Talk:Clare of Montefalco

{{WikiProject Banner Shell|1=

Catholic Encyclopedia

The section on relics should not have been removed simply because an editor feels that the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't a reliable source. The long-standing consensus among the Wikipedia community is that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a reliable source. If you don't think it should be used as a reference, then your objection is far wider in scope than this particular article. Just because the Catholic Encyclopedia was written for a Catholic audience, doesn't mean it's unreliable. That argument is very much in conflict with the core Wikipedia policy on verifiability (WP:Verifiablity). If you have other source please incorporate their information into the article with the citations. That would be the most appropriate way to proceed with improving the article. Dgf32 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want this in the article you need to rewrite it. It's all stated as fact. That's your pov and the CE's pov. They are not a neutral source on this topic. Section removed. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! Thank you for editing Wikipedia! It's great to have your assistance with editing. You can read more about Wikipedia and have a look at the three core Wikipedia policies: WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral Point of View. You may also want to have a look at the Manual of Style for more on how to edit and create articles. Wikipedia works by building consensus on talk pages and elsewhere. It's best to discuss major changes and deletions on the talk page first instead of simply reverting. You can learn more about editing at: Wikipedia:Editing policy. I'll rewrite the section, but please keep in mind that many editors with diverse perspectives across many articles with many topics have established consensus that the Catholic Encyclopedia is a perfectly acceptable reliable source. I'll look for other sources on the subject, and I'd ask you to do the same. If you have any specific sources to point towards, they can certainly be included in the article. Again, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions. Dgf32 (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've carefully reviewed your post above, the comments you posted as an edit summary, and the relevant Wikipedia policies. You removed text that you disagreed with because you felt that the Catholic Encylopedia was biased and could not be used as a reference. I explained on the talk page and in my edit summary that there is a long-standing consensus among Wikipedia editors that the Catholic Encyclopedia is an appropriate reference to be used in Wikipedia. Your repeated reverts removed text from the article that was supported by citations, in accordance with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. Removing text that is supported by citations because you disagree with the text or because you disagree with a cited source is considered censorship.

The best approach to improving the article is not to simply removed material you disagree with. Instead, look for other sources by doing further research to come up with other information that can be presented in the article. Information can be added to the article provided that citations are included. The citations must accompany the added content so that the content can be verified in the sources. All of this is information can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability.

We welcome you into the Wikipedia community, but please take time to learn how Wikipedia works before making large scale alterations to articles. It's best to avoid repeatedly reverting edits. In order to prevent edit wars, Wikipedia has the Three Revert Rule, which states that any one making 3 reverts in one article in any 24 hour period will be subject to being blocked.

Before restoring the text, I will add additional citations from several others sources. However, even if the Catholic Encyclopedia were to remain as the only source for the section, you can not delete the section because you disagree with the cited source. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. I really do look forward to working with you. Dgf32 (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think that you did add those additional citations before restoring the text. Can you show the diff?

The old Catholic Encyclopedia, read intelligently, can be an excellent source of information: often better—and usually better written—than Wikipedia. Nevertheless it is a source that has to be treated very carefully. One has to bear in mind that its authors often assume that certain things are ‘true’ (or at least edifying for the faithful to believe) in a way which doesn’t fit well with a twenty-first-century work of reference which tries to be neutral on matters such as religion and politics.

Certainly the relics need to be dealt with: often the history of a saint’s relics will more interesting—and more factually verifiable—than that of their life. But I agree with 71.178.197.11 that for us to present pious beliefs as objective facts would be absurd. I note that the article on santiebeati.it[1]—an entirely orthodox Catholic site—introduces the story of Clare’s heart as ‘una tradizione leggendaria’. —Ian Spackman (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The text hasn't been restored yet. Before I restore it, I'll add the additional citations for sources with a very non-Catholic point of view including a volume on women of medieval Italy published by the University of Chicago Press, which is about as non-Catholic a source as you can get. I'm very happy to participate in editing and improving the relics section in the usual manner, but having users deleting material because they disagree with it is simply counterproductive.

