Talk:James, son of Zebedee
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James, son of Zebedee article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 25, 2004, July 25, 2005, July 25, 2006, and July 25, 2007.|
- 1 Message
- 2 Saint James Patron of Chile?
- 3 Dating Cuzco painting
- 4 "...also called Saint James of Compostela"
- 5 San Diego
- 6 Images
- 7 Bull
- 8 Santiago WL in "Sanit James and Hispania"
- 9 United States?
- 10 James the Great
- 11 Renamed
- 12 Article in need of introduction
- 13 We need a section on the historical figure
- 14 Name in Tiberian Hebrew, Greek, Latin
- 15 Etymology
- 16 The scallop
- 17 Why Is There No Mention
- 18 Is it clear that the Acts reference is to him?
- 19 Expand discussion of St. James in Haiti?
- 20 Mary Salome is the mother of James, not Salome.
- 21 Date of death
- 22 Section: "In the New Testament"
How is linking to placenames named after Saint James wrong? I think the links provide good information. -- Error 02:37, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Saint James Patron of Chile?
According to my references (what i've learned at school and sunday mass) the patron of Chile the Blessed Virgin Mary (as Virgen del Carmen o Nuestra Señora del Carmen) instead of Saint James. Saint James could be the patron of Santiago de Chile, but Santiago no es Chile ;-)
If I'am wrong, pls correct me, otherwise I intend to correct the article. Baloo rch 21:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dating Cuzco painting
The good new image of Sant'Iago of the Cuzco school of colonial Peru is 18th century. A quite different, more iconic, bejewelled and hieratic 17th century approach to Saint James can be seen in this Cuzco painting: the contrast in styles is self-evident. His wide-brimmed hat is 18th century, too; such fine straw "Panama hats" are still made in the northern part of Peru, today called Ecuador. --Wetman 08:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"...also called Saint James of Compostela"
I never heard that St. James was called 'of Compostela'. Santiago de Compostela is the city in Spain. It is thought to mean 'campus stellae', that is, 'star field', or maybe 'compositum', 'graveyard', and that is clearly referred to a place, not a person. --Pinzo 04:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Saint James, or Sant Iago, called "of Compostela" because that's where his shrine is? The city named for the shrine. Cf. Saint Martin of Tours, etc. A help to the reader. --Wetman 07:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think so, the city is "Santiago de Compostela" but this doesn't change the name of the saint. There is a "Santiago de Chile" also, and you don't call him St. James of Chile!!!. Martin_of_Tours was so called because he was bishop of Tours, but when St. James died Compostela didn't even exist. --Pinzo 01:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Why, of course it is the same Sant Iago: doubtless in English it would have been more correct to have said Saint James in Compostela. Similarly it's the same "Our Lady" wherever located, but it may be useful to distinguish her at Guadelupe from her at Fatima. But isn't it useful for the reader as it stands? If not, edit the opening to serve the reader better. --Wetman 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)--Wetman
- There are a lot of cities in the world named after St. James, but that doesn't change his name. He is known as St. James the Great or St. James the Moor-Slayer or St Iago, or Santiago etc; but he is NOT known as St. James of Compostela, this is something I had never heard before and AFAIK is just wrong.
- The fact that there is a city named after him and the word 'compostela' is irrelevant here, in the header. There is the link and an explanation later in the text (maybe a See also would be useful).
- The situation of "Our Lady" is an exception, because St. Mary is treated almost as a different person in every place she is venerated, she sometimes takes the name of that place.
