a clear mistake, but now I wonder whether I miss something. Andries 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption says that Joan worshipped there, not that she is worshipped there. Presumably, she participated in Mass there, which means that she worshipped God. Freder1ck 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I misread. May be we can re-formulate that by saying that she went to Mass there. Andries 09:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you may be bold in updating the page in this case. The information is more specific and non-controversial. Freder1ck 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worshipped or venerated?

message: I grew up with the legend that her heart was not burned. Is this true?Therequiembellishere 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the witnesses at the retrial testified to that effect.  It was probably a hagiographic embellishment.  None of that trial's other witnesses repeated the claim although several of them had also been present at the execution.  The circumstances of her death - with the body reduced to ashes and thrown into a river - make the claim unlikely. DurovaCharge! 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WEll, if you believe in a higher deity, Durova, then it could make sense.Therequiembellishere 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal beliefs are not at issue here.  What is at issue is the probability that, if the claimed miracle did occur, then everyone who had been present would have testified to it instead of only one of several witness who reported on the execution. DurovaCharge! 14:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O, sorry, I was supposed to have a ";)" there. Sorry if I offended you. Therequiembellishere 01:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken.  It's just worth pointing out that, regardless of a reader's religious POV, that particular claim remains improbable. DurovaCharge! 03:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heart

message: What's with all the juvenile vandalism in here?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. This is not the first article on a historical figure I've seen this happen to - Caligula is one on my watchlist that needs frequent reversions. My guess is that's its kids who want to vandalize a "real" encyclopedia article, and pick a famous historical figure that they've heard of. --Stormie 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of it originates from school IP addresses.  I could semi-protect the page to cut down on the problem.  So far that step hasn't been necessary. DurovaCharge! 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else semiprotected the article and I've gone ahead and semiprotected this talk page for a week. DurovaCharge! 01:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I've restored the category.  The deletion note asserted that Joan of Arc wore men's apparel only for practical purposes (which is mistaken - she also wore men's clothes in social situations when there was no need to do so) and that the category's exclusive purpose is for women who disguise themselves as men.  The category name refers to crossdressing not male impersonation. DurovaCharge! 02:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon further research I've uncovered and corrected this edit at crossdressing during wartime that had been made by the Joan of Arc vandal.  This may explain the confusion. DurovaCharge! 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Female wartime crossdressers]] 

message: I have to do a report on joan OF arc and i am so pumped this web page gave me so much info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.110.45.203 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  But please check up everything you learned here with other sources. DurovaCharge! 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan of arc report...