Talk:Francis of Assisi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Philosophy and religion.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Stigmata and worse[edit]

I am reinstating the following comment, which was arbitrarily deleted by Marauder40. The comment refers to an academic source rather than to hagiographic hogwash and is highly critical of the current article. Has Wikipedia really reached a level where editors think they can just delete comments containing scholarly sources that they do not like? The talk page is there for discussion. Deleting comments instead of discussing them smells of religious fanaticism. Doesn'it?

This article is a joke. Just to give an example, Francis never purported to have received the stigmata. The claim was masterminded after his death by his friend Elias, a brilliant marketeer of dubious character (see e.g. Chiara Frugoni, Francesco e l'invenzione delle stimmate), who became General of the order and led the building of the majestic and utterly un-Franciscan Basilica in Assisi. I understand that this article is a magnet for pious Catholic Wikipedians, but an encyclopedia cannot take a purported miracle at face value. The Italian article, while not perfect, is far better documented and has a decent bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.74.207 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Francis' Death Date[edit]

I pulled this section out of the talk archive because people continue to change St. Francis' death date. Whoever keeps changing Francis' death date from October 3rd to October 4th, Francis actually died on October 3rd. The reason his feast day is on the fourth is due to early church ideas of dealing with vigils and starts of days. Francis died on the evening of October 3rd. Many Franciscan churchs and monasterys have Transitus services on October 3rd to celebrate his death (transition to the afterlife.) Marauder40 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that Francis was meditating on Ps 140 (141) in one section, and Ps 141 (142) in another. Which was it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.51.233 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

His name was never 'di Pietro'[edit]

I note that, shortly after Pope Francis' election [this user] inserted 'di Pietro' into Francis' baptismal name. It was never there before and there is no source for it. Indeed, the Catholic Encyclopedia says his name was simply Giovanni. Evidently this is a conspiracy theorist attempting to connect the new pope with the Prophecy of the Popes, can the 'di Pietro' be removed? 83.105.111.231 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

His father's name was Pietro. 'Di Pietro' goes with the custom of the time to be know by your father's name in addition to your own name. Directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia "His father, Pietro Bernardone, was a wealthy Assisian cloth merchant." No conspiracy theory.Marauder40 (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Where[edit]

San Francesco, in fact, would have appeared on a carriage of fire that was flying above Rivotorto when in reality he was in Assisi waiting for an audience of the Bishop Guido II....? Hafspajen (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

horrible yellow in box on right top of page[edit]

garish yellow ruins suble colours of the works of this man. please fix 173.65.103.130 (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Can't man. That is the Catholic Church userbox colour. Hafspajen (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks more like a "gold" colour to me, but it certainly does clash horribly with the colours in Francisco de Zurbarán's painting. It may be easier to change the painting than the colour of the infobox, however, since that gold seems to be an inalterable part of Template:Infobox saint. If the colour in the template design were to be changed it would affect every Wikipedia article on a saint, and who knows what colours appear in the artworks illustrating them all?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Sigh, we just changed the picture like a couple of days ago... because an IP complained that the other was not good. Hafspajen (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I changed once more but now it is enough. I am not changing the lead picture every third day - this is not a calendar. Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

OK; as usual, you revert me, John, and editwar. Also you reverted me for the third time. You always make conflicts with me, wherever I am, because you always seem to think you know everyrhing better. I was working on that gallery a lot. I am the one who illustrated this article. I think the gallery should be packed, because I plan adding more pictures. There is no reason whatsoever for not packing it. They do fit. Thank you. Hafspajen (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't add more pictures, there are enough now. When you add pictures generally, check if we have articles on them as we did for two here. Adding actual text would be ideal. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Francis of Assisi -Manichaeist?[edit]

Manichaeism is an extinct dualistic religion of Iranian origin, by the Prophet Mani that claimed that exist an ongoing struggle between the forces of good and evil in the universe. It is also an eclectic religion that attempted to provide a synthesis of previous religious teachings. Its founder, Mani, claimed to be the final prophet for all religions. The Cathars were the notable Cristians that were regarded as neo-Manichaeans. . Manichaeism may have also influenced the Bogomils and Paulicians, but more than this is not known. You will have to provide reliable academic surces claiming that. Hafspajen (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Pope.[edit]

This is a Cardinal from the College of Cardinals.
    • as Pope, Archbishop Jorge Mario Cardinal Bergoglio of Argentina chose Francis as' is wrong. He was Archbishop and made Cardinal. He probably would never been made Pope, if still Archbishop. (speculation) Either way he was cardinal before becaming pope. The article is correct. Hafspajen (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

