Talk:Joan of Arc/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Clothing, Rehashed

1) The difficulty of removal of the clothes that she wore in prison is already discussed later; no need to duplicate the same information. If you want more information about the difficulty in removing them, add it where it is discussed or delete the other mention.

2) Removal of the fact that Summa Theologica does not excuse much of Joan's behavior is simply unacceptable. Otherwise, one is left with the impression (since the theological justifications for cross-dressing *are* mentioned) that it does excuse all of her cross dressing. It does not.

3) The fact that she considered it a divine requirement to keep her male clothes is already discussed; again, no duplication, please.

4) It is simply untrue that the rehabilitation trial discussed her hair; I have the translated transcript right here on my computer. The letters "hair" in any combinations of capitalization are discussed under the introductory notes (where it's a reference to "tearing out hair"), comments by Raymond, seuir de macy (a reference to hair standing on end), and Maitre Nicolas Caval (in ref. to the fact that she had been told not to keep her hair short and did it anyways). Perhaps you are referring to a letter that was not included as part of the trial? Because I can assure you, it's not in the transcripts. Even if that *were* the case, it would still not be a justification for the specific case of having function for rape prevention which was being discussed.

5) If you want to bring up a long line by Clin, I'll bring up a long line by everyone from Leslie Feinberg to Susan Crane for the other side. Do you really want to go there? Do you really want this section to get any *bigger*? If so, we should branch it off. That would also have the advantage of bringing the article back under 32k.

6) Unwikifying gender identity? Bad form. Bad form.

7) Instead of making the Sackville-West section even longer, I'd rather it be shorter. She really only exists as a punching bag in this section anyways, and is unreferenced. I'm actually being kind to your side by leaving her in without a more modern counterresponse.

8) Stop making changes to this section without consulting the discussion page. -- Rei 20:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Durova has already tried to explain things before, but here are some points:

• The Rehabilitation "transcript" you're using from the St. Joan of Arc Center's website only contains excerpts, as you can see by looking at the more complete versions by Oursel, DuParc, and others. You're trying to conduct 'original research' using an incomplete version of the transcript.
• Authors such as Crane and Sackville-West do not qualify as historians, and yet you're using them to contradict historians such as Pernoud and other recognized experts.
• Both of the above, and many other items, would normally be deemed completely unacceptable. There shouldn't be any need to argue point by point over this, by anyone here. 213.197.202.209 10:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Durova left in the middle of the conversation multiple times, refusing to defend her points, so she's hardly someone for you to cite.

As for the transcript on the St. Joan Center, it claims nothing of being excerpts. I'm not going to debate a ghost: if you have a *better* transcript, link it. If you don't, then don't cite it.

"Authors such as Crane and Sackville-West". Oh, that's bloody hilarious, I'm going to have to remember that one. Susan Crane is a professor of history at the University of Arizona and has been teaching since 1987. One of her strongest fields of professional study has been the research of crossdressing in the middle ages. She has a Ph.D in Modern European History and is a Fulbright scholar. This is an "author"? You're comparing her to Pernoud, who only had a BA and an honorary doctorate, and you're doing it haughtily? Thanks for the laugh - I really appreciate it.

I didn't add in Sackville-West, by the way. Someone else added her in as a punching bag because of her "sleeping in bed with women" notion. I was kind enough to leave that punching bag for your side in. I'd be plenty happy to take it out.

You better believe that I'm going to debate the point with you. I'm not going to let you whitewash modern academic research on Joan of Arc to suit what you *want* to be the case. If you're not going to debate the point, then don't edit. -- Rei 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I'll bite. The Susan Crane from the University of Arizona specializes in German Romanticism. [1] She'd be well outside her specialty on the subject of Joan of Arc, especially since she didn't write this book. This author is a different Susan Crane, an English professor. [2] Regine Pernoud was Conservator of the Archives of France and the twentieth century's most respected biographer of Joan of Arc. [3] I'm not sure where Rei gets her information about Pernoud's education, but the degrees Rei names are peculiar to North America. Most other countries including France don't make the same distinction between undergraduate and graduate education. Leslie Feinberg's CV lists no educational degrees at all. [4] User:213.197.202.209 is right about the online version of the nullification trial being incomplete and names book authors who provide the full text.

