Talk:Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc

message: This is blatant Joan of Arc denial. How dare you. Shame on you all!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial 

message: I very much doubt that Sackville-West suggested Joan had been gay in 1993, given that she died in 1962. Are you sure you're not thinking of somebody else? No, not exactly.
::There is nothing to suggest this in Vita Sackville-West's book. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Vita Sackville-West

message: I'll probably be crucified for the boldness, but per WP:TRIV I moved the article here and broke out Name of Joan of Arc.  Here is some material that I now don't know what to do with, as it is unreferenced. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: Why is the Taxil hoax referred to in the See Also? It doesn't have anything to do with Joan. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Taxil hoax]]

message: Right now the title is Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc. But the first sentence is 
: Joan of Arc facts and trivia covers topics of specialized interest that pertain to the life and legacy of Joan of Arc.
implying that the title is Joan of Arc facts and trivia. In fact, though, that phrase doesn't even redirect here.
Of the three major sections, the first two are on facts and trivia and the third is on alternative historical interpretations. This all needs to be altered to something sensible. Either the page should be moved over redirect to Joan of Arc facts and trivia (if alternative interpretations are considered to be a subset of that), or the lead and first two major sections need to be moved to a different article called Joan of Arc facts and trivia (in which case a new lead needs to be written for what remains). 204.11.158.204 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to change the title to fit the article 

message: I added the Lord Woodhouselee passage, now reverted, because it is interesting, and because it has some credibility.  Most versions of the story of Joan of Arc involve some sort of supernatural intervention.  How does an uneducated peasant girl correctly identify the king?  How does she take command of troops and employ effective tactics?  Stories about Joan of Arc satisfy all sorts of agendas. It is a great David and Goliath story. It shows how French patriotism and the monarchy is ordained by God.  It is so convenient that the English turned out to be damned Protestants.  Shakespeare's problem was explaining to English audiences how English Real Men can get defeated by the French. By any reasonable Real Man standards, Charles VII was a successful king.  During his reign, the foreign invaders were driven out, and the country unified.  Yet, he is depicted as an incompetent weakling.
:I would actually try to re-introduce this. The whole Joan of Arc wikipedia article has an unduly apologetic and feminist-centric tone to it, rather than just trying to be factual. Additionally, by the accepted account she was 19 when she was martyred, but yet how many different battles was she in? The earlier pope's decision declaring her a martyr could have been political as much as anything else. Also, I can't help but wonder if Catholics are trying to defend their saint, like they have done with the Mother Teresa article in the past. Nodekeeper (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be interesting to you, but Wikipedia requires independent sources that attest to its interest. Besides, the extract was too long and out of balance. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Woodhouselee 

message: I'm not qualified to add the section myself, but I am curious why it isn't here already?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because there is no evidence for it. Anyway, this is the wrong venue. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the theory that she was a Lesbian considered worhty on inclusion here? 

message: There are a number of books claiming she was English, Italian, or various other ethnic identities. I don't think those ideas are covered in this article. Nor does it cover the claim she was a Grand Master of the Knights Templar which appears in at least one book.  Conversely, some books claim she never had any role in an army at all, which doesn't seem to be covered here either. Cookncrem (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories on Origins