- I would delete the offending words again, and add a nice See also if you agree... :-/ --Pinzo 01:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Saint Nicholas of Cusa is also Saint Nicholas of Bari. And in precisely the same way, familiarly identified by the places where he is most venerated... or is he an "exception" too? Keep the reader in mind, and connect "James" and "Compostela" in whatever fashion suits your personal point-of-view, so that the reader knows which James is being referred to. As for "offending" words and the rest, it's only arguing over a phantom after all, like St George. --Wetman 01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, maybe another exception... Anyway, let's put it simple: According to the Catholic Encyclopedia St. Nicholas of Myra is also called St. Nicholas of Bari, ok; but about St. James the Greater it doesn't give any alternate name. Do you have any reference where he (the saint) is called of Compostela?. Because this is the first and only place where I heard of it. BTW, in the CE he is the Greater not the Great, And that makes sense, since the other St. James, is the Lesser. --Pinzo 05:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if no more arguments I will delete it again, ok? --Pinzo 00:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's ok to me. Done. --Pinzo 20:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Diego is Spanish for James. Santiago is also a version of San Diego. The comment on the page that it is not the same is incorrect.evrik 19:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Diego is not James
"Santiago" is not a shortened version of "San Diego". Diego was/is a Saint in his own right. Interestingly, Diego was at one time a varient of Santiago, see http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/83fall/sandiego.htm but they are two different saints entirely.
Hey, bud, no one is saying the saints were the SAME, the NAMES have the same origin.
Saint Didacus was named that AFTER his death and beatification. Didacus was never a name in its own right before a Latin name was invented for the Saint. Didacus doesn't exist in any other Romance name.
Here is how the Latin name for St. James became Diego in Spanish or Tiago in Portuguese. Sanctus Jacobus Santo Iago (K-sound often became a G-sound) Santiago. THEN we lose the SAN because in modern Spanish the title Saint for males became San (see San Francisco, San Antonio) Tiago (still a name in Portuguese) Diago Diego, Diego.
Please let's kill this Didacus myth. Arthurian Legend 01:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Iago is Diego is James
- In Old-Spanish, perhaps, but no longer. 18:56, 12 January 2006 [188.8.131.52]
- I think that St. James pre-dates old spanish ... evrik 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
How can someone NO LONGER have the same origin? That doesn't change. Diego still means James because of Santiago. Think of the Portuguese cognate, Tiago. It's the same name, bud. Arthurian Legend 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a general preference for wither of these two images?
- Cross not the sword. --evrik 16:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- My preference is for the Swords shaped cross. (but than again I put it up a while ago; I fashioned it after the souvenir pictures sold in northern spain).Arnoutf 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In Spain, one would only recognise the sword-ended cross as that of St. James. The other one has nothing to do with it. The idea behind it was "¡Santiago y cierra España!"- a battle-cry used in the Reconquest. St. James is usually depicted as leading the Cristian armies into battle, hence the sword.--Guille 08:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Could someone more able than me please change the cross on the page for the red sword-shaped one on the discussion page? Or is it only the Spanish that recognise that one as the cross of Santiago?Guille 00:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I did that once, but it was taken off again. Put it up once more. Arnoutf 09:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I made the change because if you look at the usage of the red sword, it is only used in one place, here. The black cross is loaded to the commons and used in four other articles depicting the same thing. Also, using a *.gif is really not what type of image we should be using. --evrik (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but these are not good arguments. If you think the image should be one commons, the red cross can be uploaded to commons. And indeed .png is preferred over .gif. Ok that can also be easily changed. That the black cross is used on other pages is also not a good argument, the right depiction should be used, regardles of what other pages do. Arnoutf 17:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention .... the black cross is an appropriate version of the image. It fits the defintion.  --evrik (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- No it does not, the point is a point; not a sword; the flueries are closer to Cross fourchee than to fleuries. If you define broadly enough an image of a cow fits the definition of horse. Arnoutf 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Take it to mediation if you disagree, but stop edit warring. --evrik (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- I always try to leave an edit summary ... and yes, as I've argued with you elsewhere, the image fits. Also, you started the edit war when you went and removed the image you didn't like from all the articles where it was placed.. Clearly a violation of WP:point.--evrik (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It fits only your point of view to what it should look; I have never seen it before, nor has any editor ever said yours did look close to the commonly used version in Spain; in my opionion your cross looks like a wooden cross with splintered ends except for the sharpened stake like point. If you can provide an image from Google that looks more like your version than to mine I will accept that. And yes I took it from all articles, because if it is false here it is also false there and should hence be replaced. Calling that a clear violation of anything is (if not anything else) a clear violation of WP:AGF. Arnoutf 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's hard to prove a negative - no editor has said yours looks close to a commonly used version either. You admit to edit warring and violating WP:Point when you "took it from all articles?" Wow. As for a verion that looks like the one that is posted ... try this one. I think the only problem is that it is not red, but that can be fixed. --evrik (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The color is the least of the problems. I do not admit to edit warring or Point of view, all articles were five, two of which I have argued the cross should not be up at all. So that leaves 3. For reason of consistency I thought to change all at the same time, never an edit war or POV pushing meant. I agree that Japanese site has the cross like yours. Actually almost exactly like yours. My only comment here is that some of the other pictures on this site are also identical to the StJames images on wiki, so it might well be that the cross on that page has actually been based on your version. The links above to the google images show many examples of crosses that look much much more like the other one. Anyway Guille states above on this same page that he did not recognise your version as the cross; and that the red one (at that time mine was the only red one) should be reinstated (which I did then). So there is support of at least one other editor for my version.
