Article stats[edit]

I nominate User:Wtfiv for a Featured article save award for their herculean efforts over a year to completely rewrite Joan of Arc to FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Wtfiv

Support. In the longest-ever FAR to date, Wtfiv produced a spectacular result in a fine collaboration, where Wtfiv's patience, politeness and perseverance seemed never-ending even in the face of the persistent socking plaguing the article. Balancing scores of sources and plenty of historical controversy, Wtfiv has produced a masterpiece. Wtfiv's effort also warrants the Million award that accompanies this star. A reminder to all to keep this one watchlisted, as the sock endures. Joan is one of FAR's truly finest saves, thanks to Wtfiv. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for all the great work over many months. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support incredible work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sandy. Truly well-deserved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hog Farm _Talk 22:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the effort, endurance, quality, and result are outstanding. Congrats! Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 05:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Star should be extra sparkly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Absolutely! Victoria (tk) 14:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FASA nomination John

I nominate User:John for a Featured article save award for contributions towards saving the bronze star at Joan of Arc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion John

Support. When the FAR had reached a point that even a saintly person would be exhausted by maintaining the scholarship and citations as Wtfiv did, John appeared and contributed a hundred-plus edits to copyedit and fine tune the prose up to FA standards. While the MILLION is Wtfiv's, John's copyediting skills assured the bronze star could be retained. John should proudly display the star associated with this article in userspace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work. Thanks for picking this up. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support incredible work! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – excellent job. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hog Farm _Talk 22:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the effort, endurance, quality, and result are outstanding. Congrats! Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support –♠Vamí _IV†♠ 05:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great to see you back! Victoria (tk) 14:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia comments[edit]

Images

In this series of edits, I am trying to remove MOS:SANDWICHing and other layout issues which were basically all originating in the problematic double map in the second infobox, which I removed. That allows better placement of all other images. Why did we need both maps?
When I get to the Legacy section, some of the image issues are related to the layout of that section.
1. Why do we need a straw man section about an artifact that is in fact not Joan at all, and why do we need the image?
2. SEVEN sub-heads in the Legacy section, each one of them one paragraph. [1] Can this not be better sectioned, to only three of four sections (for example, early legacy and symbol of France are combinable, and probably so are Saint, martyr, heroic woman, which would leave other cultural, where the artifacts can be mentioned).
I can't address the image weirdness in this section until the sections are rationalized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and did that here; will go back and fix edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the statue photos now looks good! Wtfiv (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 as I do my review, I am (slowly) trying to address your concerns as I go (I will get to the statements that need time context as I come to them). I haven't started yet on text. For now, I have attempted some work to address the image caption issues you raised. But image work is not my forté, and I've avoided them like the plague for my entire WikiCareer; could you have a look at the image captions now and let me know if the job is done, and if not, what else is needed? I have tried to standardize to the name or type of art, followed in parentheses by the date and where it is located. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You work was great! I appreciate it. I know how much work it is, but I think you know how much you've accomplished! I'll follow up with deleting the legacy to see how it looks. I'll do it as a one-edit revertable. Enjoy your night! Wtfiv (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 your change had the statues/horses marching off the page; images should face the page or text. I'm not a believer in a strict left to right balance, but images facing off the screen are very distracting! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy I found this image of the coronation, checking the source and cropping. A bit melodramatic, but it keeps with the theme of 19th-20th century French national images of Joan that the article is now tending toward. Should we use it (or the cropped version) in place of the paired 15th century images? Or are the 15th century images fine? Wtfiv (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong preference, but I'm worried that until we have Nikkimaria do an image review on all of the images in the article, we may be spinning our wheels. There have been many image changes, I don't speak images, and I don't know which are policy compliant. Some of the older images are quite hard to see, so I have to keep upping the upright= size. (I am planning to dig in and try to finish reviewing Legacy this afternoon.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on the images, and I think we're okay for the most part. At first glance, only the Le Figaro cover looks like a problem to me. And even there, I'm not sure. But Nikkimaria and others who know these things may find more. I like the Le Figaro, it works very well where it is. But I will look for a backup just in case. Wtfiv (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as to which images you prefer, I'll leave that to you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, There is one last image I'm thinking of adding. It too is from the Pantheon Frieze. It's titled, Joan entering Compiegne I like it because it shows the folk nature of Joan being adored by the peasants. It feels more of a stylistic sense of her as folk hero. It also seems to me to illustrate the Napoleon quote about Joan. It would be placed in the capture section, forming a diagonal relation with the other image of her capture in that section.

I tried it out at upright=1.2 and it seems to fit comfortably and doesn't sandwich. The downside is that it an image already in the style of two we have, may be too similar in theme to "Joan enters Orleans". And, would it be- in your opinion- an image too many? Wtfiv (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv I feel like we already have too many images, but I really need to see it in action. I say put it in, we'll play around with it, and we can remove it if it doesn't work (I look at the layout on four different computers when dealing with image layout issues). In both of those, she is facing to the left, so I'd rather try them as a horizontal multiple image on the right-hand side of the article (right now, the Capture section has her facing off the screen). I'm not too concerned about adding one more image from the mural if we are able to combine it with the pre-existing image from the mural. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try. I've been testing it on three screens. So far, so good. I'd say take a look. If it works, great. If not, remove it. My own preference is to avoid multiple images. I think the statues is a great exception to this because it allows readers to compare two similar equestrian statues. Also, I got the title wrong in the note above, it's not Compiegne, it's more general. Wtfiv (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy I don't think joining the multiple images works. The two pictures are stylistically similar, but don't thematically form a unity. If you don't think they work separately (i.e., too many) let's just delete latest. Wtfiv (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would to be to swap it out with the Le Figaro one. I do like that one, however, as it adds stylistic diversity and emphasizes the "woman" in "woman hero". The other would more emphasize her role as Defender of France, and her charisma, but at the cost of stylistic repitition. Wtfiv (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv ... Could we please not worry about images while we need to get the article fixed so that we can ping in other reviewers? I was interrupted by a phone call from a friend with a medical situation and need to dash out; I've put in what I think works, and don't have time to continue putzing with images today, which suddenly turned into a very complicated day. We can work on images once we get to the point of pinging in other reviewers and while we are waiting for them; this is a distraction. Sorry for the rush, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll revert to my original. It'll make it easier to eliminate if you chose to remove it. No rush. Otherwise, I'm done for now pending any concerns that need to be addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the images currently in the article...

File:Joan_of_Arc_miniature_graded.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Joan_of_arc_interrogation.jpg, File:Albert_Lynch_-_Jeanne_d'Arc.jpg
File:Joandearc-signature.svg should not be claimed as own work
- I've removed the own work tag for this. Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Treaty_of_Troyes.svg needs a data source and presents a MOS:COLOUR problem
File:Jeanne_d'Arc_présentée_à_Charles_VII_(cropped).jpg is mislicensed
- @Nikkimaria: - I've added what appears to be the correct tag for the French public domain. Not sure what the proper US tag is - maybe ((PD-1996))? Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do we know when it was first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's part of the series that Jules-Eugène Lenepveu (1819-1898) did for the Panthéon c. 1890. Wtfiv (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hundred Years War Map has been updated. It follows suggestions in MOS:COLORS and uses data from a cited source. Thanks again! Wtfiv (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Panthéon_-_Le_Sacre_de_Charles_VII_(hlw16_0302)_cropped.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Capture_de_Jeanne.JPG, File:Monument_commémoratif_de_la_réhabilitation_de_Jeanne_d’Arc.jpg, File:Orléans_Jeanne_d'Arc_place_du_Martroi.jpg, File:Paris-statue-J_d'arc_02.jpg, File:Joan_of_Arc_(5568983169)-_Modified_Version.jpg - keep in mind that France does not have freedom of panorama consistent with Wikipedia's definition of freedom (due to the non-commercial limitation). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time, Nikkimaria. I think the issues are now addressed, except for the map. Many of the works- particularly the sculpture- now have two sets of attributions: one for the artwork (both US and beyond US) and one for the photograph. If I'm understanding France's Freedom of Panorama law correctly, photos of sculptures okay as long as they have the copyright notice because the public art objects are out of copyright? Wtfiv (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria; Wtfiv, I hope you can handle all of this because i don't speak images ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the final one, the sculpture in actually in New Orleans, Louisiana, but there isn't freedom of panorama for 3D artwork in the USA either. The original in France was erected in 1874 and the sculptor died in 1910 so it should be PD. Not sure if the PD status carries over to the derivative work in the US (may depend on how faithful the replica is). Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - if it was sculpted and not mechanically reproduced it's more likely than not that it would qualify as a derivative. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, if I'm reading this right, then the New Orleans copy may also be from the 19th century from the same sculptor who died in 1910, although the same source suggests that this copy wasn't publicly displayed until the 1970s. Hog Farm _Talk 23:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dashing out the door, but I read in several places that it languished in a warehouse for decades. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria and Hogfarm! Noted it was cast in 1880 and it's Fremiet's work. Linked a Smithonian site for reference, then applied copyright accordingly: A pair for the artwork and one for the photograph. Wtfiv (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Wtfiv wrote below: I'm thinking we could delete the alternate history legacy altogether. We could create a "See also" section and link there. The only problem is that the "alternate history" was heavily edited by sockpuppet accounts. Maybe we should just leave it out altogether? I feel somewhat the same about the relics section. The information is good for those interested, but does it go here?

I merged the seven one-paragraph sections to three sections per the reasoning above. But the main thing that struck me, and that led me to do that, was that File:Tete_de_Saint_Maurice_Orleans.jpg does not belong in this article. I am OK keeping "Alternate history", but it doesn't need to be singled out with its own section. I am unconvinced the relics belong in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After you are done editing tonight, I'm going to try a single edit deletion of "relics" and "legacy" if you are okay with that. I'll also add a "See also" section. Then, take a look and if it seems to improve the article, we can stay with it. It might make for a cleaner article, and it shunts the Caze reference, which, which one reviewer did not care for, to the "alternative history" child article. Wtfiv (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv the work needed on images (for Hchc2009) took a long time, so I think I'll call it a night for now. We can't really expect someone else to do the work needed to meet FA status, even if issues weren't raised initially; we have to fix everything. I've pinged Hchc2009 to my image work above. For now, I'm calling it a night; it's all yours :) This is going to be fun, but it's going to take a long time, because there is a lot to edit around with all that citation work! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented the deletions for legacy to see how they look. In the process, I merged the two equestrian statues. My thinking: both represent the symbol of France, but make very different points. It also helps to avoid images mashing up. This moved the Figaro image to illustrate strong woman, which seems perfect. Again, all this can be reversed. Wtfiv (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re-merging the images is fine, but in doing it, you somehow went back to the old captions, from before I standardized them to a consistent format-- so I got back on and fixed those, since I had already asked Hchc2009 to revisit the image captions! All good for now; I will start read through some time tomorrow, but I have a very busy two days coming up, so progress will be slow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We link to patron saint when describing her as a secondary patron saint, but the Wikipedia article never explains what a secondary patron saint is, and we never explain her secondary status by saying that Saint Denis of Paris is the primary patron saint of France. So the non-Catholic is left wondering what "secondary" means. What if we say instead "one of France's two patron saints" in the lead, adding on (along with Denis of Paris) in the body? Then no need to introduce the undefined term "secondary". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is more complicated. Joan was secondary patron saintFrance has nine secondary patron saints, and Joan was definitively nominated as a secondary patron saint. though there were less when Joan was nominated. Here's a list. There's no article in Wikipedia that defines secondary saint. Finding a source that defines a secondary saint seems is hard too. I think easiest solution is to note she was made "one of the" patron saints. Less accurate, but it gets the job done, I think. Wtfiv (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Good enough, [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan of Arc has become a semi-legendary figure ... ugh ... can we find a better word than "semi-legendary"? Feels like almost pregnant; either you're a legend or you're not. The cited source gives me no other leads, but perhaps others do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pernoud p. 243 gives us patriot and saint; we could combine that with other sources to list patriot, saint, symbol of France, martyr, heroine, military leader, etc as introduction ... anything to replace semi-legendary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted "semi-legendary" The remainder of the sentence about being "most studied" is moved to end of legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy is a mess, and will take a lot of thought to fix. Also, it is the legacy mess that is making the lead problematic. I will start fresh on a new day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to save the subsections I found, but the form doesn't have to be the final result. You've done a lot! Wtfiv (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

The readable prose of this version is only 7,100 words; we have room to add prose.

This is an example of where I believe the reader is forced to stumble over too many footnotes:

Joan of Arc[b] was born sometime around 1412[c] in Domrémy, a small village in the Meuse valley,[9] which is now located in the Vosges department within the historical region of Lorraine, France.[10]

I believe this, as an example, is solveable by moving some of the footnoted text to article content. See J. K. Rowling.