CARDINAL: is the guy in purple flashy robes: A cardinal (Latin: sanctae romanae ecclesiae cardinalis, literally cardinal of the Holy Roman Church) is a senior ecclesiastical leader, an ecclesiastical prince, and usually an ordained bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. The cardinals of the Church are collectively known as the College of Cardinals. The duties of the cardinals include attending the meetings of the College and making themselves available individually or in groups to the Pope as requested. Most have additional duties, such as leading a diocese or archdiocese or managing a department of the Roman Curia. A cardinal's other main function is electing the pope when the see becomes vacant. Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • As of 3 January 2015, there are a total of 208 cardinals, while Archbishops are many more. Hafspajen (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01691a.htm http://www.catholic-pages.com/hierarchy/cardinals.asp


Lead image[edit]

CURRENT LEAD IMGE
File:Giovanni Bellini - Saint Francis in the Desert - Google Art Project.jpg a featured picture

The lead image has been changed for various reasons around five times at least in the last couple of month. I will add some possible images here and let's decide what we want and stick with it. There are so many great artworks about him. Crisco 1492 there are a couple featured images as well. Hafspajen (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I am STRONGLY in the favor of an image representing Francis getting his stigmata, because this is made so special. Don't favor much skulls and morbid stuff like that, children are also watching the encyclopedia. Hafspajen (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What is there to discuss? What discussion do you wish to have? The image i am in favor of is simply more contemporary. In case you dont know what that means, it means it is closer in time to the actual person i.e. the 13th century instead of the current picture/image which is 250years after his death. Thats my discussion. Agilulf2007 (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The image you chose was 200 years after his death too, he was born 1181 or 1182 - died 1226. 13th century means the years 1400 . But that's really not a good argument. When choosing a lead image of a like him, a saint that is depicted this often by the best painters of the art history, being contemporary is not an argument. St Peter, St Paul, Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism doesn't use any contemporary image either. There is an image of a fresco depicting him made when he was alive, but that image is good were it is - it has EV- but it is not a lead image quality. One has to strive to chose the best possible depiction available that captures the person's essence. Hafspajen (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well no, the 13th century means the years of 1200-1299 and not the 1400s; And as i said before the most contemporary picture should be chosen due it being the most valid; There is a picture (fresco) of St. Francis in Subiaco which is contemporary in terms of life-time (his time of refuge there) which would be even better; Other than that i can only recommend to use the most contemporary picture of any saint for any saint instead of a 'hundred years' later imaginary projection; A good example would be St. Ambrose on wiki; Thus my vote goes to St. Francis and scenes from his life 13th century Bardi or the fresco at/from Subiaco; Thats my two sesterces; Agilulf2007 (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • True, it is the other way round, but that's only my bad math. My art history is on the other hand quite fine. I don't agree at all that the oldest pictures should be displayed, but the best quality depiction available. And considering that it has been a non stop messing around with the lead pictures in this article, I am not particularity happy about these complains about the lead picture. This is a low quality scan and not a great artwork either, Master of the bardi saint francis . St. Francis and scenes from his life 13 cent Santa croce.jpg - not in the same way many of the painting below. I have been editing this article for a long time now and I am kinda fed up with this disruption. I think your picture is not the best picture depicting Francis, best resolution, best quality and the best we can have. Crisco 1492 is one of the most qualified picture and media editor, I think we need a second oppinion. Hafspajen (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Greetings, here's my two-cents worth. Since there are so many images, would it not make sense to do these?
  1. Make a separate article, Francis of Assisi (Gallery) and place these extra images on that page.
  2. Place a See also at top of this Francis of Assisi article lead section, pointing to the Gallery article.
While not the perfect solution, the separate article idea would allow expansion there without cluttering up this article.
Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure. We can very well make an article with Francis of Assisi in art, if anyone has the knowledge to write that one. Not like a gallery though, because WP:NOTGALLERY - WP:Wikipedia is not an image repository would apply there. But we are not talking about removing images, or cluttering up this article - we do not intend to put this images into the article - we are talking about here about chosing a lead image. Hafspajen (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC).