Rei did add Vita Sackville-West to the article in the revision dated 05:01, 21 December 2005 with the edit note, "Added refs. Let me know if you think more are needed anywhere." I requested a footnote with page number. After none was forthcoming I added a "citation needed" flag on 3 January. Rei removed the flag the next day. User:81.96.185.40 removed the mention of Vita Sackville-West on 19 January and Rei reinstated it the same day. Durova 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to Rei's comments, which Durova already responded to above: I think all that needs to be said are the following comments:

• The "transcript" you're using leaves out the entire judicial analysis at the end (some 250 pages' worth), the additional opinions of consulted theologians (another 100 pages or more), as well as many portions of the testimony and all of the intervening text (which also must be in the hundreds of pages for that alone). I gave you two examples of authors who have written very famous books containing more extensive portions, books well-known to anyone who has studied the subject in any depth at all.
• Pernoud founded the Centre Jeanne d'Arc, and was recognized as the leading expert on the subject. The people you have been citing are not.
• Since Wikipedia is supposed to acknowledge the scholarly consensus - which is decided outside Wikipedia, not here - no one needs to argue with you over every conceivable point for weeks (months?) on end, nor can the article be based on that type of process. The bulk of your additions have nevertheless been retained, which is more than would normally be retained for a subsidiary section like this. This is as much as you can reasonably expect. 213.197.202.209 09:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

In response for this from RVC: "Was Joan of Arc a lesbian? Did she have gender identity issues? How much space do these questions merit and what standards of scholarship should the article use?"

I'd say the sexuality bit is not relevant to the historical events, and is only mere speculation. I think it is more viable, and it is argued, that she wore men’s clothes as women's clothes would not send a message of a heroic figure to the rest of the Frogs. Also, the amount of bitches that went into battle in Western Europe in the medieval era is small. Women’s war clothes aren't liable to be got easily, and when men's armour would do the same job, what would be the point.

There is also the point of her being very religious, and you've got the non bang bang before marriage thing there. Taking this into account, I think the words of a few non-notable shitty authors (Who may not be even historians) should be taken out of the article. Roger Danger Field 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep the discussion polite, please. Durova 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This user vandalized pages and left several profane RfC comments today. I have reported the behavior to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Durova 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnote decay (again)

The article text has 31 numbered line citations but only 24 footnotes. Normally this might result from multiple references to the same footnote. That does not explain this problem because the a, b, c multiple citation convention has only been used once. Footnote 19 has been blanked and contains no information. This leaves roughly half a dozen line citations unaccounted.

From Wikipedia:Footnotes, "Editors must make sure to keep the numbered list at the bottom of the page in the same order as the references in the article text, or else the numbers may not match up." See also Wikipedia:Citing sources.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." See also Wikipedia:No original research.

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each... To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

When the footnote decay problem first appeared in December another editor accused me of exploiting it as an excuse to change the article's content. That accusation was false, but it would have a grain of truth this time. If I fix these citations myself I will also edit the associated text into compliance with the policies listed above. Again I will wait an appropriate length of time for the person or persons who created the faulty citations to fix them. I will not provide feedback if repairs fail to work. That information was taken in bad faith when I provided it. Durova 12:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Text changes related to citations.

• I've returned to an older and shorter version of the text regarding Geoffroy Therange. The deleted sentence would be more appropriate to a discussion about hagiography, which I wouldn't mind having if someone decided to create it. Due to space constraints that would work best as a branching article. Durova 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• The details of Joan of Arc's apparel (fastened with twenty points, etc.) are addressed in the footnote. I've shortened the article to a general statement.