So, in these edits, I've removed two footnotes. Revert if you hate it; comments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two more footnotes reduced here; this is text that is useful for the reader, and one of them hung me up on my first read-through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy I think most of your changes are great, and your jumping in to help edit helps me to edit too. Here's the notes.

I saw you were trying to deal with picture sandwiching by merging. But I don't think they went together well, so I chose one of each to keep.
Good, no problem. Let's discuss that in #Images above, but I think we're good now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have substantially reduced the footnotes, there are now about 24.
I have reduced them further. A lot of that text was worthy of being in the article, and the article is not an unmanageable size. Let's see if others still object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the name section. Looking at the edit, my preference is to put it into a footnote again, as we now have more room in that regard. section looks a bit too short and choppy... I looked at the J. K. Rowling example. It is very good, but Rowling's is working out a slightly more substantive issue. I think the main role of the footnote is to ensure that the concerns of editors, which seem to recur is addressed. Discuss?
Will discuss that separately at #Name section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, just moved the "alternate history" and "relics" sections up, which I think was a good call. I'm thinking we could delete the alternate history legacy altogether. We could create a "See also" section and link there. The only problem is that the "alternate history" was heavily edited by sockpuppet accounts. Maybe we should just leave it out altogether? I feel somewhat the same about the relics section. The information is good for those interested, but does it go here?
I believe I did that? Will continue in #Legacy section above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one place where I would like to undo an edit is to put back the OSM map. It lists all of Joan's campaigns, which the master map does not do. And if interested readers click the interactive link, it lists all the major locations of Joan's life, giving readers a sense of the relative geography of her life in a precise location. It also served as a list of her battles and campaigns, which was on the list when I started, and which I feel should remain.

In the Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 14 talk, it came up as an issue for readers.
Even though the two maps are similar, they are doing different work. The first is there to make sense of the historical details in that first section and has details beyond Joan's life and doesn't mark all of Joan's notable place. But they do overlap a lot So I see your point. Suggestions?
Continued in #Maps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I think the section with the historical background is too long. I reduced it by around 25%, but felt I couldn't get it down further without completely losing a reader knowing nothing about the topic. She it be left alone? Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv (talk • contribs) 23:02, August 7, 2022 (UTC)
I haven't yet started my read-through; when I do, I will go section by section and start a talk section for each article section. I am finding very long paras which can be offputting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv, I use the reply tool, which won't work when you don't sign, and means I have to move to another computer to respond. Will catch up shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also use talk sections for each topic, so I can easily tell what is addressed (we now have about four different topics above in the footnote section-- images, footnotes, maps, name, etc); I need to split those out to track where I stand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done The footnotes have now been reduced in half from where they were when reviewers complained; the number of footnotes now is not unreasonable, and if a reviewer objects to them, they should state explicitly what is wrong with any give footnote. I am satisfied with the footnotes as of this version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

In this version, something is off with citation #110. Barker 2009, p. 118; DeVries 1999, pp. 82–85; Gies 1981, pp. 79–78. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Wtfiv (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the same version, that she was not allowed to work Alencon again is cited to Pernoud 76 to 77, but it should be 78 to 79. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Wtfiv (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia thanks for catching the Barrett citation. I got rid of the Quicherat citations and moved them too. Because this is all good primary source material, I'd like to keep them. But I do dislike "Further Reading" sections, as they open the window for endless self-promotion. Is it reasonable to put it back into sources under the "Source Material" heading setting ref to none, or create a subsection called "General Reference" as per WP:CITETYPE? What are your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv (talk • contribs) 7:43, August 19, 2022 (UTC)

First and foremost, I defer to Victoriaearle on how to best deal with this. I know what I would do on a medical article, but this may be different. But what I would do on a medical article is to refer back to the primary source in a secondary source that references it by tacking in on inside the ref tags with a "Referencing" or "See" note. That way, you can keep it listed in the Sources, while not directly using it to cite anything. Is that possible? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll wait to see what Victoria thinks. Your suggestion sounds good. I've done a bit of that, but have purged most of the Latin text. I think the sources are worthwhile, as I used them multiple times to a source to address sockpuppet claims. (Hence the large number of quotes from the transcripts in early drafts.) But maybe its only worthwhile adding one or two for Barrett, the English translation. Wtfiv (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep Quicherat in the note. Don't know if this solves the issue? Victoria (tk) 20:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

First, I will put the map back myself on the infobox (since I removed, don't want you to have to do the work), but a) it is horrible (as it repeats what is in the other map) and b) I'll then have to juggle images to avoid the sandwich issues. Working on that next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to wait and rediscuss, that's okay. Maybe we should just return the military infobox to its earlier form, which was a list? The 17 Feb 2022 version has a version of the old box. Wtfiv (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just lost my entire response to edit conflicts, which is why I prefer to work in talk sections. Will start over. Please let me finish my responses, since we now have four topics in one section (footnotes now combines footnotes, images, maps, legacy, history and Lord knows what all else :) I had responded to each and lost it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv wrote above: Even though the two maps are similar, they are doing different work. The first is there to make sense of the historical details in that first section and has details beyond Joan's life and doesn't mark all of Joan's notable place. But they do overlap a lot So I see your point. Suggestions?

If the maps are doing different work, that is not apparent to (likely) to most readers. I suspect we have MilHist types who won't let go of their war, but NEITHER of the maps is actually very effective, so we have UGH times 2. The first one breaches MOS:COLOR badly, so whatever it is supposed to be doing differently than the other one, maybe it can be re-done to be less duplicative of the second one. At any rate, we now have the images b better juggled, so have less of a problem ... but it is lost on me why we are duplicating two maps that each breach MOS:COLOR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete the first, as it focuses on the war; The OSM focus on Joan. The alternative is to delete OSM and revert to the list-version military infobox that listed Joan's battles.

Is this the discussion about the maps you reference in archives? I see no strong reasoning or consensus for keeping it; perhaps I'm looking at the wrong discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no strong consensus for the OSM. I was just giving context. I created the OSM to address multiple issues in one tool: replacing a plain list of battles in the military infobox; listing, linking and annotating Joan's significant places so that readers had a meaningful geographic context of her life; and giving a meaningful temporal sequence to those events. but deleting edits is in the nature of the beast. My bias emerges because it was a lot of work. For example, I tried to get the location of each place (such as the Battle of Patay or Margny where she was captured) as correct as the sources allowed so if someone zooms in on the interactive map, they could get a precise location. I think it accomplished all three goals. But, I know deleting work is the nature of the WikiBeast, so if it is best for the article, it may have to go. Wtfiv (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is why I hate infoboxes. I'm not going to get too hung up on this just yet; neither image complies with MOS:COLOR. And we may have bigger image issues when we get to the point of asking Nikkimaria (the image expert) to look at the licensing on those used here. I'm no image expert, but things look wonky to me. I'll leave you to think about how to best address the maps, considering all factors. We'll probably have to revisit this once the dust settles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OSM map has been updated to address colorblindness as per MOS:COLOR. The Hundred Years War Map would require a bit more work. I'll try to do it if there is time. Wtfiv (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One map done, [3] getting better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am now satisfied that the two Maps are useful (I had not realized before how the interactive-ness of the second map worked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The precise date, "She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429" was apparently taken out of the lead to satisfy a reviewer? I disagree; if we know the precise date, it costs us two characters to add it, and leaving it out suggests the date is not known. And it becomes even more awkward when we get to Charles's coronation on a specific date; not parallel. I believe the precise data should go back in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.I think the exact date gives readers a sense of how fast Joan's rise to fame happened. This is one of the changes reviewers suggested that I didn't agree with, but made anyway. It is back in. I'm glad there another editor sees the purpose. Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I similarly disagree with removing mention of her young age (17) from the lead. But I agree that the phrasing "is considered a heroine" is just asking for trouble. We can recast the whole thing to avoid the opposition; once I work through all of this, I will put up a proposal for a new lead (rather than working on it piecemeal). SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Done [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't mention in the opening paragraph (often the only thing read) that she believed her inspiration to be of divine origin, so that when we do mention that she was burned at the stake as a heretic, there is no context. I will work this in to a new proposed lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for you to rework the lead. Wtfiv (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of Joan's death is controversial too. This also goes to the SPE problem. The SPE insisted that Joan died solely because she was falsely being accused of violating Deutoronomy's rules on cross-dressing. I think the article now works out the nuances a bit more. It gets messy, as cross-dressing was used as the symbol, and played a technical role in her death. She is accused of relapse and returning to her voices, but the clothes are used as the "smoking gun". Then, there is the simple argument that England, the University of Paris, and maybe Burgundy just wanted her dead and would have found any excuse. Looking at the evidence, all perspectives have their merit, as I hope the main text makes clear. My choice would be to let it go in the lead, and let interested readers conclude for themselves. Wtfiv (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and quickly gained prominence during the fighting ... this lead text is not well supported in the body, which does not describe her fighting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added suggested edit with alternative wording. Wtfiv (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then, with The siege was lifted nine days after her arrival the lead doesn't tie the lifting of the siege either to her role in that or how it was viewed as divine/evil intervention. The main importance of the Siege of Orleans isn't driven home in the lead, and we instead spend a lot more words on, "she was also in this battle, and also in that battle", which gets tedious in the middle part because we aren't given context and relevance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded lead to show how Patay lead to Reims and the coronation. Your comments make me think the next paragraph sets the proper tone. After the coronation, Joan's military career was a failed assault on Paris, a failed campaign in the south, and a final campaign that ultimately led to her capture. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the body we establish that Joan's guilt could be used to compromise Charles's claims to legitimacy by showing that he had been consecrated by the act of a heretic, but we don't provide this context in the lead; it's not clear to someone who reads only the lead why we mention Charles's coronation where we do. Words are limited, but is it possible to tighten words elsewhere and give more key context in the lead? The lead doesn't give us any idea that she was significant in any of the various battles and events mentioned, or why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is harder. Joans fame focuses on three episodes: Orleans-Patay, the coronation, her death by burning. But the politics is important.

A reviewer mentioned that the lead was biased towards Joan's trial being political, but not the rehabilitation trial. I tried to address this removing the word "pro-English", which described Cauchon. This keeps comments on the trial's politics neutral in lead, as per reviewers concerns regarding balance. I think both trials were politically motivated, but the literature on the rehabilitation trial is more complex. Much of it argued that the trial was just as much- or more so- about justice for Joan. (The SPE thought it was exclusively so, the efforts to force the sources to make this point is what created most of the problems that lead to the FAR.) In the main text I tried to stick to the cited evidence to allow readers to draw their own conclusion, but the controversy seems too muddy for the lead. Further thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will focus better on this once I've done the full read-through, but am aware I can't fiddle too much here because of the political sensitivity. My real concern is that, to a person who knows nothing of Joan of Arc, the significance of the individual events is not coming through in the lead. It reads like a boring MILHIST-generated series of battles, without giving us a picture of the overall context. I suspect that everyone involved in the article is so close to the topic that they may not see it as a new reader, who knows vaguely that she was burned at the stake for some reason, but little else. This needs to be tightened up, but not urgently. Bit by bit as we go, and maybe that gives you some direction for improvement. Any number of websites make it much more clear (but then they usually aren't accurately sourced to scholarly literature); I just think we can do a better job of tying it all up. And I think that in doing that, we can also fix Hchc2009's objection to "considered a heroine". But very busy for the next two days ... just food for thought for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I wrong in interpreting that her role in the Siege of Orleans was more motivational and inspirational than in the "fighting" per se? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination- based on the sources I encountered- is she was mainly motivational up to the March on Riems. I'm less comfortable stating this, as it is more opinion. If you read folk like DeVries, he argues that she had a role as a military leader, getting involved in tactics and strategy. (I think SPE's view was stronger: more tending toward the view she was a divinely inspired military genius.) I tried to write the article acknowledging this point, but treading carefully. I'll try and think through what you've said, and see if a solution comes to mind. Wtfiv (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we never say in the lead she believed she was inspired by God, or how important she was to Charles coronation and how, which opened up the charges from the opposition to Charles that she was inspired by the devil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completed some fairly substantial edits on the lead, addressing issues you raise.

First Paragraph: I changed "heroine" to patron "saint". I figure that's documented and inarguable.
Third paragraph, added a couple of points: her role inspiring the french, her advocacy for pursuing the English, this should make her value to Charles clear.
Fourth paragraph: added three charges that were made against her. They are the most relevant in terms of the charges for which she was executed.
I didn't add anything new about her voices coming from God. The beginning of the second paragraph already mentions she heard the voices.

