Talk:Saint Dominic

Cleaning

I have tried to start the cleaning and cleansing of this article. It really needs a complete rewrite. The section on the early inquisition needs to be rewritten using the general Wikipedia article on the several forms of the inquisition. The article contains a lot of hagiographical material which would make for an article "St. Dominic (hagiography)". It is notoriously difficult to portray this saint. There is much less material for him than for St. Francis. The materials for Dominic's canonization do contain some information that seems genuine, and not just the kind of acts typically found in saints' lives. For now, I have pruned some sections which seems to have been copied from older writers without clear acknowledgments. Who is going to help to make this a useful and neutral article worthy of Wikipedia? Traiectinus 20:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Inquisition

The text of the 'inquisition' section sometimes argues with itself in an unstructured way. e.g.:

"No word from Dominic can be produced indicating that he remonstrated with the pope, or that he tried to stop the crusade. In general, very few sayings of Dominic have been preserved. In a few instances he seems to have interceded with the crazed soldiery for the lives of women and children. But he did not oppose the bloody crusade itself. He was constantly either with the army or following in its wake. He often sat on the bench at the trial of dissenters."

Also I get the impression that this section is based more upon guesswork and his later reputation, rather than on any definite evidence about what he did or did not do. But I guess this is a problem with a lot of history anyway. -- 18.252.5.45 11:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The part on the Holy Inquisitions is also lacking in NPOV. Some of us regard the Holy Inquisitions as a good thing, and not so much as a "slaughter."--Inquisitorgeneralis 05:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree the inquisition part is probably the worst of the whole article. The Holy Inquisition was created after the death of St. Dominic, so this should be pointed out. Also, maybe something should be mentioned about the black legend. Unfortunately I have not time right now. Haw81 17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some of us regard the Holy Inquisitions as a good thing

. Hmm interesting. It's amazing how blind people can be when the supernatural is involved. Systematic torture and murder is rarely considered a good thing. Marlinspike 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

all of the posts related to Dominic and his relationship to the continually deleted. For some reason, specific entities and Dominican Orders are continually deleting others comments so that no rational debate on the topic can take place. Further, a great deal of this information i can not find in any book listed. SpicyMeatGrinder (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Early life

I added something on the name 'de Guzmán', which I understand results from conjecture. Also on his founding of Prouille and his collaboration with Folquet / Foulques. He had other close friendships / collaborations which perhaps deserve mention. Andrew Dalby 13:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias say he went to Denmark, not Sweden, on his early diplomatic mission. My understanding is that the sources are so vague that Sweden might possibly be true, so I haven't changed the text; can someone else do better? Andrew Dalby 13:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A leaflet of the Dominican order in the basilica of Saint Dominic in Bologna, Italy states that Dominic accompanied his bishop to Denmark. There is no mention of a trip to Sweden. JoJan 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm reading a book from R.F Bennet "The early Dominicans", 1937 which says: "In 1203 and 1205, the bishop (Diego) had occasion, for politcal reasons, to make journeys to Denmark, and took Dominic with him as a companion." It makes a footnote on Denmark where the author says other people claim he went to La Marche, France (a view held by some guy called Altaner in Der hl. Dom p.141) and that this issue was not (at least at the time of writing settled). He saw no reason though to reject the arguments in favour of Denmark and seems to think Dominic went with Diego to Denmark.(Forgot to sign)Haw81

Thanks for these comments. I don't now have Vicaire's big biography to hand. I came away from it and its footnotes with the feeling that the whole story of a double Scandinavia expedition is a bit dubious. Who was the girl? Who was the prince she was supposed to marry? Andrew Dalby 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia indicates that the reason for the trips (it does not indicate how many) concerned the wedding of Prince Fernando. But the spanish version gives no source for this claim. For the girl, the italian wikipedia claims it is a princess, which would make sense for a Prince of Spain. But again, no source. On the number of trips, the book by Bennet (which is somewhat old unfortunately) says he went there 2 times, in 1203 and 1205. I don't have Vicaire's book, but I've heard good things about it. Bennet's book is not entirely dedicated to the Saint, so I wonder how much time he spent on trying to figure out what the Saint did in those early stages of his life. It seems to me though that teh whole issue has been debated for a long time. Haw81 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Title

"Dominic de Guzman" does not seem like the best title for this article. I think "Dominic de Guzmán," with the accent is preferable if "Saint Dominic" is not the best. Srnec 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the accent ought to be there if this form of the name is used, but the name de Guzmán is very dubious anyway. It comes from someone's much later idea that, since his parents were noble, his father must have been a de Guzmán. The fantasy can be extended further, as reflected currently in the Spanish Wikipedia es:Domingo de Guzmán. I would say either "Dominic of Osma" (an English version of what he is called in contemporary sources) or "Saint Dominic". Andrew Dalby 09:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Saint Dominic is certainly to be preferred. JoJan 13:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Haw81 15:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see so much agreement. While "Saint Dominic" is not a simple move and requires an administrator, "Dominic of Osma" or "Dominic de Guzmán" would be. It depends on which is more common in English. Srnec 21:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As an admin I could move the article to a new article "saint Dominic"'. However "Saint Dominic" already redirects to "Dominic", which is a disambiguation page for several saints, called Dominic. But when most people think of Saint Dominic, they think of Domenic de Guzman and not of some other obscure saint, called Dominic. Therefore I'm inclined to make the move to "Saint Dominic" (with the rearrangement of the many double redirects), since most people even don't know the name "Domenic de Guzman" but they do know "Saint Dominic". And then "Dominic de Guzman" would redirect to "Saint Dominic". Agreed ? JoJan 18:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds best to me that this page be moved to "Saint Dominic" and all other names (Dominic de Guzman, Dominic de Guzmán, Dominic of Osma, etc.) can redirect there. The top of the page can have a line directing people looking for other saints named Dominic to the diambig page. Srnec 18:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

St Dominic and the History of the Rosary

It is clear that there are different sources with different views on this.

Personally, I was not there in the 14th century to determine who is right, and I gather that neither were you. Your "opinion" is that you prefer one source over another. That is clearly a NPOV issue. The way Wikipedia works is that when there are competing (and respectable) printed sources, both must be mentioned. Seleting oen because "you" prefer it is a WP:NPOV issue.

I think we should list both sources and leave it as such. The othe rmaterial was even without any reference links. Please add those sources for your POV as a start. Thanks History2007 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Verifiable Information

This article should be deleted as the information provided within it and its ref's are, in sum, either bogus or inaccurate. As I have in my possession the actual books and articles, they either (a) do not refer to Dominic wthin the scope being discussed or (b)come from spurious sources. I will be posting today the actual passages as stated in the books, some of which are clearly productions of the Dominican Order.

The Dominican Order is clearly monitoring these entries and changing them so as to fit its financial and or theological stance. I ask that the we begin an extensive investigation into this article and articles related to Dominic. The articles should be based on the fact of the persons lives, not to promote the financial goals of institutions that use such information —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpicyMeatGrinder (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Let us examine some of the ref's that are located here and we shall see that they are not only misleading, but often times using actual books distributed by the DO for fund raising. I encourage debate on this and if anyone can provide other information, please post:

1. Ref 2 that refers to 'Libellus de principiis' states that Jordan of Saxony has this interpretation. Where? What page? What version?

2. Ref 4 states that, 'vir venerabilis et dives in populo suo'. What page? I have Rodrigo de Cerrato, Vita S. Dominici.

3. Ref 5, 'Pero Tafur, Andanças e viajes (tr. Malcolm Letts, p. 31), describing a pilgrimage to Dominic's burial place. Tafur's book is dedicated to a member of the Guzmán family'. Page 31 in Letts details his education. Logically, why would Tafur speak about his death on page 31? The passage does not exist. This can be validated online by viewing the actual text Online text of Tafur’s travels located here: http://descargas.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/00368385478881762975635/019984.pdf?incr=1 .

4. Ref 6 goes to a site run by the Dominican Order website that promotes the order itself. A real ref for this would be Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article "Premonstratensians". Its not debated on the fact in this instance, meerly that the ref again focuses on to a website that is run by the Order and not an external verifiable source. Verifying a source within your own company/community with no external documentation is spurious.

5. Ref 10-16 do not deal with Dominic, but rather promote the Dominican Order.

Bibliography:

1. Alfred Wesley Wishart. A Short History of Monks and Monasteries. 1900. Project Gutenberg etext. What page? Also, none of the information from this work is utilized in the article.

2. 'Guy Bedouelle, 'The Holy Inquisition: Dominic and the Dominicans', an article on the main Dominican website'. Again, this is supposed to be an article on Dominic, not the Dominican Order and promoting its interests.

3. 'Simon Tugwell, Early Dominicans, New York: Paulist Press, 1982'. What page and what context? That he is mentioned, yes. That he substantiates any of the text on the page, no.

4. M.-H. Vicaire, Saint Dominic and his Times, transl. by Kathleen Pond, Green Bay, Wisconsin, Alt Publishing, 1964. I can not verify this one. If anyone has a copy, could they please post a link where it could be purchased?

The rest of the material is either produced via Catholic publications that fund agencies the Dominicans run. Statements like:

'For centuries, Dominicans have been instrumental in spreading the rosary and emphasizing the Catholic belief in the power of the rosary[13].' which then leads the person to a site run by the Dominican Order.

At the bare minimmun, the article should be renamed as 'The Dominican Order: How to Join'.

I welcome any logical debate or discussion. A real page devouted to Dominic and his life should be, and I believe already is created. SpicyMeatGrinder (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I sympathise with some of what you say. I don't find the article satisfying, I think there is some hagiography in it, and some special pleading, and the rosary bit is very odd.

But history is difficult to do. All sources, not only those written by Dominicans, have to be questioned. By eliminating some of them (perhaps because you don't like the organization to which the authors belonged) you don't achieve balance, and you may lose it.

Others may respond about the rest of the article. I can speak only of one early paragraph, linked to notes 2-5: I largely wrote that paragraph, with the aim of getting rid of intrusions from later (mainly Dominican) hagiography and saying just what the early sources said. If you want to see a bit of the nonsense that I was trying to eliminate, look at what the Spanish article es:Domingo de Guzmán still says about his parents and his early life.

I can't recheck the sources tonight -- my personal library doesn't match up to yours -- but I can tell you that you are too hasty in saying of the reference to Pero Tafur that "The passage does not exist." In the Spanish version you cite (and thanks for the reference) the passage occurs on page 225, in the section "Viaje in Italia", near the beginning of the sub-section "Bolonia".

[Added a moment later:] I have Letts' English translation of Pero Tafur (1926 edition) myself. So I have just re-confirmed that in this translation the passage in question occurs on page 31. Your statement that "Page 31 in Letts details his education" is mistaken. Andrew Dalby 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[Added next morning!] In footnotes 1 and 2 on the page, references are given to the precise sections of Jordan of Saxony's and Peter de Cerrato's works. In each case it is section 4. I believe these section numbers to be common to all editions of those works: if I'm wrong, you would be welcome to add more precise references to a specific recent edition. I read the Jordan text (complete) and I read an extract of the Peter de Cerrato text. Although these works were written by early Dominicans, and are (as one would expect) interested in the life of their founder, they are not in any sense pushing the viewpoint of the modern Dominican order. In fact, if you look carefully at the text of the paragraph, you will see that these two works are cited for how little they say. They do not support the legends about Dominic's origin that appeared at a later period. That's worth knowing. Andrew Dalby 09:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This article does nothing to enhance Wikipedia's reputation as a serious reference work; on the contrary, it seriously endangers WP's reputation. Not a single statement in the section about Dominic's later life is supported by a reliable, verifiable source. WP demands WP:RS - it is a cornerstone of WP policy. I shall start soon to remove unsupported claims from the whole article, in line with policy and WP:BOLD, so anyone who wants to bring the article into line with WP policy has a few days to do so. --TraceyR (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, some references have appeared, drawing on Jean Guiraud's book Saint Dominic published in 2010. As it turns out, this is a republication of a public domain book (1913 in this case) by a publishing house, Kessinger. Does this book by Guiraud qualify as a WP reliable source, or is it just another hagiographical 'work'? --TraceyR (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: Notability of the topic and reliability of info. Someone up there said that the article should be deleted. The chance of an Afd removing this article is a flat zero: it is a WP:Notable topic.

I have not read/verified the contents, so can not speak to that. If there is questionable content, it should be flagged as unsourced, then that paragraph deleted after a few weeks.

If the situation is really bad, the Catholic encyclopedia material is usually considered WP:RS (although somewhat dated) and can be used as a stop-gap measure. But the saint is also somewhat dated and has not been subject to major changes, so the Catholic encyclopedia material can certainly be used.

And this is not the worst of them. If you want to see how bad things can be, look here....That one is really bad History2007 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello TraceyR. I have removed from this talk page a contentious allegation about a publisher sourced to a forum which does not meet WP:RS. I hope you'll understand. Let me also acquaint you with the essay, Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems. It has many suggestions which may be helpful to you in the future when you find problematic articles and sections. WP:V states, in part, To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. For how to write citations, see WP:Citing sources. This article has a bibliography section. It is admittedly incomplete, because there is a great corpus of work available about the life and times of St. Dominic. As you can see, just from a casual search of Google Books in the English language, I was able to find the complete text of a public domain work which I was able to cite for each fact in the disputed section. You may doubt the reliability of this particular source. That remains to be seen. I am confident that other books can be found to verify the same facts and others in this article, and more that is not included. In my mind, this proves that the disputed section is at least verifiable, if not yet completely verified. There is little hagiographical quality to either the section or the article - claims have been made in Dominican circles about Dominic's holiness due to his ability to bilocate and/or levitate, and numerous apparitions to him, particularly of the Blessed Virgin Mary presenting him with the Rosary. These would be unverifiable claims, but once again, I have not seen them in the materials we are working with. I appreciate your intent to improve this article, and I will continue adding citations as I locate sources with my limited resources. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But we must accept that the article does have several cn tags, and I do understand Tracy's frustration with the rip-off publishers. They are growing like mushrooms now. I have not had a chance to check this article, but many of these articles seem to need help now as people add things, and we are short-handed. Of course the whole Dominic Rosary item is a debated in several places, but what I can do is try to look into this perhaps over Thanksgiving. Can not do it before then. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I admit to being extremely frustrated by that section's lack of citations - everything is just someone's opinion or the uncritical regurgitation of some legend or church tradition, all of it accepted presumably because it's a matter of faith or dogma or papal bull etc. I'm not usually concerned about what people write or claim in this sort of article, but, having been very much involved in getting an article to A-Class in another project, and knowing how stringent the reviewers are during that process, I'm staggered at the (excuse me but it has to be said) rubbish that is allowed to persist here (and achieve B-Clasification!). Why are the standards accepted here so different from (i.e. so much lower than) elsewhere? It's like a parallel wiki-universe governed by different laws! I think I'll get back where I came from to preserve my sanity. --TraceyR (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't touch classifications (the one time I did, someone from a Project came and warned me off). Logically, a page largely lacking citations should be stub class; a page largely cited to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the 1911 Britannica and other old PD sources should be start class, and we should work up from there. With this page, I'd say, we're not far above that yet.

Guiraud was a really good scholar, and would have been a reliable source in his time. I am adding a link to that complete text, available, thank goodness, at archive.org. Google books, if they ever had it [yes, apparently they did], would have withdrawn it on agreement with the "reprint" publisher.

Luckily (because it isn't PD) the Dominicans have put online a later book, which is also good, by Pierre Mandonnet with appendices by M. H. Vicaire (1948) here it is. Still, a lot of work has been done, notably on Cathar history, since that time. That's important because most people who write books about saints tend to be, let's say, not quite neutral. Andrew Dalby 12:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Not quite neutral" is a very understated description of this genre, but since they are not bound by Wikipedia's requirements for writing from a neutral point of view we cannot accept everything as factual. For example, the Vicaire/Mandonnet book, to which you kindly provided the link, contains the following statements:

"On several occasions at Fribourg while Father Mandonnet was professor at the University, I had opportunities to question him about St. Dominic and the Order of Preachers to which he was wholeheartedly devoted. I recall the occasion when my inquiry was, to this eminent historian and loyal son of Dominic, a stunning blow. I asked whether the report were true that he did not hold in high esteem St. Dominic as a founder of a religious order. First his silence showed how such a charge wounded a son aflame with love for a father who was his incomparable hero; then, gravely these striking words fell from Father Mandonnet's lips: "You may quote me whenever you wish. I consider St. Dominic as a religious founder the greatest organizer that has ever trod this earth after the Lord Jesus Christ."

This is avowedly not a Neutral Point of View! Also in the prologue we can see the intention of the book:

"In this work there is an attempt to throw into relief the character of St. Dominic as Founder of one of the great religious orders in the Church by showing how his work was inspired by the needs of Christian society and how it provided for them in a marvelously adequate way. ... The writer of profane history would call him a man of valiant heart; to the historian of the Church he is a hero of apostolic soul. The glory of Dominic, the canon of Osma, will not be dimmed because his person and his deeds are viewed in the sphere of eminent ecclesiastical figures travailing over the perilous state of the world in the early thirteenth century. St. Dominic moved, without effort and with love, within the very orbit of sovereign authority, and thereby became a new star round which satellites rose without number to radiate their light and power in Christendom."

After this introduction, anything other than undisputed facts from this source need to be treated a coming from a highly partisan source. I have given the Guiraud book a brief glance and come across the following on page 4:

"The birth of St. Dominic was attended by marvels. While his mother was awaiting delivery, she had a strange vision. "She imagined", wrote Jordan of Saxony, "that she bore in her womb a dog, and that it escaped from her, a burning torch in its mouth, with which is set fire to the world." " the day of his baptism", relates Thierry of Apolda, "the godmother of the saint had a vision in which the blessed child appeared to her, marked on the forehead with a radiant star, of which the splendout illuminated the entire earth" - forcible and gracious symbols of the effect which was to be produced by his burning zeal which was to be produced by St. Dominic and his spiritual sons."

I don't hold out much hope of this being a reliable, NPOV source either. It is, of course, interesting that these visions, were they to be given credence, could just as readily be interpreted as presaging the fiery end suffered by many considered to be heretics by, among others, Dominic and his spiritual sons. This is not to cast doubt on the sincerity of those who take these accounts at face value, but to point out that Wikipedia demands more rigorous standards than the publishers of such - er - hagiography. --TraceyR (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, yes. "Accepting everything as factual" isn't the way I work; glad to know it isn't yours either :) Andrew Dalby 13:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that visions can never be scientifically verified, be they a vision St Dominic reported, or a vision a Buddhist or a Muslim reported. To verify them scientifically one would need to have a laboratory set up etc. a few centuries ago. So the way these things work in Wikipedia is to "state the belief" without making a judgement about whether it happened or not. In fact, in many cases these arguments can turn out to be a surrogate debate about the existence of God vs a belief in a mechanical universe and should be avoided. However, a general encyclopedia, and almost all secular encyclopedias, do say that the specific groups believe that a person X had a vision of Christ or Buddha etc. without attempting to verify that. Other encyclopedias such as Encyclopædia Britannica etc. have done that for long. They describe "Christian belief" as well as "Buddhist Belief", "Jewish Belief" etc. without endorsing or denying them. Indeed the beliefs they describe are often conflicting across religions and none can be asserted as endorsed by the encyclopedia. It is a question of wording really. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

My point is that any author who writes such things as "The birth of St. Dominic was attended by marvels" (Guiraud) or that the author was "aflame with love for a father who was his incomparable hero" (Mandonnet) has thereby disqualified him/herself from being considered a reliable, verifiable source, as required by Wikipedia. In this sense, I would suggest that the many citations of the Guiraud book provided by Elizium23 aren't sufficiently reliable and verifiable, coming as they do from the same pen as the uncritical "The birth of St. Dominic was attended by marvels". This is very different from writing e.g. "It was reported at the time that the birth of St. Dominic was attended by marvels", which would be the verifiable thing to say (then all one would need to find is at least one source which made the claim). Guiraud however just makes the unverifiable (and, in all probability, unreliable) claim as a fact. What are the views of others? Should the section be accepted as it now is, or should Wikipedia policy be applied? --TraceyR (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to reject the whole work of an author because he holds religious beliefs that differ from a Wikipedian's. That's too easy. Our job is to be critical.

I described Guiraud as a good scholar on the basis of his edition of the Cartulaire de Prouille, the only work of his I know. Andrew Dalby 18:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I am busy with other things, I will not comment further here. I will try to look here again in a month. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear about Guiraud, it's not his religious beliefs that are relevant here, but that he reports as "marvels" unverifiable dreams and 'visions'. OK, some Christian denominations have a somewhat looser approach to such things than others, so for a Roman Catholic author to accept such things as having actually happened is more likely than for, say, a member of the Plymouth Brethren! As such his acceptance of these things, for an academic mildly surprising, is understandable, but this does have a bearing on whatever else he writes about St. Dominic: how much of it falls into the same category of "looseness of approach"? Is such an attitude compatible with rigorous (reliable and verifiable) scholarship? I think not, but others may/will differ! --TraceyR (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a case of "outdated history". Guiraud's book was published in French in 1909. It looks to be for the most part history that is well researched by the scholarly norms of the time, but there's some straight hagiography in the mix too. If we have more up to date history covering the same period then we should use that. If not, one possibility is to use and attribute: "according to Jean Guiraud's 1909 account...". Itsmejudith (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. And as I said far above, an article that relies mainly on old and PD sources shouldn't (IMHO) have reached B class; it's really more like start class. Tracey said something similar, and we agree there's lots and lots to improve.