- I think we should try to decide between us which cross is better and why (and try not to be coloured by making the one or the other). If not we can always go on later to WP:RfC. Arnoutf 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- How in my opinion the cross should look
- It should resemble the most common depictions of this cross to avoid WP:OR. Depictions can be readily found at Google image with the search terms cruz santiago and st james cross
- It should fit the description of the cross - Cross Fleury combined with a Sword.
- Cross Fleury is a cross that ends in the three leafed Fleur-de-lys which has a central pointed leaf, and two leafs that are bending outside. This well known heraldic device has clear rounded leaf like elements which should be visible in the image.
- A sword in the medieval sense has a blade that gradually narrow into a point (see images in the sword page). In my opinion the sword in the cross should therefore have two sides that are directed together into a point.
- If we agree on these conditions, it is clear that nly one of the crosses conforms to both conditions. However, if you have other arguments I am willing to listen. PS use in other Wiki articles is not a reason, as anybody can swap these at a whim Arnoutf 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- As there is no reaction I think you agree the StJamesCross.gif is preferable?? If you do indeed, or do not repsond, I'll make a .png out of it and upload it in a few days. Arnoutf 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't bother as Image:Cross Santiago.svg already exists and is being used. --evrik (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't notice that. I would suggest to use that version on all pages where the Cross of St James is mentioned (including this one). Arnoutf 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Emblem of the Order of Santiago
- The Cross of St Jamesis said to have originated at the time of the Crusades, when the crusaders carried small crosses with pointed lower arms, capable of being thrust into the ground at a time of daily devotions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by evrik (talk • contribs)
- And what is the point of this; you may state (unsourced) that the left cross is that of the order of Santiago (lit translated to StJames) and the right one is that of StJames. I am pretty sure there is no difference between the two. Without any arguments I can put up a gallery myself. Also where does your above line relate to sword blade description?? And why did you not answer to my suggestion to replace all references to the crosses with Image:Cross_Santiago.svg (extreme right in table below). Arnoutf 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(but of course the caption texts are no arguments) Arnoutf 21:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because you're just doing this to WP:Point. I like the vampire comment. Pretty funny. See you next week. --evrik (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- NEVER EVER AGAIN EDIT MY COMMENTS FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED BLATANT VANDALISM. Arnoutf 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't edit your comments. I edited the incorrect label on the image. I think you're taking this too personally. --evrik (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I made these labels, it was my edit. The problem with editing another persons' texts is that it allows you to distort his arguments. Anyway, let's try to come to solution because this is not working. Arnoutf 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- In my view not all three are propper Saint James's crosses. In the Spanish tradition Saint James is "Santiago de espada", Sant Iago of the sword. The cross is therefore one that ends in a sword. In heraldry there has never been anything like a "Vampire staking cross". A "croix au pied fiché", a cross with a sharpened foot, is nevertheless not uncommon in heraldry. All depictions of the crosses of Saint James in heraldry or as jewels of the Orders of Knighthood show a foot in the shape of a sword.