I have no strong commitment to any of these, so feel free to modify as you see fit. Wtfiv (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we might still need a significant rewrite of the lead, but prefer to leave that 'til last, and do it via a proposal rather than direct editing. So far, I've only dealt with a few big picture and overview complaints from other reviewers; I'll start looking at text in depth next, but always prefer working on the lead last. But generally, I think it gets into excess battle detail, while not driving home the main points, and should be trimmed by at least 50 words; it's giving military detail that the average (read-the-lead-only) reader doesn't need. But that can be dealt with last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that "heroine" caused concerns in the review process. I substituted "patron saint" because it's indisputable that the Catholic church made her one. But, I realize that could be a concern. "Soldier" seems to imply she fought in battle. "Warrior" might be closer, as her actual role in battles is not firmly established (mainly holding her banner, but its unclear if that was always the case.) The title of two sources call her a "warrior", and the article mentions that she was seen as a "Warrior" by Jean Gerson. But I'm unsure. What do you think works? Can you think of an alternative? Wtfiv (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your last comment. We can wait on that last issue issue I raised once we're readiy for the lead. Wtfiv (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'll come back to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John and Wtfiv, I am planning to completely revisit the lead once the article is finished; hoping to get a clear window now to work without edit conflicts. I don't like the lead at all, but am leaving it for last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name section

Wtfiv wrote above: *I'm not sure about the name section. Looking at the edit, my preference is to put it into a footnote again, as we now have more room in that regard. section looks a bit too short and choppy... I looked at the J. K. Rowling example. It is very good, but Rowling's is working out a slightly more substantive issue. I think the main role of the footnote is to ensure that the concerns of editors, which seem to recur is addressed. Discuss?

My note was mainly a response to you for now, though if other editors have a strong opinion, that would be great. If you think it works better as a new section, we'll keep it.Wtfiv (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a firm believer in WP:ROPE. Too many footnotes? OK, now they're gone. So, if a reviewer now complains about the Name section, we can offer that the alternate is to go back to a footnote :) Let's see how it goes; keep options open for now? It can easily be reversed: saving that edit here in case we need to go back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this discussion, copied here from the main FAR page, discusses text that could be included in the Name section, giving it some beef as in the J. K. Rowling case. She clearly has been known by many names. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content copied from FAR about Names, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)))[reply]

(Non-Joan-reviewer comment) Imho, 'Maid of Orléans' should absolutely get a mention; it's more than a nickname as we would recognise it, it had a deliberate double symbolism; Maid, emphasising her virginity, and Orléans, where the French resurrection began. It's not a modern invention of lady novelists either; a little known French writer called Voltaire wrote a lengthy poem in 1796 called La Pucelle, or, The Maid of Orléans. Great stuff it is too—draws a direct link to the rebellion of Joan against the English with the sans culottes] against the French crown. Á la lanterne, aristos! :) SN54129 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

SN54129, I added a sentence in her early legacy, mentioning that she was called the Maid of France. During her life she called herself La Pucelle, but Pernoud and Clin mention that the first literary mention of Maid of France is in 1630. The Voltaire is mentioned in the cultural depictions of Joan article. I usually think of his work in the context of Schiller's play, which stikes me as a kind of romantic response to Voltaire's vision. Wtfiv (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Excekllent analysis, Wtfiv, and apologies, I was only looking at this page, not 'daughter' pages :) SN54129 16:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. There's also some older talk about her name being spelled Tarc and the like. I'll see what I can pull together in a day or two. Wtfiv (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more from Pernoud and Clin on Joan's name. Gives more substance to name section. Wtfiv (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv I noticed in the (old) discussion above that you had mentioned adding something in Legacy ... make sure we don't have duplication now ? I'm too tired to look ... more mañana! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know where it is, and the fix should be simple. Wtfiv (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome; hasta mañana! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since she is widely known as the Maid of Orléans, why not mention that in the Names section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Wtfiv (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the illiterate footnote in to the Names section, but we have contradictory information that needs to be reconciled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address this with a rewrite. There is no consensus in the sources, even beyond the two cited, about the extent of Joan's literacy. I left it at just two as it captures the uncertainty. Wtfiv (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction is gone now, but there is one garbled sentence ... ??? ... were you up too late at night ? :) ) I am off for the day, will catch up later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing it. Enjoy the day! Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fix it, could not edit all day, second para of names is still garbled ... part of it is ... But they also they Joan may have learned how to sign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the second paragraph a bit to fix the error and try to make the point more clearly. Wtfiv (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Looks good now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first written record of her being called Joan Darc is 1455 in the opening document of Joan's rehabilitation trial. At this point, the reader has not encountered the words rehabilitation trial; the statement has no context. Either the lead terminology should switch to that used here, or the terminology used here should switch to that used in the lead (inquisitorial court to investigate the original trial). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see two solutions here. I can link "rehabilitation trial" to the article on the trial. Alternatively, I can just note that 1455 is twenty years after her death. I opted for the latter. Let me know what you think. Wtfiv (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Better; if you put a link to the change I don't have to backtrack :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and historical background

a councillor of Charles VII, wrote a letter to the Duke of Milan stating at this point in the article, we do not know who is the Duke of Milan (in fact, I don't think we ever mention the Duke of Milan again). We need to either say who it is, or remove mention altogether. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to Duke of Milan deleted. Wtfiv (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Joan's mother nor the witnesses at the rehabilitation trial mention her being born on Epiphany. Similar to Name section, we are introducing a term here that has not been used defined or explained in the article at this stage (rehabilitation trial). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to rehabilitation trial deleted, see previous deletion. Wtfiv (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charles of Orléans succeeded his father as duke and was placed in the custody of his father-in-law Bernard, Count of Armagnac ... whose father-in-law (Charles the son had a wife, her father? or Charles VI father-in-law)? It seems odd that one would be young enough to need custody and yet have a father-in-law. It's unclear who's who here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section is a soap opera. Bernard married Charles of Orlean to his daughter. But it was after he had taken custody. deleted "father-in-law"]. Wtfiv (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In 1419, the Dauphin began peace negotiations with the Duke of Burgundy, but the duke was assassinated by Armagnac partisans during a meeting with Charles that was under a truce. What was under a truce? During a truce? The single meeting was under a truce? That was held during a truce ? It's odd phrasing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to try and make it clearer that the duke was killed during negotiations. Wtfiv (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This revived suspicions that the Dauphin was the illegitimate product of Isabeau's rumored affair with the late Duke of Orléans rather than the son of King Charles VI. We skipped over here that Charles VI disinherited the Dauphin, and it's not clear why Isabeau would disinherit her own son ... we don't want to get into too much excess detail here, but what we do state leaves one befuddled because it doesn't follow logically that she would arrange to disinherit her own son just because he was the product of an affair. The reader has to work too hard to sort this out, and go read the article on Isabeau before getting the full picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[7] added sentence to provide background on disinheritance. Wtfiv (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just before Joan arrived on the scene in 1429, ... we are still in the section of her birth; we haven't even gotten to her early life. Can this entire para be moved down to the next section and merged chronologically there, so we don't have to do so much going forward, going backwards? Can this entire para become the third paragraph of the early life section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The move works fine! I had only left it in the historical section because it wanders so far from Joan that I wanted to end with the anticipation of her coming. But I think your solution is thematically cleaner. Wtfiv (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Is there nothing else known about her early life in general? Even a sentence would be nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I didn't like how the section began, as it once more pushes Joan back in favor of the politics and history. I added some text that may address the issue. Wtfiv (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Much better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1425, the village's cattle were stolen by an unaligned brigand named Henri D'Orly. Why is this included? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To just provide a bit more context for why she was motivated to do something. This can be deleted without loss. Wtfiv (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, she was summoned to Nancy under safe conduct by Charles II, Duke of Lorraine, who was ill and thought Joan may be able to cure him. This comes out of the blue ... how had she come to the attention of the Duke? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded section on why the Duke Lorraine may have summoned Joan. The other changes made to this section look good! Wtfiv (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A contradiction to be sorted. In Birth and historical background, we have

in 1422 ... an infant, Henry VI of England, the nominal king of the Anglo-French dual monarchy, but the Dauphin also claimed his right to the French throne.

But in the early life section, the text that I moved but was earlier prefaced with

"just before Joan arrived on the scene in 1429", we have the ... English had nearly achieved their goal of an Anglo-French dual monarchy.

So, 1422 had a dual monarchy, but 1429 had not yet achieved that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv did you miss this comment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! Yes, I missed it. I've tried to qualify the statement in the historical background to qualify that the Dual monarchy was not fully implemented. Years later, Henry VI was crowned quickly in Paris, but Joan had already changed the landscape. Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also [8] "implementation of", to make it clear the Dual Monarchy was never practically completed. Wtfiv (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chinon

What is this footnote adding? Witnesses at the rehabilitation trial who were not at Joan's first meeting with Charles report hearing that he had hidden himself in the crowd among members of the court, but Joan quickly identified and approached him.
Thereafter, the dauphin commissioned plate armor for her, she received a banner of her own design, and had a sword brought for her from underneath the altar in the church at Sainte-Catherine-de-Fierbois. I can't tell what's going on here, with switches in tense etc. HE commissioned the plate armor. HE had a sword brought for her? But ... she received ... passive voice ... stuck in the middle. HE ordered a banner made for her or her own design? Or she got that some other way? Why the switch mid-sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit addresses both points above.
- The footnote is trying to head off a claim from Shaw's play and the SPE that Joan was able to pick the Dauphin out of crowd when he tried to full her by putting someone else on his thrown. The story comes from witnesses at the rehabilitation trial 20+ years later, who weren't at the meeting. I reworded it. Does that work? If not, feel free to delete.
- Rewrote this section. The dauphin provided all the equipment, but Joan designed her banner. Putting Joan in active voice seems to help. Wtfiv (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the Armagnac leadership's morale was despairing Morale despairing? I can understanding leaders despairing and morale lagging, but not leadership despairing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzling about paraphrasing DeVries words "loser's mentality". Substituted the simple sentence: "But the Armagnac leadership was demoralized" Wtfiv (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The effect on Armagnac morale was immediate.[91] This entire paragraph has me baffled, and I can't find anything in the source supporting this "immediate" effect on morale. I'm left confused about what the paragraph is saying, although the sources do give good explanations of how she raised morale over time among the soldiers. Perhaps I'll find that in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the paragraph to focus on the role her personality had on morale and her presenced changed the nature of the war. See if it makes sense. I think the previous version was conflating the effect she had on Charles at Chinon with the effect she had on the Armagnac army. Please feel free to rewrite or point out anything problematic you see.

I left the sentence about leaving Blois at the bottom of the section. I think it would go best at the beginning of the next section, but I didn't want to cause an edit conflict. My reason for keeping it think it is important as it prevents readers from having her magically show up in Orleans after Chinon. Blois is a transition between them. And sets the time she set out. But if the information seems superfluous, please delete. Wtfiv (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything above looks good ... I moved that last sentence at the bottom of the section to the next section per your suggestion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this sentence adding ? The Burgundians had recently withdrawn from the siege due to disagreements about territory, and the English were unsure about continuing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It serves a few purposes. It illustrates that the Burgundians had already withdrawn before Joan arrived, so the situation is not as dire as it seems. It shows the English were already wavering, implying Joan's role is more of a tipping point. And it is to remind the reader that the Burgundians were on the side of the English. An implicit reminder that Joan's story is not one of England vs. France, but that it was one of England and a part of France vs. another part. But please modify or delete as you see fit. Wtfiv (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand now; does this work? Please change as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your change is good! It makes the situaton more clear. Wtfiv (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orléans

Joan arrived at Orléans on 29 April 1429 I can't locate that in the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Barker p. 114 should do the job ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added Wtfiv (talk) 06:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But she quickly gained the faith of the Armagnac troops, who believed she could bring them to victory. I cannot find in the sources what we are using to source the word "quickly", but I am finding a lot of detail in all of the sources throughout this section about her military tactics, style, acumen that we have not included. If we want to convince the reader that the troops loved her, we might give some idea of how this woman came to be respected and followed by the soldiers. We say this battle happened, then that battle happened, and the next battle happened ... and are left with the impression that all Joan did was show up and show her banner. There's much more detail in the sources, and including some of that would make the whole hang together better. Did they only follow her because they thought she was sent by God, or did she do other things to deserve their trust and respect? When do we get to the part about how she believed war should be waged and how she used those beliefs to gain trust? I'm not seeing where the sources say that happened quickly; perhaps I missed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded sentence and added a new one New sentence gives some details from sources on how she raised spirits. Wtfiv (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, Over time, some of the Armagnac commanders would accept the advice she gave them the reader is given no idea of what kinds of advice a 19-yo, non-military person was giving these commanders. The Siege of Orleans was her claim to fame, so can we provide more detail on her strategy, advice, actions, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
added clause providing examples. Wtfiv (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing: On 5 May, no combat occurred since it was Ascension Thursday, a feast day Joan deemed too holy for fighting. The implication is that by this point, Joan was calling the shots ... we aren't given any idea of how we got from there to here. We were just told she had no formal command, wasn't told of a battle, and suddenly she is deciding on which days no fighting will happen? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked this. Removing mention of Joan's decision. Moving directly to Joan sending the letter. Wtfiv (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loire Campaign