Hafspajen began this discussion appropriately by saying, "Let's decide what we want and stick with it," inviting other editors to participate in the decision-making. Agilulf2007, by responding, "What is there to discuss? What discussion do you wish to have?", you are injecting a tone that is not conducive to consensus-building. All you have to do is to explain your point of view and support it in any way you can. Regarding choosing a painting simply because it was painted closer in time to when St. Francis lived does not mean it was an accurate depiction of him. This type of painting could be included in a gallery, though. I agree with Hafspajen that an image that shows St. Francis receiving the stigmata would be appropriate because he is known for that. Other considerations for the lead image are that it should be visually stunning, at least somewhat comprehensible to most readers, including children, and illustrative of his life and work. An image that looks like a Byzantine icon would not meet the second and third of these criteria. There are a number of paintings that would be good, but I like the current lead image. CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The picture you mentioned as it would be good to have in the gallery - is already in the gallery. It was picked up from the gallery and put in the lead (and in the main while left in the gallery too, thus becaming a duplicate). If you think there are any pictures that are visually stunning, point them out here or suggest them... Hafspajen (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you may have misinterpreted me. I was supporting your position, and the current lead image, which I like. I only mentioned those criteria at the end of my comment to strengthen the argument for the current lead image, or, if a different image is desired, another equally stunning, illustrative image. I was going to leave that to you, Agilulf and others, but since you asked, perhaps:

. CorinneSD (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Great!! No I wasn't misinterpreting it, I understood everything. I litterally meant what I said, I wanted some examples. Hafspajen (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Hafspajen (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, O.K. That's good. CorinneSD (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Very good, that's first selection, wish Crisco 1492 should look at this too. added actual image, so we can try to select one. Hafspajen (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, my point was simply the 'more' contemporary angle; It is correct that a 'more' contemporary picture does not imply an actual portrait (although, the way i understand it, the fresco of Subiaco is/could be an actual portrait) but is simply more representative for the actual time itself; buildings, attire, contemporary essence and perception etc.; However seeing how much effort you/Hafspajen put into the article i will agree with your format;
But just on the side note the 'picture' that you have in your post 11:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC) or that is displayed in the gallery here was not the one i edited and was in favor for - they are similar but it was this one(Article/History: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guido_di_Graciano._Staint-Francis-and-Stories-from-his-Life._1270..jpg from/of Guido di Graziano 13th century (after 1270) Siena Pinacoteca; Agilulf2007 (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) I know nothing about this, but I'm just curious. Is a portrait-shaped image better for a lead image than a landscape-shaped image? CorinneSD (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

First let me say again that I like the image that is in the lead now (della Gatta). You don't have to change it on my account. You had asked earlier for alternates, so I picked out five from your gallery, above. If shape is a consideration, that would affect the choice, that's all. Of the five that I picked, it looks like two are landscape, two are portrait, and one is square. CorinneSD (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What if we set up something that has the image selected randomly from a set every time the page loads? I think it's been done in some articles before. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That's an interesting possibility. To be honest, I prefer stability. When I see the image, I know I'm at the right article, and if it's an image I really like, I enjoy seeing it each time I go to the article. If there is a consensus that change is desired, is there a way to change the lead image every three months, or every six months, rotating from among a set of images? CorinneSD (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


I know, Phil has rotating images on her Talk-page. Hafspajen (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

How verify addition of Category People on Indian postage stamps ?[edit]

Greetings, For this update:

07:11, 1 June 2015‎ Tachs (talk | contribs)‎ . . (63,518 bytes) (+45)‎ . . (added Category:People on Indian postage stamps using HotCat)

How can this Category be verified? I did check user Tachs contribution page and see hundreds of this same category addition. Before contacting Tachs talk page, I thought it might be better to leave this question at this highly-watched article. Hoping for expert help from a more experienced editor. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please disregard above as after more investigation, I did find confirmation of above category at List of postage stamps of India article. JoeHebda (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Prophecy of the Popes[edit]

Prophecy of the Popes allegedly published by Benedictine monk Arnold Wion in 1595... Several historians have concluded that the prophecies are a late 16th‑century forgery. W can't use it as a source for removal of Francis birth name. Hafspajen (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I meant, that in Prophecy of the Popes I made a change which was reverted by one user, who said it wouldn't be sourced. He replied that in this article the name is also unsourced. So either the name here becomes deleted or it becomes added to the Prophecy of the Popes as a connection to the current "pope" Francis, who is there being called Peter the Roman. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Early Life Section[edit]

I believe the structure of this section can be improved. The 4th paragraph ("Francis' father was Pietro di Bernardone", etc) repeats facts that have already been stated in the previous paragraphs. Then the 5th paragraph ("In 1219, he went to Egypt" etc) ends with his death (which perhaps doesn't belong in the "Early life" section :-)) but then comes a 6th paragraph evoking his father's reaction to his choices, without any time references... Also, the end sentence of the 3rd paragraph seems to imply that Francis' first interpretation of his vision didn't capture its full meaning, yet this has no follow-up within the section, or later on. I hope these remarks can be of use! (Barbosa76 (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC))

The lead is meant to summarize the key facts :). WP:Lead. Is this the problem? Hafspajen (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not referring to the lead, but to the first section (number 1 on the table of contents), named "Early Life". (Barbosa76 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC))

I wonder why the account of his death is included in "Early Life". Also, after the mention of his death, the narrative double back to some vague conflict with his father. The chronology is out-of-whack.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the problem, I think removing one entire paragraph from the "early life" section fixes it. If anyone disagrees, let me know.Marauder40 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Don't understand why remove it, really? Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


The lead as per WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the important points, as a free standing little article.

