Talk:Girolamo Savonarola

message: Guys, I think we can all agree that, according to the picture given, he's a wizard.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.187.255 (talk) 04:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The True Girolamo Savonarola 

message: "He can be compared to Luther in his denunciation of sin but was unlike the German monk in following out logical conclusions." Hmm. Isn't asserting that breaking from the Papacy due to its corruption is a logical conclusion mildly POV? Perhaps something along the lines of 'He can be compared to Luther in his denunciation of sin but, unlike the German monk, did not advocate breaking with the Papacy.' Incidentally, probably should be more here on comparing Savonrola to the reformers of the High Middle Ages, who were also opposed to corruption within the Catholic Church - in that case, largely clerical dependence on laity's power. - Anon.
This same paragraph, regardless of the POV, uses the word "supposedly" too frequently, and in a manner that isn't very NPOV.
::This article makes Savanrola seem too much like some heroic martyr. He should be lumped in the same category as Hitler and the Taliban. That's where he belongs. Simon Beavis (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be bold and do something about it, you know. Egg carton (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: I've removed the following two passages, which should be verified and re-written before being put back in:
:"Savonarola is said to have mesmerised people, he certainly had a huge impact on Renaissance life. He is thought of as a holy man, yet others say that he joins the likes of Hitler and Mussolini as a dictator."
:"It was Savonarola who predicted Lorenzo de Medici's death. This prophecy came true."
I think perhaps 80.47.66.129 confused the main article with the discussion page, as the contribution was signed in the main body of the article. - Gobeirne 18:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:80.47.66.129|80.47.66.129]]'s contribution 

message: Savonarola: Unable to endure my world and calling the failure God, I will destroy yours. —W. S. Merwin
--4.234.48.37 07:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  from ''[[The Moving Target]]'' 

message: *some more involved histories of the late 15th century mention that Savonarola was involved in humanist literary circles, advocated for the poor, and, made florence a republic before it returned to medici despotism, right?  now, i realize that the medici did a whole lot more for the history of art -- but i think this savonarola bio could discuss his more noble intents and finer attributes. it's too bad some renaissance paintings went up in smoke, but the bonfire of the vanities was a commentary on the sybaritic florentine society, no? i suppose similair things could be said about franco and mousalini... but maybe they should?? -Astragal 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Renaissance was a bit more complicated than a bunch of paintings that might have been burned as "vanities." Saying that "he despised the Renaissance" is a bit overweening, I think and maybe WP:OR. Did he also oppose the new religious paintings and statues that were being created? He clearly did not care for materialism figuring that it interfered with spirituality. This is still an issue to this day. I think the statement that "he despised the Renaissance" needs to be footnoted with a real good scholarly source that is not merely anti-religious as so many "scholarly" sources often are, automatically.Student7 (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: one sided

message: Passages like, "At this time the Roman Catholic Church's clergy was increasingly corrupting morality and leading a corrupt life themselves. The Papacy was filled with abuses and personal immorality; and friars, in most every district, were sometimes traveling peddlers of indulgences," as well as others already cited, really need some outside verification. (68.198.181.134 07:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/source needed 

message: Who's he? I've fixed that, but it should be noted that the whole story of Boticelli and Michelangelo throwing their own works onto the bonfire is probably apocryphal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.30.57 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why didn't you change the article to say so? I agree with you, so I've done it. --Michael K. Smith 13:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't notice this so I added a comment further down. As for Buonarotti, using Michelangelo's surname is considered a bit of a w*nk, as if the writer needs to prove something. It's about as necessary as saying "Jesus of Nazareth" to qualify which Jesus you are talking about, or saying "Oh, you mean Adolph Hitler...", as if you were referring to some other Hitler. Amandajm (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote a lot of this article in late 2006; looking through the history, it seems that only Botticelli's painting were going into the fire at the time.  Someone else added Michelangelo, and then someone else added the "some question this claim" -- I'd suggest removing Michelangelo entirely, as I have never heard this either.  Actually, I'll do it myself.  Antandrus  (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! As I said further down, Batticelli may very well have thrown paintings on the bonfire. He seems to have been profoundly effected by Savanarola. Amandajm (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buonarotti Michelangelo? 