Before advancing toward Reims, the Armagnacs needed to clear the way between Chinon and Orléans. It's not apparent from looking at the map why this is the case, but presumably (?) because Charles would have to get from Chinon via Orleans to Reims? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked and added sentence to clarify why the Loire towns need to be taken. Does that work? Wtfiv (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan's helmet was struck by a stone while she was beneath the town's walls. It's unclear why this sentence is here. Perhaps because Devries says that her being wounded encouraged the soldiers to continue the fight ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Artifact insisted on by SPE. Did emphasize her role in the frontlines. But that's now addressed in first paragraph of Orleans section. Wtfiv (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you had your hands full with the SPE :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political debates about strategy,[120] as well as the need to recruit additional soldiers,[121] delayed the start of the campaign to clear the Loire towns. It is not made clear how this relates to Joan or what her role was in these debates or how it affected her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: that's MILHIST, not Joan. Deleted and reworked. Wtfiv (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Armagnac army advanced on Meung-sur-Loire. Did Joan have a role in those battles? None is mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While correcting some typos in previous edit, mentioned that Armagnac army was under Alencon and Joan. Alencon is mentioned first because he was the official commander. Wtfiv (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
changed subject to Alencon and Joan's army. It makes Joan's role more central, which is more a leadership one in these cases. Wtfiv (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all of these battles, the sources speak directly to Joan's role in battle; we get no sense of that in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The literature at this point focuses more on her leadership and her encouragement. I recontextualized the sentence about her helmet being hit by a stone to show her active engagement. Wtfiv (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded this a bit more. Wtfiv (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March to Reims and Siege of Paris

Is more text warranted about why/if Joan fell from favor after Paris? The sources seem to indicate it was more than "Joan was not allowed to work with the Duke of Alençon again", and the text that is there leaves the reader (me) wondering. Details here, but I see not so clear here, and this does not verify the "not allowed to work with... again" (it is actually describe on pages 78 to 79 instead). Can we give the reader any help in clarifying how sudden Joan was viewed as fallible, and why she was prevented from working again with the duke? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've substantially reworked the last paragraphs. Wtfiv (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change the heading to include the Coronation? March to Reims, coronation of Charles VII and Siege of Paris ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's some inconsistency; should Siege of Paris be siege of Paris? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
changed "Siege" to "siege" Wtfiv (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed subheading to "Coronation and seige of Paris" It removes a bit of the inevitable MILHIST flavor in this section. Does that work? Wtfiv (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign against Perrinet Gressart

In October, Joan was sent as part of a force to attack the territory of Perrinet Gressart [fr], a mercenary who had served the Burgundians and English. The pages of Barker should be 137 to 138, not 136 (sorry I cannot manage those citations fixes myself when iPad typing). Barker says they "withdrew shamefully" and Joan's "reputation was tarnished" by the failure. But I see Devries 159 says there is little detail. Can we provide any summary of the outcome? From DeVries, might we mention "once she recovered from her wounds" (from Paris)? Reader is left wondering how serious the wounds were, and we never hear of them again.

Why does page 81 of Pernoud & Clin have Charles calling her Jeanne d'Ay? We don't have that in Names ?? Should we mention that nobility was also extended to female descendents? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. The whole D'Lys issue, which is muddled. But foonote f can be modified and put in the names section. I'll take care of that later. Wtfiv (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking further. I think maybe the du Lys issue can be left as in the footnote, and I'll do my best to track the D'Ays reference, though I think this letter is as far as it may go. Wtfiv (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind changing the sources, I'm just glad you are using them! I know there must be mistakes in what I did! I like using multiple ones and trying to craft a solution that best fits all. My ideal reader would click the sources to see what they share in common and how they differ. I [I don't mind changing the sources, I'm just glad you are looking! updated the first paragraph to summarize that Joan's reputation is diminished, though each source gives a slightly different explanation. Wtfiv (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice ... just pointing out what I find ... please have a look at the #Citations section above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations...thanks so much for slogging through the MILHIST part! I think your comments have helped reduce it a bit! Wtfiv (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost halfway done, but we now have a system for how to work together :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the method, and appreciate the depth of your work, as well as your patience with my style (or whatever its called!)! Wtfiv (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv I'm unclear whether to mark this section done; did you want to do more on the name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking it up now. It feels like a dead end. Only Pernoud and Clin mention it, unexplained in the quotation. Is it a title used in old French or some other langue d'oil? My expertise hits a wall here, but I'm doing my best. I found one source that says "Ay" comes from patois for "water", some old accented variation of eaux?) perhaps Joan d'Ay de Domremy means "Joan of the waters of Domremy". But unless I found a source this is original research.

Since it so unusual and appears to be a one-shot name from the court, it might be worth passing over this. Wtfiv (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep looking, but let's close it. Wtfiv (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to suspect its a scribe's spelling of "Darc" spoken by some peculiar accent. But I'm still looking! Wtfiv (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, P & C 220 solve the mystery. "Day" (or D'Ay, in this case), "Dai", and the like are just variations on Darc or D'Arc. (I should've started here!) I don't think there's more to add. Wtfiv (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_of_Arc&diff=1104007173&oldid=1104006191 integrated information into "Name" section. Wtfiv (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capture

During this truce, there was little for Joan to do. Barker Devries are more forceful; does our wording need to be more active? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the first two sentences of this section to the end of the last section, [9] as they wrap up the period when she seems to have become less useful, and I wonder if we need to expand on why she wasn't used in this period. Was there an SPE effect here, or is it that sources don't warrant more detail? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does the addition the previous paragraph about her diminished status, combined with a more active wording regarding the decision by the French court to more clearly address this? Wtfiv (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, SPE did not like anything that implied Charles betrayed Joan. My language avoids it too- as most of the text point toward the court at large. Wtfiv (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is all of this in a footnote instead of in the body? Joan set out without the explicit permission of Charles, who was still observing the truce.[169] This may have been a desperate act that could be seen as treason,[170] but it has been argued that she could not have launched the expedition without funding from the court.[171] I ask because, if we are to expand her "fall from favor" (above), this text ties in to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My work negotiating with SPE, who did not want anything that reflected a division between Charles and Joan. Moved first sentence describing she left without permission to main text. Left authorial disagreement as to why in footnotes. If you see a way to move the controversy into main text, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

by the mercenary Franquet d'Arras. He was captured, and Joan consented to have him executed instead of ransomed. d'Arras does not have a French Wikipedia article, and he is never mentioned again in this article. A reader can guess the issue of his execution will come up later (as mentioned in Devries 169) but it does not seem to, so it is unclear why he is mentioned. (Perhaps I will discover this as I keep reading?) Should we say instead "consented to allow the townspeople to execute him after a trial"? That is, her army didn't do the deed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I amplified and added your suggestion. I'm sure D'Arras was one of numerous minor warlords running around the land, like D'Orly who we appropriately deleted. I have the story of D'Arras in here to show to illustrate Joan's behavior at this point: That she was willing to prisoners who were typically ransomed put to death. If it doesn't really add much, please delete. Wtfiv (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done through Capture-- a logical place to pause to allow you to catch up, and then I have a series of copyedits in multiple sections I want to address before continuing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

Is there anything worth saying about the period between her May capture, and January trial? (Taylor says negotiations about her transfer dragged on until November).

Is this really needed? fearing her because she appeared to have supernatural powers that undermined their morale.[200]. If so, should it be used earlier, in the military campaigns? Also, by switching from "visions" to "voices", are we not adopting a psychiatric POV? I'd like to end up with this (but I can't access the source) instead of what is there now: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added that negotiations weren't completed until November. Added citation. Wtfiv (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted sentence on supernatural. Wtfiv (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed "military" to avoid specifying the type of threat. There were at least three- military, politcal, and supernatural- but that might require too much detail? Wtfiv (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The English and Burgundians rejoiced that Joan had been removed as a military threat,[199] but she also posed a political threat. Joan testified that the saints in her visions had instructed her to support Charles and recover France from English domination. Her success was argued to be evidence Joan was acting on behalf of God.

Taylor, p. 24, her actual trial didn't actually start on 9 January (depending on how things were run in those days in those courts); could we rephrase it to "... for heresy with proceedings beginning on 9 January ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated entry so it now reads proceedings. Put Taylor as reference. (Thanks!) Wtfiv (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Execution, Aftermath, Visions, Cross-dressing

Execution

Nothing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Nothing. Resuming #Legacy above (it requires a lot of work so may leave 'til last). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visions

Nothing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Followed up on previous comment all occurences of "voices" replaced with "visions" Wtfiv (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-dressing

La Pucelle, a role that was neither male nor female I am not getting that from the sources (well, possibly one of them, if we attribute the opinion). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted phrase and modified remainder of sentence to catch the sense of what the authors seem to be implying. If this doesn't work, please feel free to remove "gender roles".

Copyedit re-pass

Can we lose this sentence? It disrupts the flow and adds nothing as far as I can tell. In 1428, a young man from her village alleged that she had broken a promise of marriage. The case was brought before an ecclesiastical court in the city of Toul and dismissed.[13] We're talking about vision and the hundred year war and suddenly we have this random insertion that doesn't fit anywhere and isn't again referred to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
deleted. I did like the fact, though. Nobody thinks of Joan of Arc as part of a breach of promise suit. But I agree that the place it fits in the timeline breaks up the narrative. Wtfiv (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started again on #Legacy above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cauchon served as the ordinary judge of the trial. I don't know what is meant by ordinary here, and the source gives me no help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "presiding", though it's not exactly the same. There are "ordinary judges" who see over a jurisdiction, and then papal inquisitors, who have authority over cases of heresy. both are effectively judges in these cases, and the inquisitor has ultimate say. This Wikipedia article defines ordinary judge, but it is too indirect and messy. Wtfiv (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd feel better if we left it "ordinary", but linked to the definition in the Wikipedia article ... I don't find it too messy, just wanted some context, and that article is good enough for what concerned me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wtfiv (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

leave Domrémy to help the Dauphin Charles.[47] The Goldstone p. 98 citation is wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
updated to p. 99-100 Wtfiv (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She chose to wear men's clothes,[64] is not on Gies p. 34, rather p. 35. Lucie-Smith, range should be pp. 32–33 Warner range should be pp. 143-144. Similar occurs in the Cross dressing section, where page ranges would better support the text, as she had multiple responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded reference in both sections. Corrected noted page errors. Fixed one citation that went to the right page, but wrong book! Wtfiv (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with Legacy