The one in the middle is a "Croix fleury with a sharpened foot". The other two are crosses of Saint James. There is some room for variation and artistic licence in heraldry.
- There are hundreds of beautifull legends around the crusades and the eldest coats of arms. They are worth to be included on Wiki but the story that these crosses were sharpened "at the time of the Crusades, when the crusaders carried small crosses with pointed lower arms, capable of being thrust into the ground at a time of daily devotions" is in all probability just a legend.
A serious source, Jhr. J.L.M.Graafland and the famous heraldic artist A.Stalins depicted yet another Cross of Saint James. Robert Prummel 22:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- This why the different versions are featured at Cross of St James. The argument here seems to be about which is the best to use in this article. What gets me is that Arnoutf an image well after the others were made and posted and is upset because that one image isn't getting placed in the article. --evrik (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion, indeed the vampire staking thing was a making a point discussion (as was Evrik calling the true cross of StJames merely that of the order) Note that this (not funny I agree) joke was vandalised by Evrik who swapped the captions. I made it a blatant show of making a point to expose the weakness of his arguments, but as you may have seen I added a line directly below that no argument whatsoever is to be made from these captions.
- I have never stated that pied fiche does not exist. Only that the cross of stJames should have a true sword blade and not the pied fiche.
- I hadn't seen the Graafland Stalins cross before; seems like a cross-fleury with blade and hilt. Interesting version.
- I am not upset about not the possibility that the cross drawn by me is not the one that is used, I just suggest to use the same cross, that is also the cross of the order of Santiago everywhere. What I don't get is that Evrik cannot come to terms that we should use the same cross for the order and for stJames as the article text states they are the same. Apparently he has decided that there is a difference and that the pied fiche is the correct version of the Saints cross; and that is cross is the correct one. Note that he is the only one ever making links to this image, and while I admit I did not know of the order of Santiago cross when I made my version of StJames cross (looking for StJames made that do) I do not mean to push my version; but Evrik (the only one ever accusing me of this) is adamant that HIS version should be used (clear case of pot calling the kettle black IMHO). As can be noted above I suggested not to use my version but use the Image:Cross_Santiago.svg instead verywhere (a suggestion that has still received no answer from Evrik). Arnoutf 17:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- When did you become owner of this article? You were seriously hurt that I didn't think that Image:StJamesCross.gif wasn't a good image. You then started attacking everywhere where File:St James Cross.svg was placed. You then went and created Image:StJames Cross.png. Let's see you've been edit warring, working against consensus and even after articles were sourced you were violating WP:Dick. --evrik (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am no more owner of this article than you. But also no less.
- I do not demand that StJamescross.gif is everywhere, I do however think that Stjamescross.png should be removed. Indeed I went and created a .png version as that was suggested by you.
- I replaced all 4 installments of your version once; which you reverted immediately. I did not re-revert (only where I removed them altogether as there was no source for its inclusion). You may call a single image replace an edit war. Reverting without edit summary (which you did, not me) is in my book more of an edit war.
- Consensus as slowly evolving on this page is that the flower ended, sword blade cross is the best version (see repsonse by Guille and Robert Prummel) So it seems to be 3 to 1 in favour of the sword. Who is working against consensus?
- A source is only as good as what it is saying. If a source does not say anything on the topic, the source is not a valid source (e.g. the manual of Microsoft Windows is not a reliable source for early Sumerian History articles). Simply providing a source is not enough, it needs to contain relevant information.
