Talk:John Vianney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

The overall tone of the reporting that the curé always "doing God's work" isn't appropriate for a neutral encyclopaedia article. --Fire Star 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

swearing[edit]

found swearing all over the page moved it back to an earlier edit.Dava4444 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Needs Real Footnoes[edit]

The incomplete sourcing, coupled with the generally credulous tone of the article as a whole, does not commend the article. Needs help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.123.155 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Absent objection, I'll take down the cn header. I took out the most offending incredulous quotes. There's still a little bit of romanticization in the early years/childhood section, but it is far better than it was earlier. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. —harej (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)



Jean-Marie VianneyJohn Vianney — Most common name: this is unambiguously more common than is Jean-Marie Vianney, as is easily demonstrated with a google or gscholar search. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • That seems to be sound reasoning to me (Google Searches are not at all definitive, but they are at least suggestive), and this seems to be supported by WP:NCP. What references there are in the article (there's only 2 actual references, I think) are old Catholic Encyclopedia references anyway, which cannot demonstrate modern convention. By the way, I think that cleaning up the references and just generally improving the article are much more important issues then the title, regardless.
    V = I * R (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

References[edit]

Ohm, how are there only 2 actual references? There are 20 footnotes; most of them I added from Butler's. Is there any particular reason you're discounting these? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not discounting them, it's just that there are only 5 actual references. Yes, there's 20 actual citations, but most of them are obviously reused to reference different parts of the article. That references are being used is a (very!) good thing, but the same book is the same book regardless of what it is referencing.
Incidentally, the "proper" way to reuse a reference for multiple citaions is to give it a name. Then, one of the references would look like: <ref name="cite name">{{Cite book | title | author | etc...}}</ref>, and then all of the other instances where that same work is used as a reference would look like: <ref name="cite name" />
V = I * R (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll look around for more things to cite, that just happened to be the only suitable work I have at home. And do I use the same cite for the work when I am using different page numbers, or do I make up separate cite templates when using different page numbers in the same work? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
There's intentionally not prescriptive guidance on this issue. WP:CITE specifically avoids stating whether or not to use or not use that style. If you do choose to use individual page numbers then each citation will end up showing up as separate items in the {{Reflist}}. Considering the way that the cite.php system currently works though (as I've outlined just now and above), there seems to be something of a consensus to avoid making references that granular. There's a certain amount of trust that (offline) references do actually support what they are used for on Wikipedia... being a general references, in contrast to being some sort of scientific journal for example, seems to allow this small amount of "sloppiness".
V = I * R (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Veneration[edit]

The information box says that St. John Vianney is venerated by not only the Roman Catholic Church, but also by the Anglican Communion, yet this is not mentioned in the article. Anyone know if this is true? Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Devil[edit]

This article leaves out St. John Vianney's constant battles with the Devil. Because St. John Vianney was so committed to saving souls for Christ, he was in constant battle battle with the evil one, who hated him for what he was doing.--Splashen (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


Well, not 'the devil' @Splashen, but yes a demon/satan, i find it odd too there is no mention of Saint John's suffering at the hand (or sock) of satan.Dava4444 (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"incorruptible"[edit]

The caption "The body of Saint John Mary Vianney, found to be incorrupt by the Catholic Church" needs a source. Nothing about this is said in the body of the text. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)