Wtfiv here is a good source that there are five ships named after her ... could you add this to the citations and make the text more specific? I am somewhat terrified of the citation method here, so don't do it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I originally kept it vague because I learned that the five ships are only metal ones. Since at least the Napoleanic wars, a number of wooden ships were named after her too. I couldn't get a consistent number, and different sources focused on different eras. In the end, I kept it vague, and the source I ended up using was more of an example. Wtfiv (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough (iPhone editing), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get an error when trying to load archive.org in the last citation of this section, for "regarding French identity and unity". I'd like to see what the source says to make sure we don't need to attribute the statement. Is there an error in the citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's Mock (1972) right? I'm not sure what happened. It worked fine when I clicked in the text. Maybe the site went down for a moment? It's the last paragraph. (Again, I think its great you are checking the sources!) Wtfiv (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally got it to load. I'm unsure if Mock alone supports that statement, but combined with the other sources in the sentence, probably do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still very frustrated by the Saint, martyr and heroic woman section, but I have to go out (again) for the evening, and haven't had time to read the sources. I don't like not defining the word Panegyric in text (don't force the reader to click out, and don't like using it twice in close succession. The gender wording is tricky, and with the non-binary play happening (16,000 pageviews today), we had better get it right (I haven't had time to look at the sources). I tried to reduce some verbosity and clauses. Why was she "seen as" a religious figure, as opposed to she just "was" one, for example. I'm worried if my changes are all supported by sources, but will have to look again in the morning. We need to link to the cultural depictions sub-article, but is the text that I brought over supported by the sources ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to wrap up the lead until tomorrow ... apologies for having a social life! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have me laughing! Wtfiv (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree its messy. I was trying to pull together different pieces that were there. It can all go. I'll take a peek and muck. I'm trying to make sure I can clean up quickly as you move forward, but a break is good.
- Given your Rowling experience, you may come up with a great solution for the gender issue.
- As you saw, it gets complicated with Joan too. But maybe just leaving it with "transcending gender roles" makes it clear without trying to force her identity into a commitment. I'll let you decide, as Rowling may have given you the intuition. (And I bet Rowling was the source of one of your really rough article edits in the last few years!) Wtfiv (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The gender/sex sentence started as
  Joan has been described as representing the best qualities of both sexes: she heeded her inner experience, fought for what she believed in, and encouraged others to do the same.
  I edited it to
  Joan has been described as representing the attributes traditionally associated with male and female gender: she heeded her inner experience, fought for what she believed in, and encouraged others to do the same.
  I cannot access all the sources. I have read Dworkin 115 to 120 (which mostly impressed me that we haven't explained the significance of Catherine and Margaret in her visions) and Barstow, who says on page 127, not 128, that she "disturbs our expectations of what female or male should be" and page 128 mentions the "self direction that she established through the medium of her voices" and on page 129 has "women as well as men" ... "capable of" ... "intelligence, courage and skills".
  Granting that there are two other sources I haven't read, I can't see that this sentence is capturing what the sources say. I'm unclear that the main topic is even sex/gender roles, rather how Joan's view of herself was one of self-determination based on her visions. Perhaps I need to read the other two sources (which I don't have), but the sentence needs work, as does perhaps our examination of the women in her visions. If we change the wording to something more generic like "transcending gender roles", then at minimum the page ranges on Dworkin and Barstow need to expand, because one has to read more pages than those indicated to get the flavor. I'm not sure the three attributes are well focused. And I'm unclear the points being made by the sources is fine-tuned enough. Without reading the journal sources, I'm unclear where to go next with this. Over to you, Wtfiv. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Joan is a great case. She never denies her being a woman. In the trial she affirms it. But she does insist that she will not let her behavior be restricted due to gender norms, I'll think on it. An aside: The Pantheon Frieze has an interesting picture of Joan's role in crossing gender boundaries. It's on the left: [File:Panthéon - La vie de Jeanne d'Arc (hlw16 0310).jpg Pantheon Frieze]}
  
  Just sent the articles. They're not needed though, but Sexsmith does nearly state the original point.
  
  I think extending Dworkin's meditation on the saints could be worthwhile. Any ideas? I'll sleep on it and see what comes to mind. Wtfiv (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Digging in to the two sources you emailed me

is there anything newer?

Found accessible and Carrier (2007) in peer-reviewed graduate student journal. (but viewable copy not peer reviewed.) Addresses Joan's gender transgression. May integrate it. Tried a few other avenues. Nothing promising yet. Wtfiv (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Went through some new material, but most of what I could find on the topic seems up to 2007.

And because you know the entire body of work better than I do, these are more questions than suggestions. It is perhaps an advantage that I came to this knowing nothing of Joan of Arc except that she was someone burned at the stake in France, so perhaps my comments illustrate what is missing?

Sexsmith (1990):

Should we be making more use of p. 125, her transformation over time from "paragon of obedience" and passivity, to "symbol of freedom and independence, whether of her person, gender, or nation"? Along with p. 127, "meek and childlike", "feminine attire", "takes direction from male characters". With a feminist image emerging on p. 128. That is, can we do more to somehow demonstrate that the image of Joan has changed over time for, most often, political and religious reasons.

Added sentence at beginning of the legacy outlining her different images, citing Sexsmith. Wtfiv (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original text (before I changed it) comes directly from Sexsmith, so is supported by sources ... but is too close paraphrasing. Whatever we end up needs to resolve that.

Reintegrated it in new context focused on autonomous women. The paraphrase is further from the quote now. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make more use of p. 129, "saviour of her country", also distinction, national holiday distinct from the Catholic feast day (8 May for government, 30 May for church) to work in to her importance as a national symbol when we need that for the lead?

In legacy, changed "defender of France" to "savior of France". Sexsmith is source. Civic holiday is mentioned, but added Sexsmith citation for date.

Barstow (1985):

P. 26 returns to Barstow's theme I mentioned above that Joan used her own (mystical) experiences, "out of reach of male control" to "develop an awareness" of self as individual "as a means of being heard in a patriarchal society". I think the way Barstow explains it is more useful than our "heeds her inner experience". Expand the concept for better clarity?
Added new final sentence at the end of "heroic woman". mentioned patriarchy and "autonomous woman".Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p. 26, we never get in to how frequently she had these visions, nor do we explain Michael (as we might explain Catherine and Margaret). Perhaps two or three sentences putting Michael, Catherine and Margaret into context (back up in early life) would not be too much ... ???
This should now be addressed in the "Early Life" section. Wtfiv (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p. 27 tells us that she refused the engagement (which we deleted, as it disrupted the flow of the narrative) because of her voices ... if we add that detail, then the engagement bit fits in the narrative !
Done, text restored and integrated into narrative, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p. 27 "took on a personna of a young maid in armor" because of heeding her voices ... do we ever make this clear??
This seems more like an inference by Barstow. Her early actions do lead to this outcome. But I can't find reference to the visions be explicit. It seems more "foot in the door", where Joan steps into a larger and larger role each step of the way. Wtfiv (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, some of these sources (can't remember which) mentions that she referred to herself as La Pucelle to emphasize her choice of virginity ... can we work that in to the Names section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got virginity emphasis up in Names, [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this...Looks good! Wtfiv (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pp. 28 to 29 ... have we covered sufficiently how charismatic she was?
I think this falls out of the fact she gained the faith of the armies so quickly. Do we need to add more? Wtfiv (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p. 29 does have her representing both masculine and feminine attributes, so that is supported by source, but I think we might avoid "best of", as it discusses "the limits of our concepts of masculine and feminine".
removed "best of", but tried to emphasize that she challenged, overcame, then combined these concepts. Does it work. May need further editing. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't re-read the sources, but I don't recall support for "overcoming" and "combining" ... the point I took from the sources was self-direction as she followed her voices ... I'll try adding something, which I trust you to adjust as needed. (I don't know this citation method, so my citations may need fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please rewrite.
Here's the sources I'm summarizing
overcoming- Sullivan 1996 p. 103 Like St. Michael, Joan appeared to bypass the corporeal distinctions of masculinity and femnity by dressing in men's clothes and performing men's deeds. bypass is a softer word, but the enacting the other gender makes the stronger point of overcoming. Dworkin's meditation on pp.123-125 is a prolonged meditation on how Joan took on both roles, playing each against the other. Dworkin strikes me as dialectic, but it seems clear that Joan was able to play both gender roles off of one another. After speaking of her voices or inner inspiration, Dworkin 119 (not cited because I think her longer argument is stronger) says she invented new form, new content, a revolutionary resistance. It may not be an overcoming, but it is a redefinition/bypass, at least according to these authors.

combining- Sexsmith 1990 129 states She combined the best qualities of both sexes to fight for what she believed in, in- spired others to join her, and won a permanent place in the Western imagination. Wtfiv (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the rewrite works. Wtfiv (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need to fix Sullivan citation. It's 103, not 102. Will do so when you're not working on it. Wtfiv (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wtfiv done for now; hack away at my change as you need (I did not see your post above while working). I feel pretty satisfied overall now, and will work on a lead draft tomorrow. I plan to do that work on talk, so we can stay in sync before we install. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. I always thought working on the lead in parallel was a hassle. Using talk seems to be a great way to go! Thanks for all your work with this! Wtfiv (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So my ideas, summarized ... get more context up in Early life (or somewhere) for the saints she saw in visions and how they related to her actions and how her self-determination developed via her visions. And rework the sentence about gender/sex, perhaps more toward what really seems (?????) to be the driving force from the sources, which is not so much gender or sex, but her determination to cast herself as her visions told her, independent of any role. We may be better to stay focused on what Joan said about herself, than what history has made of her, changing over time to suit political or religious aims. Just ideas ... working on tightening the lead (which is too long and never drives home the most critical points) hinges on getting this Legacy stuff worked out with more clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a bit more thinking. I'm trying to salvage the Hundred Year's War map: Getting it in place with MS:COLOR, make it serve its role as an image for the Historical Background section, not having it redundant with the OSM map. It's a bit of work. It'll give me time to simmer on the wealth of ideas here. I think it's do-able, and perhaps simply. I'll try to have a draft of possible solutions by the end of the day. Wtfiv (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we should expand her visions and her relationship to each saint and how visions were viewed historically by the church (they didn't doubt her visions, just wanted to make sure they didn't come from the devil) below in the Visions section, or above in Early life. I'm leaning towards Early life, as context for her military actions, but worried how it will fit in to the narrative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make it back today. Non-Wikilife got me. Tomorrow will be busy, but I should be able to make headway in the evening. The "Background" map has been updated at least! Wtfiv (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a sentence or two based on Dworkin's point, which emphasized, would be good. But I think making too much would be problematic. Sullivan (a most careful reader of the transcripts IMO), Warner and Huinzinga point out that the specifics of her visions may have emerged in part from the demand characteristics of her interrogation. Wtfiv (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added quite a bit of prose in "Early Life" addressing the significance of the Saints she had visions of. Please edit or modify as you see fit. Wtfiv (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to working the visions into early life, worked the breach of promise suit back in. Will try to work on Cross-dressing section tomorrow taking into account the comments. Wtfiv (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... my plan is to next re-read the article to see if my earlier unease is resolved (too much, she was this battle, she was at that battle, and then the other battle, but without enough about her actions and how she inspired others, etc. After that, I will put up a first draft of a proposed lead rewrite, that we can work through on talk before installing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org link doesn't have to be changed if expanding references, as long as first page stays the same. Wtfiv (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK ... I was hesitating to fix page ranges myself, because I thought a new link would be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am to a stopping point where once the remaining comments above and below are addressed (or not as needed), I'll be ready to start on the lead. It's all yours for now, Wtfiv ... I'll wait to continue until you are satisfied with the outstanding stuff still on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the points you raised. (I may have missed some, and my "fixes" may need edits.) I'll definitely work on new and emergent ones as well. If you are ready, I'll keep an eye on when you are editing the lead and stay away from the article. If you need my help let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Birth and Early life

Revisiting after new additions and more source reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1428, the region was raided by a Burgundian force under Antoine de Vergy [fr],[40] who set fire to the town and destroyed its crops. could we add a clause here indicating that Joan, her family, and townspeople were forced to flee to a neighboring town (to demonstrate direct impact on her vis-a-vis timing of visions)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wtfiv (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv Let me know when you're finished; we're getting crossed up as I'm trying to economize words. Going to sort some boxes for about an hour. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I have to hop off for a while in about 30 minutes anyway! I'll try to address the remaining points raised in the latest "Early life" comments, then I'll be out of your way for a couple of hours. Later, I'll address new emerging issues, and if they're settled try to address the comments in legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan had her first vision during this time follows on a sentence talking about 1428, but refers back to 1425; the sentence and "during this time" is too vague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page range there needs to be not 28, but 28 to 29. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you took care of this. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Done (if you are satisfied). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked this section. See how it looks. Split raids into two episodes with visions section in the middle. Wtfiv (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good, Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This revived suspicions that the Dauphin was the illegitimate product of Isabeau's rumored affair with the late Duke of Orléans rather than the son of King Charles VI. I don't believe (??) we ever tie this bit of text to how it relates to Joan specifically; that is, she was able to prey upon Charles's insecurities and convince him that God has told her that he was the legitimate heir ... I can't recall which source that states that, but it would add clarity to work this in to Chinon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is footnoted in "Chinon" after the mention of Joan and Charles's private exchange: Some writers have argued that Joan eased his mind about the legitimacy of his birth;others question this possibility It may be worthwhile to bring it into main text, but I tend toward the cautious when putting conjectured opinion into main text. Do you want to try? Wtfiv (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading Pernoud & Clin 1986, p. 24 as if they are doubting other, more dramatic commentators making other claims. (I'd like to know, though, how Gouffier could know the contents of a silent prayer.) I think we can find a way to cautiously work this in, including all the surrounding doubts. I'll give it a try; feel free to adjust as needed. Or delete as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? Adjust as needed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Wtfiv (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan testified that she swore a vow of virginity to these voices. This sentence is uncited. Gies p. 24 says she swore it to St. Michael on first encounter/vision.
Added Gies. Dworkin too, she finesses it a bit differently and give a quote. The translation of the trial record Barret, p. 78 supports both. Wtfiv (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gies p. 28 to 20 describes her as a child: pious, "simple, chaste, truthful, obedient to her parents, hard-working, charitable", devout ... should any of that be worked in ?
There's no early testimony to this effect. I think Gies is working with the rehabilitation testimony, 25 years later and after France has won. I think it may be a bit too hagiographic. Wtfiv (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead draft 1[edit]

