Talk:John of Nepomuk

message: considered the first martyr of the seal of confession Romanists have to help the rest of us out with this very special category. And why "considered"? Is there some doubt? Wetman 18:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article gives two dates, 31 May and 25 June, 1721.  Which is correct??
Cheers/JackofOz 22:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting this. I tried to look for the source of the June 25th date but was unable to find anything (other than originally wikipedia sources). The official pages  say that the date is May 31st, although they state that he was beautified on that day :-). I corrected the article. Matt ෙ 08:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Beatification

message: The article talks about his being thrown in the river on March 20, 1393 and also says: "In 1393 he was made the vicar-general of John of Jenštejn (1348-1400), Archbishop of Prague from 1378 to 1396."
How could someone continue to be the Archbishop of Prague after his death?
Also, it is unclear about his death and the issue relating to it. Might be better to rewrite it putiing the issue first and consequences later.
It clearly says that John of Jenštejn was the Archbishop of Prague, who reigned from from 1378 to 1396, 4 years before he died.  That should clarify how John of Nepomuk was made the vicar-general in 1393, shortly before his death.--Angeldeb82 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Date and Archbishop of Prague dates?

message: Wetman, perhaps you might get the input you request if you, a) Wouldn't use a pejorative in reference to a demographic of a billion people, and b) wouldn't have asserted as you conclusion two very telling inferences about your negative POV on the subject.
:Whatever that may have meant, I have made some changes in the text today, as well as trying to give the article some visual congruity. I've added a Notes section. The text ended "Rome, making use of a forged biography, has canonized a man whose very existence can not be demonstrated." This does not follow from what has been laid out in the preceding text: I've made it "Rome, making use of a forged biography, has canonized a man whose cultural role has become shifted."
:My other changes were mostly explanatory additions and links. The most important addition was "The connection of John of Nepomuk with the inviolability of the confessional is part of the development and transformation of the legend..." An essential link. --Wetman 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Considered

message: Usury : premium or increase paid, or stipulated to be paid, for a loan, as of money; interest. Obs. or Archaic
"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury. " --Deut. xxiii.
first written down in the hebrew language
anyway Usury is the tool by fellow brethren who are not our brothers, to gain foothold in alien and foreign communities and gradually take em over.
The most rare known practitioner of Usury was Saint. John of Nepomuk from Prague :
"Among his contemporaries, the new vicar-general enjoyed no special reputation; he was rich, possessed houses, and lent money to noblemen and priests."
This certainly smells like Nepomuk must have been a crypto Jew
"Saint" Nepomuk was beautified by the catholic church in May 31, 1721, when Azkenazi Jews were abundant living in Prague. St. Nepomuk is a phony by traditional Catholic standards. The fact that Bohemian grove uses Nepomuk as its patron Saint tells me enough. The Bohemian grove uses Nepomuk to piss on the Catholic religion, just as today Rome pisses on its own tradition and religion by allowing Ratzinger to play ball.
This smells like a Azkenazi Jew game from deep within a total depected Roman Catholic church.
Whatever you understood it as, it seems to have worked. You removed one negative point-of-view conclusion, and you refrained from the use of pejoratives in the discussion about such changes. You just might yet turn out to not be a bigot.
St. John of Nepomuk is always depicted with 5 stars above his head, not 7 as the article states.70.171.16.240 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usury

message: From the article: "...The first is the accusation of the king, presented to the pope Benedict IX on April 23, 1393..."
Benedict IX lived in the 11th century. Probably it's supposed to be Pope Boniface IX? Top.Squark (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Benedict IX? 

message: What should be the Hájek's name cited in this article?  Václav Hájek z Libočan is the name used by the Czech Wikipedia: cs:Václav Hájek z Libočan, and also the German Wikipedia: de:Václav Hájek z Libočan, also Polish Wikipedia: pl:Václav Hájek z Libočan.
What should be the name of his chronicle?  According to the footnote, it was written in Bohemian (shouldn't Czech be used?), only much later translated to Latin.  Why use the Latin Annales Bohemorum in the article text then?
IMO, the names to use should be: Václav Hájek z Libočan, and Kronika Česká.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdancer (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Václav Hájek and ''Annales Bohemorum'' 

message: It may not be a far-fetched conjecture, but we could perhaps include that he is the patron saint of the controversial Bohemian Grove if some reliabe references could be found to state this. I've just heard one conspiracy researcher (Craig Oxley) allege this connection. __meco (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bohemian Grove 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John of Nepomuk. 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/20041011123451/http://www.sjn.cz/index.htm to http://www.sjn.cz/index.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) 07:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John of Nepomuk. 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/20070929094217/http://www.sjn.cz/eng/birthplace.htm to http://www.sjn.cz/eng/birthplace.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) 07:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am under the impression that his cult is popular in Mexico.
Can you explain why?
Is he specially revered by some order who preached in Mexico?
--Error (talk) 10:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico 

message: At least two notable people were named after Johann Nepomuk: the composer Johann Nepomuk Hummel, and Johann Nepomuk Maelzel (who created various musical automata but is now chiefly remembered as the inventor of the metronome).  Are there any others, and is it worth including them in this article?
86.11.96.95 (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable people named after Johann Nepomuk