Talk:Canonization of Thomas Aquinas

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the headless body of Thomas Aquinas was boiled, possibly in wine, after his canonization?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ben Small (politician)

Created by Kingoflettuce (talk). Self-nominated at 05:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC).

• Hi Kingoflettuce, I was taking a look at this one. I access the source you used and it states: "at the same time the Cistercians boiled the saint's body, probably in wine as was the custom, in order to separate the bones from the flesh". So while you can say his body was boiled, I think you can only say it was "probably" in wine, not definitely. Could you review and let me know? - Dumelow (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also from the same source I am not clear on the chronology. The preceding sentence is "The original sources are silent about the further fate of Thomas' remains but Raymond Hughes, who had eye-witnessed their translation to Toulouse, reports that Thomas' head was separated from the body during the time of the pontificate of Benedict XI (1303-1304)". From this reading "at the same time" might be at the same time as the translation to Toulouse or at the same time as the decapitation. I see you cited McGinn also, which I don't have access to. Does he confirm the timing of the boiling? - Dumelow (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hiya Dumelow, there is no way "at the same time" would refer to the Toulouse translation (which occurred in 1369) or the decapitation (the literature is not clear on exactly when—or why—the head was removed, but it could have been as early as on the day of his death and certainly by 1319, based on numerous eyewitness accounts of the head relic at Foussanova). Read in context, the boiling must have taken place after the canonization. McGinn confirms as much: "At some time after Thomas’s canonization, the remains were boiled down, and the more trans­portable bones were eventually given to the Domini­cans, who laid them to rest in their church at Tou­louse in 1369." "Eventually" suggesting that there was some time between the boiling and the transfer. The '"probably" in wine' bit was an oversight, have fixed it! Thanks Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Kingoflettuce. Happy with the chronology if McGinn supports it and the amended hook is fine. Article created 17 January and exceeds minimum length; sources used are mainly offline and look to be reliable; I didn't notice any issue with overly close paraphrasing when I had a quick look at Gerulaitis (1967); AGF on offline sources; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Forgot to say, probably worth expanding the lead a bit to avoid someone slapping Template:Lead too short on it (as an orange tag this would prevent a DYK appearance) - Dumelow (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, always struggle with ledes :P Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P3

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canonization of Thomas Aquinas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this up. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • Seems a bit sparse - we could probably mention that his bones were contested for a while after his death, that it took two inquiries to get him formally canonized, and that over a 100 folks testified to miracles ascribed to him.

Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Inquiries:
  • Do we have links for "Robert of San Valention", "Guillelmo de Tocco", "Robert the Lector", Umberto the archbishop, Angelo the bishop, "Pandulpho de Sabbello", "Peter Ferri"; Andrew the archbishop, "John of Naples"?

Ah, I recall searching for them when I was writing the article but it appears not. p.s. I double checked and the source does write "Robert of San Valention", but it just might be a typo (Valentino?). As with the concern about the Queen of Naples below, I wouldn't know better... Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "witnesses reported encountering visions" odd phrasing - perhaps "witnesses reported receiving visions"?

Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Canonization:
  • "Robert, King of Naples, and his wife" link for him and let's actually name her, please.

He is already linked in "Inquiries" so I thought that'd be overlinking. Genuinely did not mean to not name her but I'm not an expert on the period and the source itself doesn't name her. A quick search suggests that it would most probably have been Sancia of Majorca but would it be appropriate to actually name her when the source doesn't? (I've gone ahead and added the link anyway.) Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• • And name her on the second mention also.
  • Is there some reason we need to list the hymns sung ... and does the sermon topic of the second ceremony have any importance? Otherwise, these are just ... trivia.

I'm not sure, it seemed important enough for the source to mention, at least. It certainly helps to "picture" the day itself, if one were looking to recreate it, I think. I would liken it to knowing what songs were sung at the inauguration of a POTUS--do you disagree? But I will remove it with a heavy heart if I really must... Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "and placing just behind" ... awkward - suggest "and placed just behind"

Done Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "In 1348, Onorato I Caetani obtained the remains of Thomas Aquinas from the Cistercians" ... Who is Caetani and this is the first we've been confirmed that the Cistercians still had Thomas - last we heard his head was in Priverno, and his body had been boiled but nothing on where the rest of the body minus the head (and hand!) had gone.

He was the count of Fondi, but I thought the wikilink would reveal more than I could fit in. Have added the descriptor. The Cistercians were the ones who boiled the remains and sent the head artefact to the Dominicans. The hand was long gone (the Cistercians passed it to one of Thomas' sisters). Shouldn't that imply that they (the Cistercians) held on to the "remaining" remains, if nothing to the contrary is mentioned? I'm not sure how to phrase it non-awkwardly but I thought the implication was clear, without needing to clarify that the remains that were acquired by Caetani and subsequently returned to the Dominicans were headless and handless. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Thank you for the swift review, let me know what you think Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

These work fine, passing now. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)