As for the points you make, I think a phrase such as, "According to tradition...", would be very appropriate for this section. The history of Clare's relics is rather straight forward. They've been retained by the monastery in Montefalco where she lived and died and are still on display there, including the heart and the rest of the body. Dgf32 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems a good way forward. In fact when I referred to the difficulties of using the old Catholic Encyclopedia as a source for that section, I hadn’t spotted the biggest one: that although there were various in-line references to that text, it actually has nothing at all to say upon the matter! —Ian Spackman (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. How did we miss that? I'll remove everything from the former relics section and start a new one, with verifiable sources, from scratch. Dgf32 (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dgf32, i'll accept your apology for being so condescending and accusing me of bias. :) 71.178.197.11 (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. The previous relics section cited the Catholic Encyclopedia, but there was nothing in the article about the relics. I've rewritten the entire relics section from scratch using verifiable sources. Dgf32 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources need to be referenced in the text as qualifiers. Other than that it looks good. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already referenced with citations. You can't qualify every fact in an encyclopedia with "according to...". Everything in Wikipedia is "according to" some source since original research can not be included in Wikipedia. To illustrate the point, if you did qualify statements of fact with "according to", articles would sound something like this:

"The apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree, species Malus domestica in the rose family Rosaceae, according to the source we have listed here. This source claims that it one of the most widely cultivated tree fruits. The tree is small and deciduous, according to the source, reaching 3 to 12 metres (9.8 to 39 ft) tall, with a broad, often densely twiggy crown."

Your original complaint was that the Catholic Encylopedia was not a reliable source, and so the section was entirely rewritten using no less than 6 new sources, including 3 sources from academic publishers, a general interest book on cemeteries, and a travel guide published by Penguin. These are sources are hardly unreliable or written from a Catholic POV. Dgf32 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just one more comment... An editor wrote in an edit summary: "No, either the edits stay or the section is removed." One editor really can't unilaterally dictate what does or what does not go in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has content standards including WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view that determine what can be included in Wikipedia, and both those policies have been followed very closely in the relics section. Finally, Wikipedia works on consensus. Discussing issues on the talk page, not simply reverting edits, is the best way to come to consensus. Dgf32 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So you want to state your pov as fact? The text needs qualifiers. You don't need a to list the source when you are talking about something non-controversial. When you say a MIRACLE happened you can't list that as fact. Your example is ridiculous and you need to follow the rules here just like everybody else. We need a neutral point of view and the burden is yours as you want to include miracles as absolute facts. 71.178.197.11 (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your continued interest in helping to improve the article. The burden for including things in Wikipedia is verifiable citations. The text doesn't concern itself with which facts are and which facts are not miraculous. It doesn't make any such claim. It simply reports what the third party verifiable sources say. The article treats the facts in a neutral manner. You view these happenings as miracles, and then you say miracles require a higher burden of proof than other facts. By calling these events miracles and claiming they need higher proof you are introducing your own point of view into the article. Again, I'd encourage to you find sources that offer different or even conflicting information than what is in the article. Dgf32 (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Medieval reports of miracles presented as factual proofs

It seems me that presenting the findings of an amateur medieval autopsy as the indisputable truth in the English Wikipedia is absurd. Butler’s Lives of the Saints handles this stuff better I think:

“Clare is alleged to be honoured by three divine favours: her remains stayed incourrupt; an image of the cross and instruments of the passion appeared in the fibrous tissue of her heart; her blood liquified. These supposed phenomena….” [2] [My emphases]

—Ian Spackman (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Be careful, speaking like that will get you blocked. It's a shame that the rules here work against new users.71.178.197.11 (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

71.178.197.11 (talk), you were blocked by an administrator because you engaged in edit waring and violated the three revert rule. Had you discussed your issues on the talk page as Ian has above, the unfortunate cycle of reverts could have been avoided. The rules here don't work against new users, and I went out of my way to explain how Wikipedia works and Wikipedia policies since you were new. I even told you about the three revert rule before you violated it. You, like all new users, are truly welcome here, but new users and old users both have to abide by Wikipedia policies. Dgf32 (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh you were blocked? Yes, I see: Wikipedia:Three-revert rule is virtually non-negotiable. Think of it as a parking fine. I’ve only been blocked once, and it was on that basis. I hope I avoid it in the future and hope you do too. What made me somewhat relaxed about it, however, was that it is something which I had seen happen now and again to some of our star editors. So you are in good company! But, no, in general you don’t get blocked for other reasons—like speaking your mind reasonably politely—unless you’re rather blatantly up to no good….

