Talk:Joan of Arc

Didn't she refer to herself as Jehanne?

In the page it says that she refers to herself as "Jeanne," but isn't this the standardized version of her name? You even have her signature in the page "Jehanne" Tisthefirstletter (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen all the different ways Shakespeare signed his name? More or less, orthography in every European language before 1800 was sporadically standardized at best. Remsense ‥ 论 12:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Does the lede need to be so long?

This article has a gold star, but I have no idea why so much biographical detail is needed in the summary of a WP:LEDE. I am not going to attempt to edit it but as someone familiar with being concise I think it can be trimmed down to give a snapshot of her, without being so long. Hausa warrior (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

she requested to be taken to Charles VII, 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, paving the way for their final triumph in the Hundred Years' War several decades later.Why all of this detail in a summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hausa warrior (talk • contribs) 21:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's four full-ish paragraphs, which is roughly what we aim for. The passage you posted is a pretty memorable narrative arc in her life. If I were to pick an FA to rag on its lead, it wouldn't be this one. Remsense ‥ 论 22:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Canonization rationale

The page states that,

"Joan was canonized as a Virgin, not as a Christian martyr"

Whatever the first sources says, the second source, which is the more important, Saint Benedict XV's papal bull,

DIVINA DISPONENTE* BEATA IOANNA DE ARC, VIRGO, IN SANCTORUM CAELITUM ALBUM REFERTUR

recognizes her virginity but does not state that as the reason for her canonization. Instead, the document catalogs her life and actions and affirms her motives as consistent with divine inspiration and that her life was devoted to God.

The claim of this sentence, thereby is inaccurate and should be either deleted or modified. Refer, instead to the opening paragraph of the Papal bull,

"coram hominibus definitive sanciehant eius innocentiam, fidem, sanctitatem et obedientiam mandatis Dei, ad quae observanda omnia sustinuit usque ad diram et iniustam mortem."

which translates,

"definitively established before men her innocence, faith, holiness, and obedience to the commandments of God, for which she endured all things to the point of a terrible and unjust death."

She was canonized for being holy, faithful, obedient, and a martyr. Nicollo (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This sentence was carefully worked out during the FAR. The sentence does not refer to the primary source (see WP:PRIMARYCARE). As is appropriate for Wikipedia, it uses secondary source the complex, detailed context of Joan's canonization-including the wording of the bull itself for readers, particularly the misconception that she was canonized as a martyr. The sources clarify why the opening of the bull declares Joan virgo and not the virgo et martyr. As the article and secondary sources point out, it is a fine point. Wtfiv (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2025

The page doesn't contain the date of birth, which is January 06th. Saturnsbluebird (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

What's your source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

As the French article points out, medievalists do not endorse Perceval de Boulainvilliers' assertion about Joan of Arc's date of birth. Instead, they emphasize the symbolic value of this Epiphany, analogous to the “birth of a savior for the kingdom”. --Guise (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

I would like to edit the birthdate ThantBhoneHtet1123 (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Yeshivish613 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding a "medical diagnosis" for her visions

It is a misunderstanding to think that there was an unhealthy medical condition that was the cause of Joan of Arc's visions. Many prophets and saints have had visions as recorded in scriptures, and even ordinary people such as the shepherds that saw angels heralding the birth of Jesus.

Paramahansa Yogananda offers this explanation from the book "God Talks with Arjuna" of how superconscious intuitive perception of astral phenomena may be experienced by the interiorized consciousness of a yogi: "Man may be said to possess two bundles of searchlights, one inner and one outer: The ego, or body-identified consciousness, holds five outer sensory searchlights of sight, smell, sound, taste, and touch; and the soul holds five inner searchlights that reveal God and the true nature of creation. A searchlight reveals only objects in front of it, not those behind. The outer searchlights of the senses, turned toward matter, reveal to the ego only the various forms of transient and external material objects, not the vast kingdom within. The ego, with its attention identified with the five outer senses, thus becomes attached to the world of matter and its gross limitations.

"When in superconscious meditation the heart is calmed, and the yogi can stimulate at will the spiritual center of the medulla or point between the eyebrows, he can control the inner and outer searchlights of perception. When he switches off the lights of the gross senses, all material distractions vanish. Then the ego automatically turns to behold, through the reinforced inner searchlights held by the soul, the forgotten beauty of the inner astral kingdom.

"The heart-quieted yogi in superconsciousness becomes able to see visions and great lights; to hear astral sounds; and to become identified with a vast dimly lighted space—alive with glimpses of beauties hitherto unknown."

This explanation will doubtless be met with skepticism, or even ridicule or scorn by those who do not practice some form of deeply interiorized yoga meditation, who do not have faith, and who won't accept any metaphysical explanation. This explanation does not satisfy rules of Wikipedia editing as they currently stand, even though such rules may not fully help to advance truth and man's understanding of the ultimate verities.

Alas, it seems that for most, spiritual visions are dismissed, being "a phenomenon confounding to any scholar who relies on facts rather than faith in an unenlightened age in which man has learned to use hardly ten percent of his brain capacity, and that quite awkwardly for the most part."—Paramahansa Yogananda, Autobiography of a Yogi

Jamesray1 (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The article is not stating that Joan's visions are due to a medical or psychological condition. Rather, it is stating that in terms of her legacy, many people have tried to explain her visions in terms of these conditions. The article points out that no firm claims can be made because the records provide insufficient evidence for a medical diagnosis. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Does Paramahansa Yogananda mention Joan in his work? If not, I suspect that most of the contribution here might be seen as falling somewhere between WP:PROMO and WP:FORUM Martinevans123 (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)