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)

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 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/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 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/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 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/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 http://perso.wanadoo.fr/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)