Current [12] (611 words)	Draft 1 proposal (529 words)
Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc pronounced [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a patron saint of France, who achieved fame for her role in the siege of Orléans and the coronation of Charles VII of France during the Hundred Years' War against England. After successfully leading several French military actions, she was captured, handed over to English authorities, convicted as a heretic, and burnt at the stake in 1431. Twenty-five years later, her conviction was formally overturned. She was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1920, 488 years after her death. Joan was born to a peasant family of some means at Domrémy in northeast France. In 1428, she traveled to Vaucouleurs and requested to be taken to Charles, later testifying that she had received visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles and recover France from English domination. Her request to see Charles was rejected twice, but she was finally given an escort to meet Charles at Chinon. After their interview, Charles sent Joan, who was about 17 years old, to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief army. She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429, wielding her banner and bringing faith to the French army that she could bring them victory. The English were defeated in a series of battles, and nine days after Joan's arrival they abandoned the siege. Joan encouraged the French to aggressively pursue the English during the Loire Campaign, which culminated in the decisive defeat of the English at the Battle of Patay. This opened the way for the French army to advance on Reims unopposed. It entered the city on 16 July. The next day, Charles was crowned as the King of France in Reims Cathedral with Joan at his side. These victories boosted French morale and paved the way for the final French victory in the Hundred Years' War at Castillon in 1453. After Charles's coronation, Joan and John II, Duke of Alençon's army besieged Paris. An assault on the city was launched on 8 September. It failed, and Joan was wounded. The French army withdrew and was disbanded. In October, Joan was participating in an attack on the territory of Perrinet Gressart, a mercenary who had been in the service of the English and their French allies, the Burgundians. After some initial successes, the campaign ended in a failed attempt to take Gressart's stronghold. At the end of the 1429, Joan and her family were ennobled by Charles. In early 1430, Joan organized a company of volunteers to relieve Compiègne, which had been besieged by the Burgundians. She was captured by Burgundian troops on 23 May and exchanged to the English. She was put on trial by the bishop, Pierre Cauchon, on an accusation of heresy. She was charged with twelve articles, which included blaspheming by wearing men's clothes, acting upon visions that were demonic, and refusing to submit her words and deeds to the judgement of the Church. She was declared guilty and burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about 19 years of age. In 1456, Pope Callixtus III authorized an inquisitorial court to investigate the original trial. The court nullified the trial's verdict, declaring it was tainted by deceit and procedural errors, and Joan was exonerated. Since her death, Joan has been popularly revered as a martyr. After the French Revolution she became a national symbol of France. She was canonized in 1920, and declared a one of the patron saints of France in 1922. Joan of Arc is portrayed in modern literature, painting, sculpture, music, and other cultural works.	Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc pronounced [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a patron saint of France, honored as a defender of the French nation for her role in the siege of Orléans and her insistence on the coronation of Charles VII of France during the Hundred Years' War. Convinced that she was acting under the divine guidance of saints, she heeded the voices that she said came to her in visions and became a military leader who transcended gender roles, gaining recognition as the savior of France. Joan was born to a peasant family of some means at Domrémy in northeast France. In 1428, she requested to be taken to Charles, later testifying that she had received frequent and recurring guidance in visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles to recover France from English domination. Convinced of her devotion and purity, Charles sent Joan, who was about seventeen years old, to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief army. She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429, wielding her banner and bringing hope to the demoralized French army. Nine days after Joan's arrival, the English abandoned the siege. Joan encouraged the French to aggressively pursue the English during the Loire Campaign, which culminated in another decisive victory, opening the way for the French army to advance on Reims unopposed, where Charles was crowned as the King of France with Joan at his side. These victories boosted French morale and paved the way for their final victory in the Hundred Years' War several decades later. After Charles's coronation, Joan participated in the unsuccessful siege of Paris in September 1429 and the failed Siege of La Charité in November. Her role in these defeats reduced the court's faith in her and resulted in expressions from scholars that her inspiration was not divine. Joan organized a company of volunteers in early 1430 to relieve Compiègne, which had been besieged by the Burgundians—French allies of the English. She was captured by Burgundian troops on 23 May. After several attempts to escape, she was exchanged in November to the English. She was put on trial by Bishop Pierre Cauchon on accusations of heresy, which included blaspheming by wearing men's clothes, acting upon visions that were demonic, and refusing to submit her words and deeds to the judgement of the Church. She was declared guilty and burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age. In 1456, Pope Callixtus III authorized an inquisitorial court to investigate Joan's trial. The court nullified the verdict, declaring that it was tainted by deceit and procedural errors, and Joan was exonerated. Joan has been revered as a martyr and viewed as an obedient daughter of the Roman Catholic Church, an early feminist, and a symbol of freedom and independence. After the French Revolution she became a national symbol of France. She was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1920, and declared one of the patron saints of France in 1922. Joan of Arc is portrayed in modern literature, painting, sculpture, music, and numerous other cultural works.

Discussion of Lead draft 1

This is a first pass, suggesting the direction I believe we need to go. The currrent lead is too long, and it gets in to too much detail in the middle, leaving out key points. I also don't think the first paragraph should be a summary of the summary.

Hog Farm had asked to be pinged for review when we were ready, but mentioned today on talk that he has a broken computer screen, so we may need to wait. Meanwhile, we can make progress on the lead, and perhaps after we make a few passes at refining the lead, we can next ping in other involved editors for a look. The way we worked at J. K. Rowling was to discuss changes to the Draft, and then put up a second full Draft for the next review (I can't think well in bits and pieces, and need to see how the whole thing hangs together). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. But I just want to make sure about the first paragraph. There was a lot of engaged editing in the first paragraph about who captured her and her being a saint. As long as you are comfortable not worrying about them. This works for me. I didn't think it was necessary either, but I didn't want to take away a topic others seemed to think important.

I very much like "patron saint", choosing that because it is a cited description that seems apt for Joan's projected qualities

But if an editor is troubled by "heroine", could patron saint create similar concerns? Or, does the citation cover the concerns? Otherwise, I think it is clean and to the point. I don't even see the need for micro-edits on my part at this point, (though there may be details I missed.) Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can only find out by putting it in, and pinging for review. I am less concerned about past editors than editors going forward. I have to go out to help a friend, but since you have indicated no need for micro edits, I will go ahead and get the ball rolling by putting it in and then pinging for independent review, so others can get going (I have suddenly a very busy day ahead, and another tomorrow, so need to wrap this up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I don't think Hchc fully explained precisely why they objected to "heroine". We shall see. There will certainly be many more iterations here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PPS, it's still too long; others may find ways to trim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Draft 2[edit]

Draft 1 proposal (529 words)	Draft 2 proposal (493 words)
Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc pronounced [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a patron saint of France, honored as a defender of the French nation for her role in the siege of Orléans and her insistence on the coronation of Charles VII of France during the Hundred Years' War. Convinced that she was acting under the divine guidance of saints, she heeded the voices that she said came to her in visions and became a military leader who transcended gender roles, gaining recognition as the savior of France. Joan was born to a peasant family of some means at Domrémy in northeast France. In 1428, she requested to be taken to Charles, later testifying that she had received frequent and recurring guidance in visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles to recover France from English domination. Convinced of her devotion and purity, Charles sent Joan, who was about seventeen years old, to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief army. She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429, wielding her banner and bringing hope to the demoralized French army. Nine days after Joan's arrival, the English abandoned the siege. Joan encouraged the French to aggressively pursue the English during the Loire Campaign, which culminated in another decisive victory, opening the way for the French army to advance on Reims unopposed, where Charles was crowned as the King of France with Joan at his side. These victories boosted French morale and paved the way for their final victory in the Hundred Years' War several decades later. After Charles's coronation, Joan participated in the unsuccessful siege of Paris in September 1429 and the failed Siege of La Charité in November. Her role in these defeats reduced the court's faith in her and resulted in expressions from scholars that her inspiration was not divine. Joan organized a company of volunteers in early 1430 to relieve Compiègne, which had been besieged by the Burgundians—French allies of the English. She was captured by Burgundian troops on 23 May. After several attempts to escape, she was exchanged in November to the English. She was put on trial by Bishop Pierre Cauchon on accusations of heresy, which included blaspheming by wearing men's clothes, acting upon visions that were demonic, and refusing to submit her words and deeds to the judgement of the Church. She was declared guilty and burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age. In 1456, Pope Callixtus III authorized an inquisitorial court to investigate Joan's trial. The court nullified the verdict, declaring that it was tainted by deceit and procedural errors, and Joan was exonerated. Joan has been revered as a martyr and viewed as an obedient daughter of the Roman Catholic Church, an early feminist, and a symbol of freedom and independence. After the French Revolution she became a national symbol of France. She was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1920, and declared one of the patron saints of France in 1922. Joan of Arc is portrayed in modern literature, painting, sculpture, music, and numerous other cultural works.	Joan of Arc (French: Jeanne d'Arc pronounced [ʒan daʁk]; c. 1412 – 30 May 1431) is a patron saint of France, honored as a defender of the French nation for her role in the siege of Orléans and her insistence on the coronation of Charles VII of France during the Hundred Years' War. Believing that she was acting under divine guidance, she became a military leader who transcended gender roles and gained recognition as the savior of France. Joan was born to a propertied peasant family at Domrémy in northeast France. In 1428, she requested to be taken to Charles, later testifying that she was guided by visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine to help him save France from English domination. Convinced of her devotion and purity, Charles sent Joan, who was about seventeen years old, to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief army. She arrived at the city in April 1429, wielding her banner and bringing hope to the demoralized French army. Nine days after her arrival, the English abandoned the siege. Joan encouraged the French to aggressively pursue the English during the Loire Campaign, which culminated in another decisive victory at Patay, opening the way for the French army to advance on Reims unopposed, where Charles was crowned as the King of France with Joan at his side. These victories boosted French morale and paved the way for their final victory in the Hundred Years' War several decades later. After Charles's coronation, Joan participated in the unsuccessful siege of Paris in September 1429 and the failed siege of La Charité in November. Her role in these defeats reduced the court's faith in her calling. In early 1430, Joan organized a company of volunteers to relieve Compiègne, which had been besieged by the Burgundians—French allies of the English. She was captured by Burgundian troops on 23 May. After several attempts to escape, she was exchanged in November to the English. She was put on trial by Bishop Pierre Cauchon on accusations of heresy, which included blaspheming by wearing men's clothes, acting upon visions that were demonic, and refusing to submit her words and deeds to the judgement of the Church. She was declared guilty and burned at the stake on 30 May 1431, dying at about nineteen years of age. In 1456, an inquisitorial court reinvestigated Joan's trial. The court nullified the verdict, declaring that it was tainted by deceit and procedural errors, and she was exonerated. Joan has been viewed as an obedient daughter of the Roman Catholic Church, an early feminist, and a symbol of freedom and independence. She has been revered as a martyr. After the French Revolution she became a national symbol of France. She was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1920, and declared one of the patron saints of France in 1922. Joan of Arc is portrayed in modern literature, painting, sculpture, music, and numerous other cultural works.

Discussion of Lead draft 2

Edited draft.

