Talk:Saint Dominic

message: I have tried to start the cleaning and cleansing of this article. It really needs a complete rewrite. The section on the early inquisition needs to be rewritten using the general Wikipedia article on the several forms of the inquisition. The article contains a lot of hagiographical material which would make for an article "St. Dominic (hagiography)". It is notoriously difficult to portray this saint. There is much less material for him than for St. Francis. The materials for Dominic's canonization do contain some information that seems genuine, and not just the kind of acts typically found in saints' lives.
For now, I have pruned some sections which seems to have been copied from older writers without clear acknowledgments. Who is going to help to make this a useful and neutral article worthy of Wikipedia? Traiectinus 20:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "No word from Dominic can be produced indicating that he remonstrated with the pope, or that he tried to stop the crusade. In general, very few sayings of Dominic have been preserved. In a few instances he seems to have interceded with the crazed soldiery for the lives of women and children. But he did not oppose the bloody crusade itself. He was constantly either with the army or following in its wake. He often sat on the bench at the trial of dissenters."
Also I get the impression that this section is based more upon guesswork and his later reputation, rather than on any definite evidence about what he did or did not do.  But I guess this is a problem with a lot of history anyway.  -- 18.252.5.45 11:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part on the Holy Inquisitions is also lacking in NPOV.  Some of us regard the Holy Inquisitions as a good thing, and not so much as a "slaughter."--Inquisitorgeneralis 05:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree the inquisition part is probably the worst of the whole article. The Holy Inquisition was created after the death of St. Dominic, so this should be pointed out. Also, maybe something should be mentioned about the black legend. Unfortunately I have not time right now. Haw81 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of us regard the Holy Inquisitions as a good thing.  Hmm interesting. It's amazing how blind people can be when the supernatural is involved. Systematic torture and murder is rarely considered a good thing. Marlinspike 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: all of the posts related to Dominic and his relationship to the continually deleted. For some reason, specific entities and Dominican Orders are continually deleting others comments so that no rational debate on the topic can take place. Further, a great deal of this information i can not find in any book listed.  SpicyMeatGrinder (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: A leaflet of the Dominican order in the basilica of Saint Dominic in Bologna, Italy states that Dominic accompanied his bishop to Denmark. There is no mention of a trip to Sweden.  JoJan 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for these comments. I don't now have Vicaire's big biography to hand. I came away from it and its footnotes with the feeling that the whole story of a double Scandinavia expedition is a bit dubious. Who was the girl? Who was the prince she was supposed to marry? Andrew Dalby 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning

message: The text of the 'inquisition' section sometimes argues with itself in an unstructured way.  e.g.:
:"No word from Dominic can be produced indicating that he remonstrated with the pope, or that he tried to stop the crusade. In general, very few sayings of Dominic have been preserved. In a few instances he seems to have interceded with the crazed soldiery for the lives of women and children. But he did not oppose the bloody crusade itself. He was constantly either with the army or following in its wake. He often sat on the bench at the trial of dissenters."
Also I get the impression that this section is based more upon guesswork and his later reputation, rather than on any definite evidence about what he did or did not do.  But I guess this is a problem with a lot of history anyway.  -- 18.252.5.45 11:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part on the Holy Inquisitions is also lacking in NPOV.  Some of us regard the Holy Inquisitions as a good thing, and not so much as a "slaughter."--Inquisitorgeneralis 05:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree the inquisition part is probably the worst of the whole article. The Holy Inquisition was created after the death of St. Dominic, so this should be pointed out. Also, maybe something should be mentioned about the black legend. Unfortunately I have not time right now. Haw81 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us regard the Holy Inquisitions as a good thing.  Hmm interesting. It's amazing how blind people can be when the supernatural is involved. Systematic torture and murder is rarely considered a good thing. Marlinspike 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: all of the posts related to Dominic and his relationship to the continually deleted. For some reason, specific entities and Dominican Orders are continually deleting others comments so that no rational debate on the topic can take place. Further, a great deal of this information i can not find in any book listed.  SpicyMeatGrinder (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inquisition 

message: I added something on the name 'de Guzmán', which I understand results from conjecture. Also on his founding of Prouille and his collaboration with Folquet / Foulques. He had other close friendships / collaborations which perhaps deserve mention. Andrew Dalby 13:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A leaflet of the Dominican order in the basilica of Saint Dominic in Bologna, Italy states that Dominic accompanied his bishop to Denmark. There is no mention of a trip to Sweden.  JoJan 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for these comments. I don't now have Vicaire's big biography to hand. I came away from it and its footnotes with the feeling that the whole story of a double Scandinavia expedition is a bit dubious. Who was the girl? Who was the prince she was supposed to marry? Andrew Dalby 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life 