• I've deleted the following: "She seems to have worn such clothing consistently,^[5] which she explained by saying that her saints hadn't given her permission to leave it off yet.^[6]" Moved the trial reference to a similar statement the start of the section and re-researched the associated footnote. Please use the Fordham University online text for future references to the condemnation trial. It preserves the page numbers from the original text edition. Durova 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted text: "The garments she chose would slow an assailant. Even the sister in law of the English regent at one point dressed as a soldier to escape the custody of Duke Philip of Burgundy; she was never tried for heresy." Redundant, digressive, and unsourced. Durova 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted paragraph: "During her trial, Joan tended to argue that the Voices told her to dress as such, and she complied with their will - that she had made a sacred oath, and would rather die than break it. Some had reported that she had, however, complained of fears of the guards attempting to rape her and reported at least one actual attempt. Accounts of her "relapse" into wearing male clothing are somewhat contradictory. Some sources suggest that she was tricked or trapped into it, while at the same time she was defensive of her clothing with respect to her divine orders after she resumed wearing it.^[7]" There was no footnote to correspond to the text citation and most of the content repeats information already covered in the trial section. Durova 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to other editors the next stage of my edits will concern gender identity and sexuality. I estimate the topic merits only one or two short paragraphs in an article this size. Any editor who disagrees is urged to supply references to historians - not professors of other fields or fiction authors, and not the editor's own original research. Durova 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I may just delete the latter part of the section. I've already spent enough hours chasing down citations for other editors' text. Rei has offered to remove Vita Sackville-West, the only source named in support of the view. The text fails to identify which of Regine Pernoud's many publications refutes Sackville-West. Durova 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead with the significant deletion. I'm not opposed to recreating some new version of this content, but the existing draft just didn't meet encyclopedic standards. If someone cares to locate the citations, I could support something along the lines of:

In the twentieth century a small number of writers interpreted the historical record as suggesting that Joan of Arc had gender identity issues or was homosexual. This began with novelist and poet Vita Sackville-West (cite) and included (list other names with references and page numbers). Most if not all of these were people whose professional expertise was literary rather than historical. Their reasons were... (summarize briefly). (Cite a historian or two who refutes these views). Durova 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Sutherland Gower

A link to the Project Gutenberg text of his book is already available at Joan of Arc bibliography. Please add future reference works there. Regards, Durova 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical context

I replaced the link to the Hundred Years' war in the historical context section, because the only other link to it is much further down the page, in a caption (at least as far as I can see). I also changed a tiny bit of wording, since it seemed awkward. I removed the spaces around the comment because in the viewed article, it results in a big gap between the heading and the body of the text, which is awkward. Makemi 19:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got a good point. Now that I think about it, the name of the war would be even better in the introduction. Regards, Durova 22:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

World of Biography

Take a closer look at her biography and work at world of biography Is this worth to add as external link in the article? i would consider it for external link --Kbi911 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly well presented and has depth. Thank you for asking. Most of external links are to sites that would be suitable resources for a student writing a term paper. My main concerns are its lack of citations and that it's commercially run by a tech firm. There are hundreds, probably thousands of online biographies about Joan of Arc. The call could go either way. You decide. Durova 16:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since i am directly affiliated with the company, i will see we add all bibliography before updating you here and putting external link. --Kbi911 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. Regards, Durova 08:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Perroy v. Richey

One of the hardest things to do is to revert an edit I agree with, and revert it because it violates NPOV. The edit that favored Richey over Perroy went beyond the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Durova 22:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Recovering the homeland

I think it's misleading to characterise the Hundred Years' War as a battle against "English domination". As the page on the Hundred Years' War says, "it has the feeling of a French civil war as much as an international conflict".

Joan of Arc may have viewed her efforts as a liberation struggle, but the circumstances in which she fought were not created by a straightforward invasion by the outsider English and subsequent "foreign control"; they were the result of a complicated succession of manoeuvrings by various Anglo-French nobles going back to William the Conqueror, with many strong ties still existing between the English king and French territories. The people against whom she fought can't easily be separated off into "the English", at least not if that means people across the channel.

Stuarta 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a very insightful comment. A paradigm shift took place. I've done my best to avoid oversimplification - which I've seen in so many other short accounts - by integrating a short summary of Burgundy and its dynastic and political relationships. Of course much more could be said if space allowed. The background from Agincourt to Orléans is of greatest interest here, a period that does have strong overtones of foreign invasion. The English had no traditional claim to Paris or Orléans or scores of other freshly conquered towns. It would be interesting but digressive to consider the Aquitaine and Normandy. Anglo-French nobles had almost vanished by the fifteenth century. The English nobility had adopted English as their first language for nearly a hundred years and the revitalized language was accumulating its own literary heritage.

What matters for this discussion, and I hope the article captures it appropriately, is the deep well of popular support that Joan of Arc tapped by reformulating the war as a liberation struggle. She cut a gordian knot of issues by saying, in effect, that it was all very simple: France was on one side of the Channel and England was on the other. That idea was so powerful that modern readers take it for granted. It's a challenge to convey how this struck her contemporaries with all the force of a revelation. Durova 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits discussed

Someone put a lot of work into adding Wikilinks to the article and - unfortunately - I've had to undo most of them. Date links are for major dates (think Bastille Day), not for every time a Wikipedian accesses an external website in a footnote. Internal links to other articles are necessary only the first time a name is mentioned. I've culled down the duplicate links and removed redlinks to minor trial witnesses. Wikipedia actually went through a deletion vote with Geoffroy Therage and voted to have his name redirect to Joan of Arc.