On our sainted Chiara, I think that it is perfectly proper for us to cover relics—they are of interest in establishing and supporting the cult[us] of a saint, and such cults are of historical, iconographical and encyclopaedic interest. In this case, as far as I can tell from a little reading around, most of the relics are probably genuine: they are the preserved body parts of the subject of the article. The most interesting relics to me though are three which have yet to be written about: three ‘globes’ found in the gall bladder—presumably gall stones. They were believed at the point of their discovery to be miraculous because they were of a similar size and placed in a somewhat regular triangle. In other words they obviously represented the Trinity. That seems to me to offer a much more interesting insight into the ‘medieval mind’ than that Rorschach blot of cardiac fibres in which people saw the implements of the crucifixion.

If we were to expand the coverage of the relics we would need to add the fact that a contemporary Franciscan suspected forgery: thought that “the symbols in her heart were planted by a nun from Foligno.”[3] However, I think that there is already far too much attention being given to the conserved organs. Her life, I gather—though you would never guess it from the article—is extremely well documented for a female saint of her period, basically because that initial (failed) attempt at canonization was undertaken rapidly on the basis of interviews with people who had known her, and we still have the documentation. That makes the story worth telling. And of course there is the context of the nature of the religious life of her time which our readers might be drawn to become curious about: her heritage is Franciscan and she denounced a member of the dissident Franciscan Free Spirit movement to the inquisition. We should mention that!

Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ian, you make a valid point, and I've made some changes in the article accordingly. The historical evidence is clear that her heart was removed after her death, and I think we can all agree that there's pretty conclusive evidence for that. The descriptions of the instruments found in her heart are taken from Tom Weil's 1992 book on Interesting cemeteries, catacombs, and graveyards around the world. This is more reliable than medieval autopsy records, but still it's open to the view's interpretation and description. Accordingly, I've prefaced the section with, "The crucifix reportedly found within Clare's heart..." (emphasis added), which was originally added to the article by 71.178.197.11 (talk). Likewise, since the relic was not subjected to histological analysis, the word "apparently" has been added to the following text: "The scourge and crown of thorns are apparently formed by whitish nerve fibers..." (emphasis added). Again, thank you to 71.178.197.11 (talk) for introducing this edit. Dgf32 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking7 1.178.197.11’s points on board. I think they were good ones and it is unfortunate that his introduction to Wkipedia has been stormy. Stiil, the statement ‘the instruments of Christ's passion were found within her heart’ will not do. Will it? Are we not talking about pictures of the implements seen by people who wanted to prove Chiara’s holiness? What exactly makes Tom Weil’s account of the relics more reliable than the medieval one? What kind of forensics did he carry out? At least those original nuns had some fresh meat to deal with -;)—Ian Spackman (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the accusations from the canonization procedure by Tommaso Boni that a nun from Foligno planted the instruments. Tom Weil's description is a purely visible description. He doesn't make any kind of scientific pronouncements, and I've edited the text to make that a little more clear. I'm looking for additional descriptions of the relics to include in the article, and if you find any let me know or just add the information to the article. Medieval sources would be perfectly fine if we had any to use. Dgf32 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "the instruments of Christ's passion were found within her heart." is misleading and inaccurate and will have to go. I'll go back to the sources and see if I can clarify the language some. Thanks for another very obvious point. Dgf32 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem addressed and fixed in text. Dgf32 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are very good sources for her life, and the biography section of the article certainly needs improvement although it will probably be a while before I get time for that undertaking. Dgf32 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clare of Montefalco. 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/20060825025648/http://augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=737 to http://www.augnet.org/default.asp?ipageid=737

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

feast day

I see the Augustinians have her on Aug 17; the older Roman Martyrology has her on Aug 18, the day of her death. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Clare of Assisi"

...but, you did. The skeletal relics mentioned are those of Clare of Assisi, a Franciscan, and founder of the Poor Clares, NOT Clare of Montefalco, an Augustinian abbess. Clare of Montefalco is an Incorruptible, and her body is not reduced to bones, and visitors to Montefalco do not see a wax effigy, but rather the saint's body itself, along with the heart and gallstone reliquaries. Clare of Assisi IS now a pile of bones only visible to nuns, behind a wax statue in a glass sarcophagus in Assisi, along with a reliquary containing her hair and fingernails. 2600:1700:9830:2080:8964:EC86:F257:251C (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)