Talk:Januarius
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Saints Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Kingdom of Naples Start‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph of the blood be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Italy may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Who?
Joe Nickell, who? The Jackal God 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Joe Nickell - leading Skeptic who has written a lot of books and articles debunking strange phenomena. I've added the link to the article. (Emperor 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
- I'm not sure that such a minor person's opinion warrants a mention in an article on such a high level patron saint, so I'm removing it. - Gennarous (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Cause of liquefaction very lightly implied?
I notice that the article says "After intense prayers by the faithful --- including the so-called "relatives of Saint Januarius" (parenti di San Gennaro), the content of the larger vial typically liquefies. " This doesn't state that it is due to prayers by the faithful, but it seems to sort of...gesture towards it. I think whether or not it's POV is debatable, but maybe somebody else can find a better way to put it. I don't feel confident enough to change it.
Also, a small grammar thing that i may change if nobody else does anything about: "the content of the larger vial typically liquefies". The primary thing here is that I'm confident it should be 'contents' and not 'content'. Contents refer to specific things, and generally anything in a container is referred to as contents, with 'content' being a more general term. And secondary to this, 'liquefies' would be come 'liquefy'. -Indalcecio (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
26th ref.
Hi there. I've been reading this article and found out that 26th link in references is invalid. Someone who is in charge of editing the article may want to change in eventually. Greetings, Koliat (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)