Also, one editor altered several sections with the view that the ceremony in Rheims was primarily a consecration rather than a coronation. The way to represent that within the article is by providing a reference to some scholarly authority who argues that point, not by changing citations to other sources who called it a coronation. Durova 01:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

The recent peer review commented on the article's sentence structure and another editor contributed some copyediting a few weeks ago. Now I've returned for a fresh look. Those edits were done with the best intentions by a good editor who wasn't very familiar with this subject. In some places the changes introduced syntactical problems, such as an ambiguity in the introduction as to whether Joan of Arc or the duke of Bedford was nineteen years old when she died. In other places the alterations themselves, intended by the editor's statement to increase the article's sentence complexity, have inadvertently clouded the sequence of events. I'll be reviewing these changes and making more alterations. Durova 19:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc's name

I've removed the footnote per FAC feedback although I'm not pleased with the longwinded result. Here's the difficulty: a reader who looks up any work that was written about her before the mid-nineteenth century will not find her name as "Joan of Arc," "Jeanne d'Arc," or even (usually) "Jehanne." Shakespeare calls her "Joan la Pucelle." A variety of forms exist in works that a general reader could encounter (also Voltaire and Schiller). I could digress at length about various misconceptions (such as the implication of noble origin), but I really believe that's better in a footnote than in the main body of the text. Durova 04:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually liked the older version better. Unlike User:Worldtraveller I really don't see the problem with footnotes on the name. It wouldn't be such a big deal, except it is the very first sentence in the article. I thought about putting the alternative names in parentheses, but then you get two parantetical comments in a row, like this:

Joan of Arc (also Jeanne d'Arc in modern French, and Jehanne in Old French) (1412^[8] – 30 May 1431)

JFPerry 16:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If there were just two or three ways of rendering her name then Worldtraveller's solution would be best. Without a footnote, the article is almost forced to perpetuate the misconception that the modern French version is definitive. Durova 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I will shortly be creating an article on the Sobieski Stuart brothers, who are responsible for the Vestiarium Scoticum. They claimed to be the grandsons of Bonnie Prince Charlie, their book is a forgery, and, during their lifetime, they went by or were known by several different names. Fact is, I'm not sure what to title the article. The name will definitely get a footnote. Its just something that is needed in some cases. I think Joan's name is like that (needing a footnote). There is not, nor should there be, any principal like "never footnote the name". JFPerry

Addendum. Oh, yeah, and I like the Jehanne (old French) version. That is, after all, how she signed it. JFPerry 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be the one to revert it because I'm responding to the FAC. Go for it if you think it's best. Durova 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted "modern," as any attempt to settle on a certain name has been nailed as a slanted view or based on original research. Consider, less than 10% of the population at the time knew how to write French. Obviously, such ability to write is was less significant than being able to speak, and words were wrote down as they sounded. Further, she was taught by the page to spell her name "Jehanne." — Dzonatas 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dzonatas, I have restored a footnote that references two leading historians. The subject was discussed amply in the archives with additional references to Shakespeare, Voltaire, and Schiller. The only source you have ever named in contradiction is an unreferenced family tree that your aunt constructed a few decades ago. In other words, the only editor violating WP:NOR is you. I have also noticed that you have recently been blocked three times for violating WP:3RR. This article went into mediation because of your disruption last fall. If you resume the same behavior I will initiate formal user conduct grievance procedures against you. Durova 16:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Durova, your threats are frowned upon. As you state, disagree respectfully.

There are several versions of her name, and some of them were listed:

• "Day" - grant of nobility on 29 Dec 1429
• "Daix" - "La Chronique de la Pucelle", mid-15th century
• "Darc" - Cailly ennoblement document, June 1429
• "Jehanne" - Ditié de Jehanne d'Arc, mid 15th century, Christine de Pisan

You have personal inferences on the matter by the use of a primary source. The one thing is clear is that there are several versions. In past discussion, there are also references listed about language usage, so your assertion about "only source" is untrue. — Dzonatas 17:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

---

User:Dzonatas, it is unacceptable to alter a footnote without reading the source it cites. Following are a dozen reasons why the description "modern" is appropriate:

1. "Joan herself never heard the name 'Jeanne d'Arc.'" Pernoud and Clin, p. 220.