The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph.

The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read, and for many, it may be the only section read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, .. and so on.

Removing this it removes a significant coverage: In 1219, he went to Egypt in an attempt to convert the Sultan to put an end to the conflict of the Crusades. By this point, the Franciscan Order had grown to such an extent that its primitive organizational structure was no longer sufficient. He returned to Italy to organize the Order. Once his community was authorized by the Pope, he withdrew increasingly from external affairs. In 1223, Francis arranged for the first Christmas nativity scene. In 1224, he received the stigmata, making him the first recorded person to bear the wounds of Christ's Passion. He died during the evening hours of October 3, 1226, while listening to a reading he had requested of Psalm 142 (141).

  • The travel to convert the Sultan is important.
  • The the first Christmas nativity scene is important.
  • THat he received the stigmata is important.

Don't understand why remove it, I think it is perfectly well motivated. ? Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine to remove it. All the stuff is covered in other sections. The trip to Egypt and his death doesn't belong in the "Early Life" section. Everything in that paragraph is covered in the correct corresponding sections of the article. Whether a better summary should be in the lead is a different topic. Marauder40 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't to clear there: I think it should stand in the lead, because I think they were probably parts of it before they slided downwards - and got embedded in other texts. So I moved it UPP; INTO THE LEAD. Hafspajen (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I just read the first part (lead and Early life section) of the article. I think the lead is all right. In the Francis of Assisi#Early life section, the first paragraph is all right. The second paragraph starts out all right, but soon we get to this:
  • Francis returned home, began preaching on the streets, and soon gathered followers. His Order was authorized by Pope Innocent III in 1210. He then founded the Order of Poor Clares, which became an enclosed religious order for women, as well as the Order of Brothers and Sisters of Penance (commonly called the Third Order).
With this sentence, we get way ahead of the events of his early life. After this, it returns to the events of his early life and proceeds in chronological order. So, either we should just remove this passage or, if it is not mentioned later (I didn't study the rest in order to find out), place it in the right place later in the article (not in the Early life section, though). Things ought to be told more or less in chronological order, I think. Corinne (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it is still messy... People were editing here and there, adding this and that and it got confused. Hafspajen (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is a nice summary essay on leads, (CorinneHafspajenMarauder40Barbosa76), originally launched by user BullRangifer that in a nutshell explains how to create and manage a good Wikipedia lead: WP:LEADCREATE. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Chastity, Poverty and Obedience[edit]

The Franciscan's religious vows in the form of the three evangelical counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience, are not adequately dealt with in this article. The article is a reconstruction of Saint Francis's life to reflect the twenty first century version of Saint Francis invented by contemporary followers such as Father Richard Rohr. Hence the focus is on Saint Francis's love of nature, his peace-making and poverty. Saint Francis's "spirituality" is transformed to reflect contemporary fashions, with virtually no reference ideas that underpinned the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience; namely, that penance and mortification are the pathway to Holiness.

In practice this meant warfare against his own body, its senses and its appetites. According to the still wide spread Catholic belief, without mortification of the senses, our desires will remain unruly and our rebellious will shall not conform to the will of God. Mortification was crucial to the way Saint Francis attempted to advance in the life of holiness. Impure lusting after sex and the temptations of money were to be resisted by poverty and chastity. The ultimate aim was to tame the desires of our body, through mortification, and become an obedient follower of God's will.

To achieve this end, Francis is reported to have used flagellation and a hairshirt (a garment of rough cloth made from goats' hair and worn in the form of a shirt or as a girdle around the loins, a Catholic encyclopedia informs us) for his penance. To defend his purity St Francis is alleged to have rolled naked in the snow, and thrown himself into thorn bushes. His wish to become a martyr is all part of this desire for mortification.

The article gives almost no sense at all of the actual form of spirituality that dominated and gave direction to Saint Francis's life. It is a travesty of the Catholic understanding that informed St Francis's life and the lives of those who imitated him, adopting his vows of chastity, poverty and obedience: for these friars, penance and mortification played the key role in enabling them to become a truly Holy follower of Christ, obedient not to the flesh and its desires, but obedient only to the will of God. (Oxe10 (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC))