Talk:Januarius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Who?

Joe Nickell, who? The Jackal God 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nickell - leading Skeptic who has written a lot of books and articles debunking strange phenomena. I've added the link to the article. (Emperor 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure that such a minor person's opinion warrants a mention in an article on such a high level patron saint, so I'm removing it. - Gennarous (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cause of liquefaction very lightly implied?

I notice that the article says "After intense prayers by the faithful --- including the so-called "relatives of Saint Januarius" (parenti di San Gennaro), the content of the larger vial typically liquefies. " This doesn't state that it is due to prayers by the faithful, but it seems to sort of...gesture towards it. I think whether or not it's POV is debatable, but maybe somebody else can find a better way to put it. I don't feel confident enough to change it.

Also, a small grammar thing that i may change if nobody else does anything about: "the content of the larger vial typically liquefies". The primary thing here is that I'm confident it should be 'contents' and not 'content'. Contents refer to specific things, and generally anything in a container is referred to as contents, with 'content' being a more general term. And secondary to this, 'liquefies' would be come 'liquefy'. -Indalcecio (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26th ref.

Hi there. I've been reading this article and found out that 26th link in references is invalid. Someone who is in charge of editing the article may want to change in eventually. Greetings, Koliat (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one from the Times of London? It worked for me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Koliat, I'm not sure I know what you mean: note #26 leads to the following news story by Richard Owen, and it appears to still be a valid link: [1]. Which link are you saying is invalid? — AlekJDS talk 22:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other Times During the Year

I don't see anything in the article about what is happening to the 'blood' at other times during the year. It would seem to be a logical control to see what is happening on say - the 7th of every month of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robfwoods (talk • contribs) 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's exactly necessary, let alone what the Catholic church's interest would be in the public having a more rational appreciation for the miracle. — LlywelynII 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV & the huge quotes from inexpert Catholic saints and cardinals

It's fine to have a sourced sentence or two outlining that the Catholic church (a) isn't keen on controlled scientific tests and (b) believes in and publicly supports the "miracle" but (per

WP:NPOV
) it's completely inappropriate to have two massively blockquotes from partisan religious figures filling up the page with unsupported claims that their "evidence" (left unspecified and unsourced) is incontrovertible. I'm fine with paring back everything to the first sentence of that section; if we're keeping those pull quotes, we should add some other voices:


⁂


I saw... a very splendid procession for the accession of the Duke of Anjou to the Crown of Spain, in which the Vice-Roy bore his part at the left-hand of Cardinal Cantelmi. To grace the parade, they exposed, at the same time, the blood of St. Januarius, which liquefyed at the approach of the Saint's head, though, as they say, it was hard congealed before. I had twice an opportunity of seeing the operation of this pretended miracle, and must confess I think it so far from being a real miracle, that I look upon it as one of the most bungling tricks that I ever saw: Yet it is this that makes as great a noise as any in the Roman Church, and that Monsieur Paschal has hinted at among the rest, in his marks of the true religion. The modern Neapolitans seem to have copyed it out from one, which was shown in a town of the Kingdom of Naples, as long ago as Horace’s time.[n 2] One may see at least that the heathen Priesthood had the same kind of secret among them, of which the Roman Catholicks are now masters.[3]

  1. ^ And then Fasano, built beneath the ban of fountain nymphs, gave food for laughter and for jest, by its mad wish to make us think that frankincense without the aid of flame will melt upon the threshold of some fane. Let any superstitutous Jew think so, but I could not, for I know now from Epicurus that the gods pass their time free from care, and that it is no threatening rage of theirs that sends down from the heavens' lofty dome whatever natural phenomenon we see.[2]
  2. ^ —Dehinc Gnatia lymphis
    Iratis extructa dedit risusque jocosque,
    Dum flammâ sine thura liquescere limine Sacro
    Persuadere cupit: credat Judaeus apella
    Non ego—    [1][n 1]
  1. ^ Horace, Sat., Bk V, Ch. 50.
  2. ^ Millington (1869), p. 41.
  3. ^ Addison (1730), p. 64.
  • Addison, Joseph (1730), "Remarks on Several Parts of Italy, &c. in the Years 1701, 1702, 1703", The Works of the Late Right Honourable Joseph Addison, Esq., Vol. II, 2nd ed., London: Jacob Tonson.
  • Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus) (1869), A Rhythmical Translation of the First Book of the Satires of Horace, translated from the Latin by R.M. Millington for Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer.


⁂


That’s more fair-minded and impartial than what we have in the article right now. (And much more informative and entertaining.) If we're just including that section to illustrate Catholic bias, we should also present the thoughts of outside observers, of which Addison's is undoubtably one of the most famous. — LlywelynII 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE & Nietzsche

Eh... it's nice that he wrote something about the guy, but this probably needs to be forked out into its own section, tacked onto the Gay Science article instead, or turned into a literary legacy section with a shorter treatment of Nietzsche and more treatment of other writers who have mentioned the saint or his rituals. — LlywelynII 01:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 36 and 37

There seem to be some problems with source 36 and 37. Note that both of these sources are in Italian and I'm not fluent in Italian, so it is possible that I misread something. That being said, source 36 does not say that "the Camaldoli relic also contains blood that can change its solid-liquid phase by shaking." It says that the Camaldoli relic also contains blood that can change its solid-liquid phase by shaking and chemical extraction of the calcium. Source 37 does not exist anymore. I was able to find it via the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20100207131254/http://www.positanonews.it/articoli/33495/miracolo_di_san_gennaro_un_test_dimostrache_nellampolla_ce_sangue_umano.html

It has the same problem - in order to liquify the blood, other compounds had to be added. This applies both to the old ampule and to Professor Geraci's own blood. Even if this was not the case, it seems to refer to the phenomenon discussed earlier in the wiki article - blood, once coagulated, can be made liquid, but it does not then return to a solid state. Professor Geraci closes the article in source 37 by saying, "It is not enough to attribute to the movement the ability to dissolve the blood, the liquid contained in the treasure hull changes state for reasons still to be identified."

In short, I'm not sure why the claims related to these sources are presented in the way they are and I'm not sure how to notate citation 37 to indicate that the article no longer exists at that location but can be found using the Wayback Machine. I'd appreciate assistance from more experienced editors with both of these issues. I will not be making any edits to the main article at this time.

Warr40 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Warr40[reply]

Edit: 11 January 2018 I added the above quote from source 37 to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warr40 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Januarius. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Januarius. 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:

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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source 37 Archived Version

I replaced the original link in Source 37 with an archived version because the original link was broken, I had mentioned a while ago on the talk page.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100207131254/http://www.positanonews.it/articoli/33495/miracolo_di_san_gennaro_un_test_dimostrache_nellampolla_ce_sangue_umano.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warr40 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Januarius&oldid=1207793580"