2. "'La Pucelle' was her chosen surname." Ibid., p. 220.

3. "The duke of Bedford called her the Pucelle. To the duke of Burgundy, she was 'the one they call the Maid'; to her worst enemy, Cauchon, she was 'Jehanne whom they call the Maid and to the Universiy of Paris, she was mulier quae Johannam se nominabat." Ibid., p. 220.

4. "Whether they sided with the Armagnacs or the Burgundians, the chroniclers of the time never used 'Joan of Arc.' [name translated from the Pernaud and Clin's French, 'Jeanne d'Arc']...she was 'The Maid,' 'Joan the good Lorrainer,' 'the Maid of France,' or 'the Maid of God.'" Ibid., p. 220.

5. "Historians encounter the name "Joan of Arc" for the first time in the opening documents of the nullification trial...quondam Johanna Darc." Ibid., p. 220.

6. "Also in the family's petition one reads, Ysabellis Darc, mater quondam Johannae vulgariter dictae la Pucelle." Ibid., p. 220.

7. "The expression 'The Maid of Orleans' made its first appearance in the sixteenth century." Ibid., p. 220.

8. "The historians Quicherat, Siméon Luce, Ayroles, and Champion whote the patronymic of Joan's father and brothers as 'd'Arc.'" [These are all nineteenth century historians. Pernoud and Clin trace this as how the modern perception of her surname became established]. Ibid., p. 220.

9. "Never in the fifteenth century do we find an apostrophe. 'Dalebret,' 'Dalençon,' and 'Dolon' were written as unbroken words [in French]. Modern spelling introduced 'd' [with apostrophe, unreproducible in Wiki markup] with the connotation of local origin or membership in the nobility." Ibid., p. 220.

10. "In Nouvelles Littéraires 1198 (1950), Père Doncoeur concluded:

'In our opinion, without any further proof, the form Darc has no reason to be broken down into 'd'Arc.' The Latin texts in which this latter word is found constitute firm proof to the contrary. If the patronymic indicated a place of origin, the name of the place in Latin would have been preceded by the particle 'de'. Thus, Guillaume Destouteville was written in Latin 'de Estoutevilla', Guillaume Destivet would be written 'de Estiveto', Georges d'Amboise would be written 'de Ambasianus'. Jacques d'Arc would have been written in Latin 'de Arco', as was the case in 1343 of a Pierre Darc, canon of Troyes, who was listed as 'Petrus de Arco'.'" Ibid., p. 221.

11. "As to the apostrophe, which to some conveys an aristocratic connotation, the contrary conclusion of the 'Moniteur du soir' in 1866 on the subject of the proper way to spell the name of Joan's father can be cited: 'The result of all this research then is that the form 'Darc' is preferable to any other, as it conforms most closely to etymological rules and to the popular origin...'" Ibid., p. 221.

12. "One interesting note: in the [original] French transcript of her condemnation trial, preserved at Orléans, Joan's father's name is written 'Jacques Tart.'" p. 221.

Your accusations are spurious. Progress toward FA stalled for months over such obstructionism. You have consistently disregarded your obligation to read legitimate citations and provide opposing ones before you alter referenced material. A substantial majority of your content edits have tended toward one goal: validation of your aunt's family tree. In addition to the many objections already advanced against her original research, I refer you to this [9]. No claims of descent from Joan of Arc's family (yours or any other) are sufficiently reliable to be included in a forensic study now underway to assess the authenticity of her reputed remains. Most cases of user misconduct would have proceeded to formal action long before this. I have delayed as long as possible in the hope that it would not be necessary. In order to preserve the integrity of the article and its newly acquired featured status, there appears to be no alternative. Durova 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, there are strongs points that you have not incorporated. There are are sources that state her name many ways. The only thing reasonable to say is that there are many versions of her name in one form or another. There is no evidence from the sources you listed that qualify or disqualify the importance of any versions of her name to settle on only one. It would be your original research to take the sources you have and make that inference. This can be easily be resolved, but do you refuse that solution? You can make a notation that such-and-such sources state such name is original or modern only if that source explicitly claims that and only if you show that there are also sources that state otherwise. Consider your footnote for example, you only stated one source, but you know there are others. I suggest a form like, "some sources consider the name to be modern; others do not." Remember, "When you lean too heavily on one source, it makes people suspicious." [10] It is obvious you like Pernoud and Clin. Also, leave my personal information out of this; your related assertion is wrong. — Dzonatas 23:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this reasoning: a featured article contains 70 footnotes to 26 unique sources. Several of the notes refer to the twentieth century's leading historian on the subject. You dislike one of those notes. Therefore the article's integrity is compromised?

