Talk:Catherine of Siena

1911

I wonder very much why so many articles in this Wikipedia provide nothing but the text of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. It's all right that people at least acknowledge their sources, but surely something has happened since 1911, and more important, it is definitely not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide only an exact copy of the 1911 CE, which one can consult on a special website. The 1911 CE definitely had some bias, and Wikipedia does strive as much as possible to avoid bias. Wikipedia simply is not the 1911 CE! Traiectinus 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there either has been no Catholic Encyclopedia since 1911 or there isn't one accessible to the Internet(anti-SSPX drivel I regret wasting time on so deleted) Sorry, kind of off topic. Catherine was a remarkable, if slightly peculiar, woman who did important things in any age when few women did. However she did support a new Crusade because she hoped it'd unite the Christian world and bring peace to it by sending all their violent men overseas. This might sound paradoxical, but in the Middle Ages Europe was sometimes more peaceful in times of foreign wars as war sent their bitter or violent young men away from citizenry.--T. Anthony 01:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To return to the beginning of this talk: the issue is really whether it is not possible to create an encyclopedic article with more and more accurate, more neutral information than provided by the CE of 1911! One of the questions this raises is quite simple: does contributing to Wikipedia equal to copying from the online version of the CE of 1911, sometimes even including the scanning errors? It seems silly to me to copy only the CE from www.newadvent.org, which can perfectly well stand on its own merits! Traiectinus 12:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think a problem with saints is that others may not be interested. By and large the only scholarly sources I find on Catherine are about her being anorexic or otherwise mentally unstable. Still I did find this by Anglicans and a fairly lengthy article from Rutgers. Although that also largely seems to be about her being a loony anorexic. The urge to psychoanalyze the dead is one of the most annoying aspects of history writing right now. As Asperger's in women is now being associated with anorexia, I forget the article, I imagine in no time she'll be that too. Sigh, I'm veering again. Anyway there's a reason saint articles tend to mostly be from Catholic Encyclopedia, even with ones like her where they had a political influence.--T. Anthony 13:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The major reason for using the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1911 is certainly the fact that using it causes no problem with copyright. Admitting this, I still think copying it does not provide us per se with quality articles for the Wikipedia. Catherine of Siena is not only interesting as a saint, but played a role in Italian politics indeed. Her writings have won her reknown for her role in shaping Italian literature. Other saints, too, have done things, have written works or have lived in a way that merits more than only hagiographic treatment. In this respect the CE is often sadly outdated. I am sure wikipedians like more varied information. -- Traiectinus 11:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I linked to her letters at Gutenberg which contains some 19th c commentary. Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will read enough of that to expand on it. I might myself sometime.--T. Anthony 11:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Grandparent

I love the description: a ‘local poet’. But was it a man or a woman? (Indeed is it verifiably true?!) —Ian Spackman 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This article is blatantly and carelessly cut and pasted from this website: http://www.catholic-forum.com/churches/1019stcatherine/catherine.html

someone needs to fix this.

Nakedophelia 23:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)nakedophelia june 14, 2007 7:58 PM EST

kelsry howletts hot:]

Attributes

Is Saint Catherine sometimes depicted holding a miniature ship, whose main sail bears the Papal coat of arms? If so, this should be added to the list of attributes in the article.

Hermit

The link "see Hermit" should be removed, and the word "anchoress" should be made into a hyperlink to refer to the article on anchorites. Since the latter article distinguishes between hermits and anchorites, and since Catherine was actually an anchoress and not a hermit, this is proper. kthx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.151.59 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article on Anchorite says that the person remained confined to a cell for the remainder of her life. This is not what Catherine of Siena did, so she does not fit the definition. I removed Anchorite from the See Also list. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

She matured very early

"At the age of four she consecrated her virginity to Christ despite her family's opposition."

Can this be true? This sounds very much like Catholic tradition to me. In fact, the entire article reads like this. Also, there are no reference given. I would say that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Artur Buchhorn (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Death

Perhaps the article should mention that there is some disagreement about the cause of her death. While some sources say she died from a stroke, others claim she starved herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.197.12 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Age of Jesus

I deleted a reference to St. Catherine dying at 'the same age as Jesus' (33). I removed it since the age of Jesus is highly disputed (He died in A.D. 33 but was born before our calendar's reckoning of A.D. 1). It may be worth mentioning that there was/is a popular piety surrounding the number 33 for this reason, but it should be phrased and cited properly.