Talk:Bernardino of Siena
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Excursus on Savonarola?
I am removing the following as the reference points to Savonarola rather than Bernardino. (A quick search didn’t turn up anything about the latter on the site.)
, such as "cards and dice, fineries of women's dress, looking-glasses, bad books, musical instruments, pictures, and statues." Such behavior has been seen as a want of judgement. 
- Ian Spackman 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
‘donations to the Holy Name of Jesus’
I am not clear what this phrase means. What was given to what, exactly? Or perhaps ‘donations’ was intended to be ‘devotions’? If anyone can clarify the sentence, that would be good. Here is the context:
It was said that Feuds and factionalism was reconciled by his counsel and that miracles took place, donations to the Holy Name of Jesus (which he preached particularly) increasing dramatically.
- Ian Spackman 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Until today this was given as Massa Marittima, in the province of Grosseto. The new saint box gives it as Massa di Carrea. Asuming that’s a typo it could refer to Province of Massa-Carrara or to Massa di Carrara. Which is correct?
So I am changing it to Massa di Carrea to Massa Marittima. But I might of course be wrong… - Ian Spackman 07:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed including this article under the LGBT studies project; not because I'm arguing that Bernardino was homosexual (an intriguing if absurd idea...) But rather because of his significant impact on LGBT issues. His preaching against sodomy in Siena and Florence had a profound impact in historical and geographical terms; and as such is of relevance and interest to LGBT studies. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I notice that much of this page is copied word for word from the Catholic Encyclopedia, awkward grammar and all. This should be rewritten.
May I suggest clarifying what Bernardino meant by "sodomy"? Did he mean "anal sex" overall or only "male homosexual anal sex"?
Whichever of these he meant, could the appropriate text be substituted for "sodomy"? The article should certainly gain in specificity and NPOV - and, IMO, Wikipedia should not endorse Bernardino's views by using his language - except when directly quoting him.
- Although it certainly would be interesting - from an historical perspective - to know what precisely was meant here, nevertheless there is no reason to deviated from the wording used in the primary source. Any interpretation can be no more than that, an interpretation, and is thus doomed to be more POV, rather than less. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In my view this article is discursive and repetitive, especially the section on sodomy. It belabors the point that sodomy does not equal homosexuality, but isn't that more of a point of interest for the contemporary cultural wars? Emphasizing the issue repeatedly sends the article on an irrelvant tangent.
Furthermore, the focus on sodomy limits the scope of the article. Bernardino was not simply a "missionary" as the article states; he was essentially one of the first evangelists (perhaps the first) with mass appeal, who used new media (print) to hold massive revivals which were as much entertainments as religious sermons. This point is ignored or overlooked, as is the fact that he was an ardent witch hunter who encouraged the execution (at the stake) of natural healers, whom he attacked as witches. The argument ccould be made that Bernardino was a more adent foe of healers than of sodomists; his fervent role in the burning of both sodomists and healers goes unmentioned.
I am not arguing so much about the content but the form of presentation, which is not neutral. To use just one word as an example, many religions, and many of their preachers can be called "fanatic" - Religious fanaticism (but they are not in wikipedia), and this is not dealt with in the article. Other sources on "fanaticism" should be cited to assess its "degree" in an appropriate context.
Similarly, to be "completely isolated from society" is close to what should have been done to poets acc. to Plato's Republic - and this is hardly prominent in the article about Plato. And so on; - to sum up, I woudl suggest not to use such a fanatic language in this article even if certain authors, preachers of today, do ;-) WikiHannibal (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. While I agree the need to ensure neutrality, I would want the article to reflect in some way the strength of Bernardino's preaching. His preaching against jews (and others) was designed to stir up hatred so we should address it in the article in direct terms - it's not really the same as the argument made by Plato. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)