- In brief, you are the one who cannot cope with your cross being removed from pages, as soon as this happened you started to shout wild allegations against me and started calling me names. Arnoutf 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that Evrik has been changing the cross proposed by him on April 13th 2007, well after this discussion started. So everything before April 13 has been referring to this version of that image. The version before april 13 had some kind of tassles, where now it suddenly has the fleur de lis endings. So I think the discussion is from now on going to be limited to the 'fitch' or the 'sword blade' shape of the bottom end of the cross. Arnoutf 18:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fitch is fine. The fitch has been on there several months now. It is accurate. --evrik (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is plainly untrue. In this article the fitch was replaced by a sword shape version on october 22 2006, and that version has been up until you removed it april 4. You and who else are saying the fitch is fine? Arnoutf 07:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- As no arguments have followed for over a week and three editors have voiced preference of a sword shape over the fitch, which is favoured by only one editor, I will change the image on May 1st, unless compelling arguments are made before that time. Arnoutf 07:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your last remark is either insulting or an indication that you have not read discussion above (assuming you can read and count up to three). Arnoutf 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Me, Robert Prummel (somewhere halfway down) and Guille (top of the discussion).Arnoutf 07:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed from the main article for discussion
- Thus the possibility that the relics at Santiago de Compostela predate the cult there of St James is no longer open to discussion for believing Roman Catholics. (The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1966 has this to say: "The genuineness of the relics at Santiago de Compostela, his famous shrine in Spain, is seriously disputed despite the fact that Pope Leo XIII referred to them as authentic in his bull Omnipotens Deus in 1884." Apparently the discussion is still open.)
Santiago WL in "Sanit James and Hispania"
I decided to remove the WikiLink to Santiago in that particular spot. The only other "Santiago" that needs to be linked to in this article is Santiago de Compostela; Santiago itself only contains a little blurb about this article before redirecting back here, and anyone who uses that particular WL will already have learned it all from this article. SingCal 03:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
How is he the Patron Saint of the United States? 184.108.40.206 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
James the Great
With a certain level of surprise a learned this article was suddenly renamed without any discussion. Of course WikiPolicy is to be bold; but I think this is a bit too bold. At least provide a good edit summary, and usefull explanation why it was deemed useful/necesary to rename this article. Arnoutf 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was renamed to reflect his biblical name, to make him conform with the other Apostle James, son of Alphaeus, and because "James the Great" never was a good translation of "Jacobus Maior". Str1977 (smile back) 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some references:
- Primary Resource: The discussion revolved around a preference for the name because it is the New Testament version of the name - which is the primary source of info and reason for the notability of James. I could give you the NT references for "James, son of Zebedee" if you like, but I cannot find any for "James the Great." The traditional materials that speak of James "the Great" are generally much later.
- A Secondary Resource: W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1984), only speaks of "James the brother of John" (see pp. 90 & 202).
- A Tertiary Resource: The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everet Ferguson (New York: Garldand Pub, 1997) speaks of James as the "son of Zebedee" and "Son of Thunder," but not "the Great."
- Online resource: The catholic encyclopedia calls him, at the very opening of the article on James the Great, "the son of Zebedee and Salome." It goes on to explain that he was called "The Greater" to distinguish him from "the Lesser" - with no explanation on where "the Greater" came from. On wikipedia, James and James have been otherwise distinguished, esp. since it is not exactly clear who the Lesser is.