message: "Dominic de Guzman" does not seem like the best title for this article. I think "Dominic de Guzmán," with the accent is preferable if "Saint Dominic" is not the best. Srnec 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the accent ought to be there if this form of the name is used, but the name de Guzmán is very dubious anyway. It comes from someone's much later idea that, since his parents were noble, his father must have been a de Guzmán. The fantasy can be extended further, as reflected currently in the Spanish Wikipedia :es:Domingo de Guzmán. I would say either "Dominic of Osma" (an English version of what he is called in contemporary sources) or "Saint Dominic". Andrew Dalby 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, Saint Dominic is certainly to be preferred.  JoJan 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Haw81 15:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As an admin I could move the article to a new article "saint Dominic"'. However "Saint Dominic" already redirects to "Dominic", which is a disambiguation page for several saints, called Dominic. But when most people think of Saint Dominic, they think of Domenic de Guzman and not of some other obscure saint, called Dominic. Therefore I'm inclined to make the move to "Saint Dominic" (with the rearrangement of the many double redirects), since most people even don't know the name "Domenic de Guzman" but they do know "Saint Dominic". And then "Dominic de Guzman" would redirect to "Saint Dominic". Agreed ?  JoJan 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds best to me that this page be moved to "Saint Dominic" and all other names (Dominic de Guzman, Dominic de Guzmán, Dominic of Osma, etc.) can redirect there. The top of the page can have a line directing people looking for other saints named Dominic to the diambig page. Srnec 18:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Examples from the article:
#Throughout his life, Dominic zealously practiced rigorous self-denial
#He selected the worst accommodations and the meanest clothes, and 
#never allowed himself the luxury of a bed
#When travelling, he beguiled the journey with spiritual instruction and prayers
#As soon as he passed the limits of towns and villages, he took off his shoes, and, however sharp the stones or thorns, he trudged on his way barefooted.
#Rain and other discomforts elicited from his lips nothing but praises to God
#Death came at the age of fifty-one and found him exhausted with the austerities and labours of his career
#He made the monks lay him on some sacking stretched upon the ground
#The brief time that remained to him was spent in exhorting his followers to have charity, to guard their humility, and to make their treasure out of poverty
This language is not that of an encyclopedia but of a panegyric. The above statements, at least those which do have a reference, seem to have been copied from a source or sources with a distinctly positive POV, which draw on legends and/or traditions. Surely such statements need to be made so that even the uncritical reader can see that they could possibly be just a teeny-weeny bit biased. What is WP policy? --TraceyR (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hagiography, mainly from Guiraud. Per previous discussion, cut down and attribute what is left. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the time come, now that three months have passed leaving several unattributed claims, to remove them? There isn't even a source for an famous rebuke quoted in the article. If it were famous, surely one could expect there to be a source for it. --TraceyR (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic language? 

message: The beginning of the section on the Inquisition seems to be labouring under the (WP:OR) impression that papal bulls are considered infallible by Catholics. Papal bulls are not, in fact, considered infallible by the Catholic Church. As such, I am altering those sentences. This is my explanation why. 212.183.128.53 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infallibility 

message: In view of the issues which have been raised here, including the uncritical use of unsubstantiated and hagiographical sources, I find it inappropriate for the article to have been assessed as B-Class. Another editor made this point above, stating that Start-Class would be more appropriate. IMHO rating it as B-Class does a disservice to Wikipedia. --TraceyR (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class inappropriate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Saint Dominic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130113161852/http://www.3op.org/stdominic.php to http://www.3op.org/stdominic.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111153214/http://www.dominicains.ca/francais/Documents/documents_gen/approbation2.htm to http://www.dominicains.ca/francais/Documents/documents_gen/approbation2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Saint Dominic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819012403/http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/dominic.html to http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/dominic.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618034722/http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domwork/domwork03.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domwork/domwork03.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024152452/http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domdocs/default.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domdocs/default.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Saint Dominic is one of the few historical figures after whom two sovereign countries are named: Dominica and"
The generally held view is that Columbus so named the island of Dominica because he and his crew sighted it on a Sunday (= dies Dominica in Church Latinl), namely, 3 November 1493, which in the Julian calendar indeed fell on that day (there was no Gregorian calendar as yet). For confirmation see the entry in his log for that dayS. Valkemirer (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that bit. - Burner89751654 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominica named for St. Dominic??