Many of your statements contradict documentary evidence. Do quote the relevant passage from Chronique de la Pucelle. It must be in unedited archaic French for that spelling to have survived. There's no need to translate it into English for me. And provide the bibliographical information. This obviously isn't Quicherat: he modernized. Durova 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To: Durova and Dzonatas (and anyone else)

It is distressing to see the continuing discord over the treatment, on the Joan of Arc page, of Joan's name. I can appreciate the strength of convictions both of you must have on the subject. I also appreciate, and hope everyone does as well, that a great effort has gone into that article. It is a testament to the Wikipedia project that an article so potentially and actually controversial should have been raised to as high a level as it now displays.

It is because of my own desire, and I trust everyone's as well, to see this fine work raised to even greater heights that I propose the following solution.

First, that a new article - Joan of Arc's name - be created so that the issue can be adequately explored as it never could in a mere footnote.

Second, that the opening line of the Joan of Arc article merely use the name Joan of Arc, footnoted to a reference directing users to the new article on her name.

I understand the desire to see issues which one holds important dealt with in the main article rather than a secondary article, but I ask you to consider whether a cursory treatement in that main article is really better than a fuller treatment, at length, in a separate article. Now that a Joan of Arc category has been created, users seriously interested in Joan will likely find their way to the category and will use it and the articles contained therein as their main Wikipedia source of information anyway. JFPerry 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Joan of Arc facts and trivia is a good place to discuss the subject in depth if User:Dzonatas wants to expand on it there. Wikipedia has a precedent for discussing name variations in the main article. This is actually an entire introduction: Durova 17:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Sir Walter Raleigh (1554 – 29 October 1618) is famed as a writer, poet, courtier and explorer. Note that many alternate spellings of his surname exist, including Rawley, Ralegh, and Rawleigh; although 'Raleigh' appears most commonly today, he himself used that spelling only once. His most consistent preference was for 'Ralegh'."

JFPerry makes a good point to move the issues of the name. We should move all instances completely out of the article, even the signature image, and only reference her as "Joan of Arc" within this article. A new article or section within another article is good. This article is about "Joan of Arc" and not about the history of discovery related to Joan of Arc. — Dzonatas 16:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use?

Is the Front National image at the bottom of the article sufficiently covered by fair use policy? At the end of the FAC an editor questioned it, but this was someone whose comments may have been overly strict. Here's an alternative I've kept in reserve. In order to maintain NPOV this would probably mean removing the image of the church in the saint box. It wouldn't be appropriate to use two United States images. I'd prefer the newer image because it shows her significance in current events. Durova 04:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

All fair use images need a fair use rationale, just add one to the image and make sure the image is mentioned in the text.--nixie 05:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a statement to the image. Please tell me if that's adequate. The article refers to it in the last paragraph. Durova 15:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

References

Despite this article being promoted to FA, the refernces used to write the article should be provided here. As I mentioned in the FAC there is no problem with length.--nixie 05:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Column

Personally, I don't think that her biographical column should be so far down the page within the Legacy section. I feel it would better be served to be at the top, in the introductory section, as many other articles are (like country pages). However, I don't know how to move it up there properly. Does anyone else agree?--Oscabat 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

When it first got implemented it was at the top of the page. That caused serious problems with the layout. The saint box is much longer than the introduction so it causes a huge amount of white space. Try it in the sandbox and see what you get. She was canonized 489 years after her death, which makes the legacy section reasonable. When the saint box was first proposed some editors expressed a concern that it would slant the article toward a religious POV. I surveyed dozens of saint articles looking for prececents: none of the ones who were famous for both secular and religious reasons had saint boxes yet. Call this a compromise (with room for a better compromise if one comes along). Durova 08:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)