Removed a repitition ("convinced"), shortened description of vision: First paragraph is amplified by second. Deleted specific date, unneeded. (The only specific dates, if they were insisted on would be May 8, when the seige of Orleans ended, and May 30, the day of her execution, as this is the day she was executed.) Separated martyr from other descriptions, as those are how she is viewed, martyr uses the word revere. Subtituted "propertied" for "of some means". Removed mention of Callixtus III. He authorized it, but he wasn't the engine for it. Wtfiv (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv, you forgot to sign. This looks very good; as I am rushed, I suggest you go ahead and install it. I do suggest one change though ... the way I phrased "Believing that she was acting under divine guidance" casts subtle doubt/POV. Perhaps change the word believing to stating. Sorry, rushed because of friend's phone call and situation ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like that change to "stating". Goes well with the "visions" section, but without dwelling on it. It's probably the most fair assessment and avoids attributing an unverifiable internal state. Wtfiv (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, if you are forced to trim more words, you could eliminate that she was exonerated ... replacing nullified with overturned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Busy too. In and out, must be the same for both of us. I'll implement both suggestions when I make the transfer to the page. Wtfiv (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, it looks like addressing the FAR comments may wind up with another editing conflict. Will quit now and return later this evening. Wtfiv (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv I will be out all evening, so was trying to catch up before I'm gone and make sure we have a tidy start, as a mess on the page will be offputting to subsequent reviewers. At this stage of the FAR, it's most important to keep the page tidy by properly indenting responses, so subsequent readers can see who is responding to what, and to sign your posts with a timestamp, so they know who is saying what. The reply tool, which so many editors use now, requires a signature for another editor to respond to that post; else, one has to go through many more steps to reply. A messy page lowers the chances that others will engage; sorry for getting crossed up, but the page was starting to spiral early. Now good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but when the comments are all strung together and there's fast typing. Well, you know how it gets. I went back to tidy up, but saw you had done it. Thanks! I'll try to keep it tidy, but I think you know my typing strengths and weaknesses now! Enjoy the evening! Wtfiv (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they were strung together in a way that made response difficult. (I try to keep separate points.) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, Wtfiv shall I ping Buidhe to revisit now, or is there more you want to do with footnotes? My concern is that others won't review while Buidhe's are outstanding (unfortunate that Buidhe could not review the footnote issue when I pinged them a week ago, and I misinterpreted the silence to mean we were ready to move forward). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all the concerns, but at this point, I put the "visions" footnote back in. It is now backed by a source. But I wouldn't want it to hold up the review. So, if you could edit according to what you think the best path to take is, I'd be grateful. Wtfiv (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you now have several editors who want that footnote kept, so we should move forward. I tweaked the text per my experience with Samuel Johnson's Tourette syndrome. I'll ping Buidhe. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoria[edit]

I made some changes in this edit. One issue is that there has been a reevaluation of Isabeau of Bavaria in the past 2 to 3 (or more) decades and in my view it's wrong to blame her for the Treaty of Troyes. She had to sign because her husband Charles VI, who suffered bouts of severe mental illness, was unable on that day. Furthermore their son the young Charles, the dauphin, definitely was responsible for the Assassination of John the Fearless, and as a result during a period of lucidity his father Charles VI disinherited him before the signing of the Treaty. John the Fearless was a royal duke, a member of the House of Valois, and his assassination couldn't be ignored. Our article shouldn't blame the treaty on Isabeau, though much of the blame for the it was attributed to her for centuries until recent reappraisals of her role. Perhaps this can be explained slightly? Or put in a note?

I think your edit about her signing the treaty nuanced Isabeau's situation well. I think the preceding sentences cover the issue of the assassination. In this article, Isabeau's role is minimized, but it does set up her being scapegoated: setting up the "prophecy" that France was betrayed by a woman, but to be saved by a virgin. It used to end this section, but we moved it to "Early Life". Please reword it more if you'd like. By the way, I added Gibbon as a citation as well. Wtfiv (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A small edit here. There had been rumors that Isabeau had an affair with the Duke of Orléans and the young Charles was their son. There's no evidence for it, but if our article Joan of Arc vs. Isabeau of Bavaria is to mention in Wikivoice that she was an adultress then maybe it needs to be spun out and explained.

Updated Sentence on the Dauphin's legitimacy to reduce focus from Isabeau. Shifts subject to "Charle's" status, shares the accusation of the rumor both Isabeau and the Duke of Orleans. removed note about Charles VI disinheriting Charles VII. I think this sentence covers the point: Charles VI accused his son Dauphin Charles VII, of murdering the Duke of Burgundy and declared him unfit to inherit the French throne And Gibbon, p. 71 also agrees the treaty of Troyes is the effective disinheritance:However, the Treaty certainly did disinherit the Dauphin.... Wtfiv (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes - from this version: I've taken a look and suggest the following: Note a - move the sentence "At her trial, Joan seemed uncertain of her birthdate" to text. Either keep the rest in the note or remove altogether. Note b - move to text. This is an important point. Joan had absolutey zero (less than zero) authority re young Charles's legitimacy or standing as heir. He did, however, take advantage of her. Note c - no reason not to move to text. Also Luxembourg was one of Philip the Good's vassals, fwiw. Note d - move half to text. Keep from "Quicherat" on in note. Note e - keep as is. It's fine as a note. Note f - suggest moving half to text. Note g - keep in notes. Note h - suggest moving to text. It's interesting.

Note a is shortened as per suggestion.
Note b is deleted (forgot to delete early when inserting text about Pasquerel)
Note c is deleted.
Note d was left unchanged, except I deleted mention] of Quicheret, leaving only the English version by Linder. Similar to note c, I don't see how can be integrated. This is more an unclarity among sources- some argue she was illiterate, some suggest she could sign her name, and some suggest she may have learned to read. The controversy has implications regarding her signing of the abjuration, but I'm uncertain how to integrate a controvery into the text. As with the previous note, I'm open to deleting the comments or someone who sees the solution doing the integration. Wtfiv (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note f integrated and rewritten into main text. This one may be important as the idea that Joan was canonized as a Martyr of the Church crept back into the article again.
Note h integrated into text — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfiv (talk • contribs)

More later. Victoria (tk) 00:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding ping to Wtfiv. Victoria (tk) 00:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Victoria! I've tried to work through most of what you mentioned. There's some where I didn't make changes. In the case of your suggested edits, its almost always because I do see the solution like you do. But please feel free to act upon any comment where I mention I'm open to deleting or your giving a try to the edit. Wtfiv (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Working from this version , there are now four notes, which is really good. I'd keep Quicherat - that's interesting and in my view why we have notes. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Prophecy - there is some doubt/consternation in regards to the origination of the prophecy, or whether it existed during Joan's time. I'm it raising because it might be worth delving into. There was quite a bit of propaganda swirling around (kingdoms were at stake (no pun meant)), and chronicles such as Michel Pintoin tended to support either Burgundians or Armagnacs. Marina Warner in Joan of Arc: The Image of Female Heroism, mentions the various prophecies on here. Struck earlier para. Have a look at this book page 47 and beyond, explaining that, although there is no explicit example of the exact words used in our article, Joan believed those words and asked to be taken to the dauphin to have him crowned. In my view, there is some nuance here, and also it explains why she asks Durand to take her Vaucouleurs, if that somehow could be spun out. The journey to Vaucouleurs in the "Early life" is section is confusing. I cannot edit the article myself; one because the referencing system is beyond intimidating, and two, because if I can get an appt. will be getting covid boosted this weekend and probably be out. Victoria (tk) 02:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the "prophecy" section. Moving mention of Isabeau back to a footnote again, but mentioning this is tentative and citing Adams. I added another citation. Sullivan and Castor also discuss the second half of the prophecies in terms of politics and the Merlin prophecies, but I think this keeps it simple, and Adams conveys the doubt. If this isn't sufficient, please edit accordingly.
When you are feeling able, please don't hesitate to edit. If you need help with citation fixes, just let me know and I'll take care of it.
- Good luck with the COVID vaccine! It should go well. A friend of mine just got one, and was tired for a couple of days but otherwise did well. Be well!
Wtfiv (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Allergic, so it's an issue. Going on Monday. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to rewrite the Vaucouleurs section, please do. Don't worry about the citations. If you get the prose where you like it, I'll get the citations back into order. Wtfiv (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look and the prophecy section but am having some technical difficulties at the moment. Lord knows what I'd do in main space. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Took a stab at it. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images: there are 9 images from the 19th century, yet we have tons of contemporaneous images on Commons. Generally we use images closer to the subject and there are plenty to illustrate the other character in the story. Here's a list of suggestions and categories. A gallery is in my sandbox that I'm happy to move to article talk so as not to clog up this page. To be clear, I'm not suggesting you have to use these images, but I am suggesting that the 19th cent. images be swapped: File:Jeanne d'Arc - Les vies des femmes célèbres.jpg;File:BNF Latin 14665, folio 349 - Jeanne d'Arc.jpg; Charles VII;File:Le siège de Paris en 1429 par Jeanne d'Arc - Martial.jpg; to execution; on the stake; Pierre Cauchon; c:Category:Jeanne d'Arc in miniatures;c:Category:Charles VII of France in miniatures; c:Vigiles du roi Charles VII. Also pinging Johnbod for his opinion & stellar knowledge of Commons cats. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few you suggested "Les Vies" and "Siege" were in the article earlier. (See this earlier version). I had swapped out a couple of the more contemporaneous ones. I saw the 10th century theme developing, which illustrates her image in history. I've also been aiming for images that have Joan more active, and to some extent more accurately represented with short hair and men's clothes. Please swap out a couple that you prefer. I do ask to pick the ones that have Joan as the focus. I do request that you pick out ones that have Joan as the focus. "Les Vies", in my opinion, is the best. Most of the rest, such as the "Vigils," stylize Joan as typically feminine (dress and long hair.) (Of course, they are no worse than the interrogation and execution picture.) I'll worry about copyright and titling. Wtfiv (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's not an issue of preference but rather an issue of the convention of using contemperaneous images if they exist (which they do). Anyway, Johnbod or Ealdgyth will know more about this than I - I could be totally wrong and 19th c. images of a 14th c. subject is ok. Victoria (tk) 23:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree - we need more medieval images, & fewer C19th ones. There are lots of good choices. I do like the Vigiles ones, which work well at small scale. I will return on this. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Johnbod says, more medieval images and fewer 19century ones, or even 20th century. They are idealized, whereas the medieval ones are as close to real as we can get and the miniature artists were quite accomplished. The image added in the most recent edit is unrealistic for this article. Especially with so many medieval images available. Anyway, I'll return to this in a few days. Victoria (tk) 03:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria and Johnbod, please replace any images any way you wish. I'll follow up and proof them. Wtfiv (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped out two of the images for miniatures. Again, please don't hesitate to change any others. Wtfiv (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal of Winchester is mentioned in a caption, but he's also Henry Beaufort, regent to the young king and cousin (???) to Bedford, et. al. Needs a brief mentions somewhere imo in the text, beyond in a caption. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and on this, cardinals don't have "of" locations - he was not "Cardinal of Winchester", but a cardinal and Bishop of Winchester, as well as an English prince (grandson of Edward III). The Spanish might call him the "Cardinal-Bishop", and the Germans "Prince-bishop", but I don't think these are the English way. Cardinal Beaufort is the best way - this ought to redirect. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Bernard Shaw, Beaufort's role in the trial is less than certain. The trial record does not include him (See Barrett's translation of the trial, Beaufort is only mentioned in passing, and that's in the English introduction.) And in terms of his role in Joan's trial, Gies, 1981 and Pernoud & Clin, 1986 (for example), mention his role as warden (mentioning he had one of three keys to her cell). Both Gies and P & C mention he had a seat at the abjuration. Gies states that after her abjuration, she should be accepted as a penitent. This is interesting, but these seem secondary to Joan's story. Shaw is the one who made them huge. IMO, to keep the English interest in the case alive. But if you wish, I will add a line that he had keys and a seat at the abjuration to the article.

I do think the image is problematic. It is somewhat propagandistic and once more shows Joan as a passive, begging woman being overwhelmed by a domineering English man. So, I replaced it with a figurative 1909-1910 image of her assertively defending herself in men's clothes, which is far closer to the documentation. This removes the reference to Beaufort and presents a more active Joan.

Wtfiv (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images - suggestions. "Early life" swap File:Panthéon - La vie de Jeanne d'Arc (hlw16 0314) (cropped).jpg for File:Contemporaine afb jeanne d arc.png ; "Chinon" swap File:Jeanne d'Arc présentée à Charles VII (cropped).jpg for Charles VII ; "Orleans" swap File:Scherrer jeanne enters orlean.jpg for File:Jeanne d'Arc - Les vies des femmes célèbres.jpg or an image from Siege of Orleans; "Coronation and siege of Paris" - either Charles VII coronation or File:Charles VII entouré de son conseil de guerre.jpg, or File:Le siège de Paris en 1429 par Jeanne d'Arc - Martial.jpg; "Trial" - either File:Pierre Cauchon-Jeanne Darc manuscript.jpg or File:Vigiles du roi Charles VII 08.jpg. Re romanticized 19th c. images see description on File:Lenepveu, Jeanne d'Arc au siège d'Orléans.jpg. Another alternative is to use images of places as in the first FAC version. Note, I seem unable to edit here - my cursor is jumping around in the edit window and randomly deleting text. Ideally we can discuss the images and reach an agreement. Also note, since I begin drafting this note the article is changed, but I'm posting anyway. Victoria (tk) 19:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Cross-dressing" - do the sources say whether she was queer or trans? If so, that needs to be spun out in the article. The section title seems to intimate yes, but nothing is mentioned in the text.~~ Victoria (tk) 01:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria If you search "crossdressing" through the FAR, you'll see that I inherited the phrase. (True, it is part of a sockpuppet's phraseology, but that's an orthoganal issue.) It became a subject when I moved the discussion to a separate source. Most of sources I'm aware of does not address her gender identity: but none of that would appear in most of the records of the time anyway. I think the word is apt without implying gender identification, but please pick another title if you think one is better. I'm sure it would work. Wtfiv (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there is reliable souces on her gender identification, please add it. It's not something I've found in my research. Wtfiv (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, see above. I cannot edit this article. I took a quick look at this page, which says "Joan's clothes were a means of taking on a new social, as well as a new sexual identity." I didn't read beyond that sentence, but if it's in the sources, then we might want to address it. But I leave it up to discussion. Victoria (tk) 02:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add more, but first, please take a look at my discussion with SandyGeorgiain this page's talk on how to interpret Joan and gender Once you decide, just add the info to the page, tell me where you got it, and I'll add the links.