message: I'm not going to add this as my history is bad but this article might want to mention that Savaonarola despised humanism. Here's a quote from my history book:
"Perhaps most of all, he despised humanism, which he believed poisoned everything from art to religion by placing humans in the spotlight."
The West in the World, Dennis Sherman & Joyce Salisbury pg 343  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.208.141 (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanism 

message: If Savonarola is canonized, will he be the first Catholic to be excommunicated and later canonized? Dynzmoar (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: St. Joan never was validly excommunicated in the first place. He would definitely not be the first once-excommunicated saint, for St. Mary MacKillop was excommunicated, and validly, albeit unjustly. However, she did not die in the state. Interesting question. --93.133.247.208 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excommunicated Saints 

message: Many fine Florentine Renaissance artworks were lost in Savonarola’s notorious bonfires — including paintings by Sandro Botticelli and Michelangelo, which are said to have been thrown on the pyres by the artists themselves, though there are some who question this claim. 
This is uncited. I am one of those who must question this claim. There is no question that Botticelli may have burnt pictures that he considered "unholy". His style of painting changed at this time, becoming decidely morbid and droopy. 
On the other hand, I cannot let the statement that paintings by Michelangelo were burnt go without question. Michelangelo was not primarily a painter, and didn't consider himself a painter. Apart from the Sistine Chapel ceiling and Last Judgement, there is only one authenticated and two attributed (unfinished) paintings. A fourth was believed to have been executed in the 1500s, but is known only from copies. Since Michelangelo was primarily a sculptor, and worked in stone it is highly unlikely that he was amomng those who threw paintings on the bonfire. Where did this uncited statement come from? Amandajm (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. And while we are at it, must the sentence use the word "notorious?" This seems unecessarily WP:POV. Were they "frequent"? Were they "destructive of the arts?" (you are attempting to discover that). Did they fly in the face of public opinion? I rather doubt that. I think they were rather popular at the time. Notorious in the 20th century, well after the fact? I don't see that our distant opinion is relevant. I suggest letting the reader decide about "notoriety."Student7 (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bonfires

message: He did not decline the challenge of the trial of fire. He and his franciscan opponent spent the whole day discussing over quibbles (possibly because the franciscan side was afraid of the trial) until the evening (night?) when a storm broke out on Florence and the thing didn't take place.  As far as I know nor Savonarola nor fra' Domenico (the one who actually volunteered to go through the fire to show that God was on Savonarola's side) showed signs of incertitude. Check your sources!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.151.230 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial of Fire

message: He is one of the assasination targets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins_creed_II#Bonfire_of_the_Vanities
Vmaldia (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to Assassins Creed II 

message: The article says he was excommunicated for heresy, but WHAT heresy? It never actually says what he taught that was heretical. 128.194.250.90 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: What was he excommunicated for exactly?

message: I replaced the phrase "...popular opinion turned against the prophet" in the introduction with "...popular opinion turned against him".
The word prophet has particular significance within the Judaeo-Christian tradition, normally signified by the prophet in question having a named book in the Bible. As a side-note, it is generally only capitalised (capped up) when referring to Mohammed.
There are others, such as Nostradamus, Old Moore and Mother Shipton, who are accorded the description, but to refer casually to Savonarola as "the prophet" is attributing far too much to his reputation (especially given that he recanted).
I'd be interested in others' opinions.
Wavy (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A prophet? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Girolamo Savonarola. 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://archive.is/20121130074358/http://onetenthblog.wordpress.com/readings/machiavelli-the-prince-chapter-iv/ to http://onetenthblog.wordpress.com/readings/machiavelli-the-prince-chapter-iv/
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) 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This sentence in the Early years section makes no sense. Was it, perhaps, miscopied from an earlier source? It would be great if someone could trace and correct this. Simon Grant (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "His family had amassed in his grandfather's footsteps" 

message: I read long ago that, on the verge of execution, when a church authority told Savonarola, "I separate thee from the church militant and from the church triumphant," Savonarola replied, "That is beyond thy power."  Can this be verified?  If so, I think it is sufficiently illustrative to be added to the article. J S Ayer (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Words 

message: The article quotes "Savonarola, like the later reformers, desired a return to the "early apostolic simplicity" with a citation to a book. That book itself cites a book "Scourge and Fire" p4 as its source: however, when I check that book it does not evidence the claim.  So the chain seems dodgy. A better citation is needed.
Furthermore, it is not at all clear that what the Reformers considered apostolic simplicity was at all the same thing as Savonarola may have. I think more care needs to be taken: surely to be regarded as proto-protestant must involve more than just having a dispute about Roman excesses... Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-protestant 

message: How can someone be a de facto ruler, being in jail in the land he is supposed to be "ruling" and being executed on the date of the "end of rule"? --95.24.70.129 (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of rule