Talk:Omnia sunt communia

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 Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the biblically derived slogan omnia sunt communia was a central inspiration for Christian communism?
  • ALT1: ... that the principle omnia sunt communia, derived from the Bible, developed into a legal justification for eminent domain?
  • ALT2: ... that according to Thomas Müntzer, the Gospel could be defined as "all things are to be held in common"?
  • ALT3: ... that based on the biblical principle omnia sunt communia, Thomas Aquinas argued that theft is not a sin if the thief genuinely needs what they are stealing?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Craig Braun

Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 02:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC).

• On it. @Ezlev: I can tell you right now that ALT0 needs to be reworded if you prefer it to the others. It's a Christinian communist slogan/maxim/what have you and it's accurate enough to say it's a Biblical principle but it isn't a slogan within the Bible. It's just a Latin translation of something someone said in the Bible that is used a slogan outside it. (I do know what you mean, but something like "biblically derived" would be clearer and better here.) Biblical should be lowercase in ALT0 and ALT3. The article should also include the original Greek form of the expression (I know where to go for that and can add it for you) and the specific Latin translation where this exact expression appears. We'd definitely need to see if it's the version in Jerome's Vulgate (I assume it is but that should be sourced) and it'd be nice if you could look to see if it appears in any Latin translations before Jerome, if any of those survive. — LlywelynII 00:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • LlywelynII, thank you so much for the feedback! Always nice to have experienced eyes on articles in which I've gone out of my typical topic areas. Hook tweaks made as suggested. It'd be lovely if you could add the Greek and the translation details you're talking about, or at least point me in the right direction – I'm not super familiar with the New Testament. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Ezlev Well, this sucks for you. I've added the Greek and Vulgate text, but Omnia sunt communia isn't the form that either uses. (1) You'll need to spend a little time seeing where the exact construction came from, whether it was B. Papiensis or someone even earlier who paraphrased the Bible that way. (2) That first use should be added to the new #Origin section. (3) If this began as a legal doctrine, that should come after the #Origin section and the #Historical use section should come 3rd. It might even be treated as a #Legacy section instead if it just represents different cults using the legal doctrine to justify their own beliefs instead of being separately developed uses of the Biblical text. (4) This isn't 100% necessary just to process the nomination but, if this is a slogan central to Christian communism as opposed to being primarily a legal doctrine responsible for eminent domain and expropriation, you should be able to find at least 2 other examples of groups trying to emulate the apostolic fellowship and early church under its aegis. — LlywelynII 03:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
      • That does suck, LlywelynII, because I don't think I can do all you've asked. What's in the article now, after the edit I just made, is all I've been able to find and interpret. There are more sources out there but they're deep enough in subject areas I have basically no knowledge of that I can't understand them with enough confidence to cite or describe them in the article. Of your points, 1 is not done (although Papiensis remains the oldest use of the exact translation I can find), 2 is therefore not done, 3 is done (sections are now "Origin", "Legal doctrine", "Other historical use" in that order), 4 is not done. I still think the article meets DYK standards, so where do we go from here? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
      • LlywelynII, any thoughts, or should we tag this for a new reviewer? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
        • It's been a month without a response from the original reviewer, so time for a new one. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• New enough, long enough, QPQ done, AGF on the sources. Alt 3 is sourced. Not sure about some of the technical issues mentioned above, but I believe this is ready to go. --evrik ^(talk) 03:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

• French article on the phrase.
  Moreau, Denis (22 January 2020), "Quand les Manifestants Se Réfèrent à Saint Thomas d'Aquin", La Vie, Paris: Groupe La Vie-Le Monde. (French)
• The Italian article specifically notes Guglielmo d'Auxerre (William of Auxerre) where this article has Bernardus Papiensis (Bernard of Pavia).
• The Spanish article has one of the inquisitors noting it w/r/t Fra Dolcino.

 — LlywelynII 05:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)