If I bristle at the hasty dismissal of an author who's prepared to regard supernatural events as verifiable, it's because I've spent a lot of my time off Wikipedia working with ancient and medieval authors who believe exactly that. My view, held quite strongly, is that an author who tells you what he firmly believes to be verifiable, and quotes sources for it (like Suetonius among ancient authors, and like Guiraud as quoted above) is perfectly OK to use: the best possible. No one tells us to accept everything they say as true.

The fact that Dominic was made a saint, and the fact that legends started to be told about his birth, and that a name was found for his mother and she was made a saint, and all that, is part of his "influence/reception", in biographical terms. It's important, because he's culturally influential, but we will need to distinguish it from his "life". Andrew Dalby 09:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Who's buying the brand-new books to source everything? Elizium23 (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So it seems that we should all make full and extensive use of public libraries while they still exist! There's no obligation to own a source, after all, just to cite it. --TraceyR (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

,,,,

---

there is something repugnant about the paragraph: Later life[edit source | editbeta] Blessed Cecilia Caesarini, who was received by St. Dominic into his new order, in her old age described him as "...thin and of middle height. His face was handsome and somewhat fair. He had reddish hair and beard and beautiful eyes. ...His hands were long and fine and his voice pleasingly resonant. He never got bald, though he wore the full tonsure, which was mingled with a few grey hairs

eg - what is 'got bald' supposed to mean? I have an idea what this means but something stinks surely the statement is an oxymoron? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetiesthatbind (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thetiesthatbind (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic language?

Examples from the article:

1. Throughout his life, Dominic zealously practiced rigorous self-denial
2. He selected the worst accommodations and the meanest clothes, and
3. never allowed himself the luxury of a bed
4. When travelling, he beguiled the journey with spiritual instruction and prayers
5. As soon as he passed the limits of towns and villages, he took off his shoes, and, however sharp the stones or thorns, he trudged on his way barefooted.
6. Rain and other discomforts elicited from his lips nothing but praises to God
7. Death came at the age of fifty-one and found him exhausted with the austerities and labours of his career
8. He made the monks lay him on some sacking stretched upon the ground
9. The brief time that remained to him was spent in exhorting his followers to have charity, to guard their humility, and to make their treasure out of poverty

This language is not that of an encyclopedia but of a panegyric. The above statements, at least those which do have a reference, seem to have been copied from a source or sources with a distinctly positive POV, which draw on legends and/or traditions. Surely such statements need to be made so that even the uncritical reader can see that they could possibly be just a teeny-weeny bit biased. What is WP policy? --TraceyR (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is hagiography, mainly from Guiraud. Per previous discussion, cut down and attribute what is left. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has the time come, now that three months have passed leaving several unattributed claims, to remove them? There isn't even a source for an famous rebuke quoted in the article. If it were famous, surely one could expect there to be a source for it. --TraceyR (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Infallibility

The beginning of the section on the Inquisition seems to be labouring under the (WP:OR) impression that papal bulls are considered infallible by Catholics. Papal bulls are not, in fact, considered infallible by the Catholic Church. As such, I am altering those sentences. This is my explanation why. 212.183.128.53 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

B-Class inappropriate

In view of the issues which have been raised here, including the uncritical use of unsubstantiated and hagiographical sources, I find it inappropriate for the article to have been assessed as B-Class. Another editor made this point above, stating that Start-Class would be more appropriate. IMHO rating it as B-Class does a disservice to Wikipedia. --TraceyR (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saint Dominic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130113161852/http://www.3op.org/stdominic.php to http://www.3op.org/stdominic.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120111153214/http://www.dominicains.ca/francais/Documents/documents_gen/approbation2.htm to http://www.dominicains.ca/francais/Documents/documents_gen/approbation2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Saint Dominic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819012403/http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/dominic.html to http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/dominic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618034722/http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domwork/domwork03.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domwork/domwork03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024152452/http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domdocs/default.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domdocs/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Dominica named for St. Dominic??

"Saint Dominic is one of the few historical figures after whom two sovereign countries are named: Dominica and"

The generally held view is that Columbus so named the island of Dominica because he and his crew sighted it on a Sunday (= dies Dominica in Church Latinl), namely, 3 November 1493, which in the Julian calendar indeed fell on that day (there was no Gregorian calendar as yet). For confirmation see the entry in his log for that dayS. Valkemirer (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed that bit. - Burner89751654 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)