I apologize that the citation system is so complex. Complexity is not my intention. I want every reader to confirm any claim. This solves issues like in the Joyce or in other articles I've edited, where the citation- for whatever reason- doesn't really say what is cited to say. The discussions on the talk page show the strength of this approach: a reader or editor can be empowered to critique a point by pointing toward the source. The multiple sources allow readers to see how the same "fact" can be interpreted differently. The major pitfall is that publically accessible choices are sometimes limiting.

But even your ability to point me toward Lucie-Smith above to make the point about gender, shows the power of this methodology, even if it's a bit cumbersome.Wtfiv (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Sandy says below and to do w/ my own disabilities. But also it's a size issue 399kb of references vs. 45kb of text, and because every ref makes a call to an external database it causes caching issues. But this is a tangent and not relevant since it seems the way we reference these days. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ... the article is very slow-loading because of the citations :( It would not be bad to reconsider whether they are all needed, since the huge majority of readers never access them anyway, according to the WMF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I wasn't thinking the outcome of the FAR depends on this - I was just whining (b/c my computer had a major hang - which has happened in years). Poor Wtfiv must be thoroughly sick of this review by now! Victoria (tk) 00:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Victoria... i can see how much work this is for you. I am truly grateful for you and Sandy's support in trying to help get this article through the FAR process in the near future. Wtfiv (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I just want to note that Joan of Arc is a smaller file in size than either of the other two articles that I co-edited with my citation style: James Joyce and (just barely) Frederick the Great. In my experience, cache problems occur if I click too many references and have too many archive.org pages open, as they are relatively large image files. But if I don't click them, everything seems okay. Of course, there may be hidden cache problems, I'm not catching or detecting.
A another issue is my commitment to source-cite integrity with verifiable links may be creating citation code that many editors find is too cumbersome for fast editing. That's something I'll need to revisit as I contemplate how useful I can be to FARC in the future.

Wtfiv (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do tend to leave all the archive.org files open as I work, so that could be the problem ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Victoria is necessarily complaining, rather explaining why she can't do more of the actual editing. The density of citation is scary when one dives in!
Sexsmith is good read, but gives us nothing re typecasting Joan. I scholar.googled "Joan of Arc" gender.
I can't access this 2009 article, "Was Joan of Arc genetically male?" but the preview states: "She is variously pegged as heterosexual, lesbian, and transgender/intersex. But all these viewpoints converge on one fact: in 1431, Joan's male clothing, and her insistence that God told her to wear it, became the pretext to burn her at the stake. ... Joan expressed no interest in changing her gender or passing as a man. She saw herself as a woman leading a soldier's life in order to carry out her divine mission."

Warner (1981), which we use, provides similar, including on p. 151.

I can't tell what this more recent (2015) article is, but it doesn't look useable.

Don't know about this, doesn't "look" scholarly.

Victoria, where you quote from a quick look at Lucie-Smith p. 34 above, it's worth reading through to p. 35, which ends up where we are.

I can't access all scholarly literature, but my sense from everything I can and have read is that we can't place Joan's gender identification in the terms in use today, because it's all about how virginity and gender roles were viewed then in relation to how she viewed her divine mission, which transcends gender definition. But others with better journal access might turn up something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained well in Durova's version. I confess that the two sections "Visions" and "Cross-dressing" went over my head in terms of the fact that these were the crimes she was convicted for. Suggest that all that's needed is to rename "Cross-dressing" to "Clothing" and move "Legacy" down below "Visions" and "Cross-dressing". Victoria (tk) 16:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly actioned this. I was always uneasy with calling it "cross-dressing" as it seems anachronistic. The reorder also makes sense. John (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited both sections to emphasize the fact that both clothing and visions played a role in her execution. Wtfiv (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Warren's conjecture about Joan having androgen insensitivy syndrome. Right now, it is a footnote. I think it an interesting to add, but I'm not sure where it would fit into the narrative.

I didn't add Warren's citation to the list of people who make the point that Joan did not appear to change her gender or pass as a male, as the point was already mentioned and cited in the "Clothing" section. Wtfiv (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv I don't understand the point of the Warren footnote. Warren's article mentions that she was variously pegged many ways, and yet we single out one, when Warren concludes "she saw herself as a woma leading a soldier's life in order to carry out her divine mission." I don't see why we single out one theory when there are many, but all sources seem to converge in the same place. Why does Warren have enough traction to warrant being singled out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstood a FAR comment. Warren was brought up as a source on gender roles. So I put it in. It was Warren's key point, and the other points mentioned in article were already made. (I found a link to the full article, it's a fascinating article even if its citations are a bit thin.) I couldn't find a way to fit it in, so I footnoted it. Warren Deleted Wtfiv (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. Leaving the images and cross-dressing for discussion. Victoria (tk) 02:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sources - too many instances of Sackville-West's 1936 book in my view. Consider swapping some.~~ Victoria (tk) 19:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sackville-West citations have been pared down down to five. Most have another source. Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm done except for the images. Maybe we can extract that section, close off all the rest (or move to talk), and consult w/ Johnbod and come up with a plan. In looking at images, I've run across a website that a. has a Catholic pov; b., uses mostly 19th c. images (many that are or have been in our article); and c., does cite Wikipedia and there appears to be some backwards copyvio (a separate issue that needs to be dealt with outside of this FAR). In other words, the preponderance of idealized saintly 19th c. images on that site and others, only supports my instinct to go with the earliest extant images possible. But let's not rush that discussion. Victoria (tk) 00:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you want me to work on backwards copy template later. Also, if you are done entirely with this section and want it moved to talk, I can help with that, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worked on the images, left the old ones in but commented out in case there are disagreements, will ask JB to check the formatting etc. I am satisfied now and finally done. Thanks the Wtfiv for putting up with me; now you know why I stopped reviewing :). Well done!Victoria (tk) 02:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're satisfied, we're done. Thanks Victoria! Wtfiv (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria And then I look again. I saw one disappear that I think does a lot of work for the article. I would like to save the 19th century "Joan enters Orleans" I think it is an outstanding work that represents Joan's impact on the people, catching not only an attempt at a historical representation but giving a sense of what she felt like to the people of Orleans and illustrating she is a hero of France. Wtfiv (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a MOS:SANDWICH problem at the Coronation and siege section that I can't figure out how to solve; there isn't room for both images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the battle scene. (Sticking with the implicit anti-Sandwiching strategy of one image per section. I thought the coronation is the cornerstone of the Joan story, so I left that, as for the most part. I see that the return of Fauquembergue back to the page needs a citation. I'll grab that. (I think there was a footnote someone had created, and I had left.) Do we want to keep the photo of "her house"? No problem if we,do, but it looks cluttered. Like I mentioned, my advocacy is for putting Joan's entry back in, but I'm fine if the consensus is no. Wtfiv (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of the FAR talk page, I linked the old footnoted versions, where you might find that citation. I've always thought the image of her house showed ... nothing ... but I'm indifferent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, perhaps the note you seek is in here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fauqeumbergue is back. I'll remove the house to see how the article looks without it. Wtfiv (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm sure it was clutter ;) Much better IMO, but I am no fan of ... most image clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put the 19th Joan image back for now, just to see how it looks in context of all the miniatures and the alternation of 15th and 19th/20th century pieces. It's more to give it a try and discuss it in its new context. If there is a strong objection, it can go. Wtfiv (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to get to this today, but the images look much better. I may suggest some more. One row mini-galleries are one way to get more in without sandwiches. I have sympathy with regrets for the "19th century "Joan enters Orleans"", I'd think the best known of the Romantic 19th-century ones. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv, here's a sample of what Johnbod is referring to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very long captions there, & the big box is not needed. [This is the sort of thing I do] - obviously that is an article on iconography that needs lots of pics. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I hope we don't need more images; there are already so many that we could approach decorative use by adding more image clutter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, SandyGeorgia, Victoria, Maybe this is a good stopping point for images? The present version seems to me to adequately balance two philosophies of images:
Philosophy one: One, as Victoria and Johnbod point out, is to use images close to the time. They are beautiful and add a bit of middle-age flavor. They also tell us how Joan's image was used in the 16th century.

Philosophy two: Reflecting how Joan is seen since her time. She's also someone whose significance continues to infuse new representations. The beauty of the best of the 19th century is that Joan is more active, put in the context of her role, and tries to accurately reflect her image based on the record.

Both have limitations:

Almost all the minatures misrepresent Joan has a woman in a dress, or minimize her (like the coronation, where she is made to small and put off to the edge.) Even the first representation. Fauquemburgue refuses to represent Joan's documented appearance. Though it admittedly reflects how she was seen at the time.

The 19th century can veer into nationalistic propaganda or overly dramatic effect. A great example is the interrogation by Beaufort, which was in the article when I inherited it, and which is now gone. It gives her long hair and a dress, has the English Beaufort actively interrogating her, and has her in a posture of supplication during interrogation. All of these are undocumented in the sources.

IMO, neither philosophy is better. It depends on the context. Swapping the miniaturist representation of Joan's execution for Hermann Stilke's 19th century version, was a good choice. But keeping "Entry to Orleans", which captures the strength, populism, and the fact Joan is now associated with France seems a good choice too.

All said, if the consensus is that the article can be improved by adding more miniatures by putting in a picture bar, please do. (Here's an example of two picture bars used in a previous version.) It feels like this FAR is almost done, and I wouldn't want it held up now. If it is resolved that images are needed, I just ask that someone else adds them, as I couldn't adequately reflect the vision. Wtfiv (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Changed referenced diff page used as example. Particular diff in previous was infelicitous, though it illustrates some of the vandalism this article is subject to. This one also provides the two picture bar examples (one of miniatures; the other more contemporary)) Wtfiv (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those galleries are adding nothing to my understanding of the topic, and I find them to be unnecessary clutter (not saying a better designed gallery might not have a place, but regret time spent on image issues while prose is still developing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC continued commentary

~~What is all that fiddle-faddle in the Infobox,~~ listed under Patronage, almost all unsourced? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted unsourced as an infobox on February 21, 2006; I can find no discussion, and can't find supporting sources for any of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Similarly, another infobox-induced idiocy~~ is that the location of her beatification and canonization (St Peter's) is listed in the infobox, but not in the article, hence uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, [14], SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mopping up the citations and removing the "fiddle-faddle". Wtfiv (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources, suppose you would know if there were any, and wonder if this was the sort of backwards copy info that Wikipedia has spread throughout the internet in the last fifteen years, since I do find that info repeated on many non-RS webpages. All, of course, coming from (another) unfortunate infobox parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The patronage section looks like it was added in 28 April 2005. Noted as a minor edit. I'll see what I can find looking around the backward copy issue. Otherwise, we can leave it blank unless someone else can source it. Wtfiv (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You meant 28 April 2006 ? No, February (as I mentioned above). Another stupid infobox issue, and probably an infobox war, leading to the edit you saw in April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the link is the earliest I found. I've been combing the sources for anything else and coming up dry. I'll try a few Catholic saint-focused sources. I think Patronage of "France", which you put, will probably be it. Wtfiv (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen years later, Wikipedia still spreading misinfo thoughout the internet, a trend furthered by infobox warriors, as infobox parameters so often contain uncited info that escapes detection. That looks to be the case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, most patronage seems to be popular attributions, just like her status as a martyr. The best I have found in folk attributions is the US Military: one source claiming she's Patron St. of WAVES and WACs., Doesn't seem WP:RS. A number sources state she's the patron saint of soldiers (e.g., there's a stained glass image of her in West Point's Holy Trinity Catholic Church next to St. Michael), seems like another folk attribution.

From what I can find to now, the Catholic church, which this inbox is reflecting, has only declared her Patron Saint of France. I'll let it go for now. An editor with WP:RS can add something later if it shows up. Wtfiv (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see why the James Joyce editors hate infoboxes! Wtfiv (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pernoud & Clin 1986, p. 165. Does not verify "earliest extant representation"~~ as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! I thought I fixed it! Fixed now. Wtfiv (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~DeVries 1999, p. 31; Maddox 2012, p. 442. Harv error:~~ link from CITEREFMaddox2012 doesn't point to any citation. Harv Ref error, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of a hurry. Planned to do this, then forgot: Maddox is now disinterred from the history. Wtfiv (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]