- That is all I have on hand. I will check my other library and see what I come up with. Hope that helps. Pastordavid 22:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some references:
Yes, I've generally heard him referred to as "James, son of Zebedee". ElinorD 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok; you make a convincing point, I see why renaming may be in order. I think he is generally known as James the Great by people interested in the Camino de Santiago (Way of St James) - which is why I have this page watched; but I can live very well with your arguments and sources and if explained in this way, agree with the renaming, thanks for providing them here. Arnoutf 08:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- The second part of moving a page involves cleaning up [all the double redirects] that one has created. To leave that to other editors is discourteous. A note to this effect has been left at the Talkpage of the mover. --Wetman 04:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was thrown off by the claim that James the Lesser was James son of Alpheus, because I thought it was James the Brother of Jesus who was of the Seventy Apostles (the lesser) as apposed to James son of Zebedee of the Twelve (the Greater) and the lesser and greater nominatives are referring to the 12 being greater than the 70. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Article in need of introduction
I think the article is in serious need of a good introduction. I propose to make a setup soon, please feel free to comment. Arnoutf 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
We need a section on the historical figure
While the introduction now duly mentions the biblical James, the article proper does not. This is weird. The introduction should be a summary. I suggest we start the article proper with a section on the historical James, before we go on with the Spain section. Arnoutf 10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Name in Tiberian Hebrew, Greek, Latin
Other Biblical saints have their birth names and then the two most influential versions in Indo-Europeans languages; Greek and Latin. I know that Saint James is Sanctus Jacobus in Latin, can we add the other ones? Arthurian Legend 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Just reading about the morphing of the name to (eventually) San Diego and others. I realize that it would be a very short article but I'm wondering if it shouldn't be separate. A bit much for here anyway. But very interesting. The city of San Diego could link to it (for example) and others.Student7 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure it is actual morphing, it seems more a translation issue. SantIago in Spanish; Saint Jacques in French (coquille st Jacques), Sankt Jakob in German, Saint James in English etc. Arnoutf (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Several myths are available. The most common one is that after being beheaded in Jerusalem his body was shipped to Spain (where he had preached) by his disciples. Before arriving a storm wrecked the ship and the body was. It was found a few days later washed ashore, covered in a protective layer of Scallops and thus undamaged. (several variants exist). Bit of trivia: French word for Scallop - Coquille St Jacques is literary Shell of St James. Arnoutf (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Why Is There No Mention
Why is there almost no mention except for the lead of what he actually did according to the bible, it seems that 90% of this article are traditions that the catholics have added to him and almost none about his story according to the gospels and early acts 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is only limited information in the bible. Most of his importance is in the traditions. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it clear that the Acts reference is to him?
Since there is so much confusion of similarly-named characters in the New Testament, is it even clear that the reference in the Book of Acts to a James being put to death actually means the apostle? If it is, some source should be given in support. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think Acts 12:2 is very clear. And that citation is already there. --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Expand discussion of St. James in Haiti?
There is mention in the section on St. James in Kongo of Kongo traditions having gone to the new world, and to Haiti in particular. Saint James (Sen Jak) is extremely popular in Haiti. (see, e.g., Cosentino, Donald J.  "It's All for You, Sen Jak" in *Invisible Powers: Vodou in Haitian Life and Culture* ed. Michel, Claudine and Patrick Bellegarde-Smith. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.) Vodou practitioners often identify images of Saint James with the Vodou divinity Ogoun. I imagine some information about his role in Haiti might not go amiss on the main St. James page, though perhaps just linking to the Wiki page on Ogoun is enough? This is my first time in the Wikipedia chat world, so I'm interested to know what those of you more experienced in editing, and who take regular care of this page might think. Zloop (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Mary Salome is the mother of James, not Salome.
The mother of James son of Zebedee is not Salome, but Mary Salome. I think it would be necessary to have a look to the references about this articule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Date of death
I'm a little concerned about the statement "died 44 AD". The date of death is based on legend and really can't be cited as fact. That needs to be indicated right at the start when the date is first mentioned. Nobody knows the exact dates of early Christians. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Would "....reportedly died 44 AD" be ok (that is concise but may be to firm about the date). Alternatively but more wordy "... according to legend died 44 AD" might perhaps do Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- "According to legend" or "according to tradition" would be better. "Reportedly" doesn't correctly signal that the story is a structure with a religious purpose, but instead gives the impression that it is some kind of historicity-only statement which is reported by journalists. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Section: "In the New Testament"
Section: In the New Testament blasphemes – most specifically the first three paragraphs – against my skeptical mind the following ways:
- it is written like a mythos (which is an essential part of religions and to be respected) were facts, there should be some signalling "according to tradition" to distinguish tradition/mythos from historical reality (which is rather irrelevant for beliefs/faiths),
- it speculates wildly by citing the worthless source "probably",
- one source cannot be enough for this kind of texts, in the first run, the text should be labelled "according to the Catholic encyclopedia", in the longer run, more sources are needed.