Talk:Joseph of Cupertino/Archive 1

The link to Cupertino points to Cupertino, CA but instead it should point to Copertino, Italy.

I fixed that a while back. I don’t know where the Cupertino spelling comes from, though, and I guess we should say. Perhaps it is Spanish—I think the Kingdom of Naples was under Spanish control at the time. —Ian Spackman 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to edit some of the text for readability purposes, this will not be a content change. please let me know what you think. Matthias490 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A flying monk?

This article seems to be saying as a fact that Joseph of Cupertino could fly. Wikipedia shouldn't be claiming this, surely?

The Pope of Joseph's time attested to it, so why not Wikipedia?  :^) Seriously, at the very least, Wikipedia SURELY should be able to say as a fact that many, many people including a Pope did report that Joseph on many occasions was seen to rise off the ground and spend time hovering over an altar or whatever. What's the Big Deal? What's the Agenda here? Admittedly, levitation of one's self is a rather rarely-reported phenomenon. But levitation of other objects is most assurely NOT - I personally (anonymous though I may be) know at least three trusted acquaintances who report having seen it personally, under circumstances that leave me no reasonable course but to take their statements at face value. Amusingly, one of these reported that her friend who could routinely levitate small objects had tried to teach her how to do it, but she was an abject failure: She never did succeed in causing a pencil to lift off a desk and hover. She was only able to make it do a small "hop" off the desk but never to remain airborne.  :^) She genuinely did not seem to appreciate the enormity of this, a lot like the proverbial "a little bit pregnant". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.242.4 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There don't seem to be enough sources cited either. 109.145.138.73 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, please make sure you have read WP:CLAIM to understand Wikipedia voice on topics like this. I will look for the appropriate sources for this information. Most of the things can easily be linked to the main reference already listed. I personally don't have the book, but can get a hold of it probably within the month. As for the religious reference tag, that tag only applies to using things like the Bible as the main reference for information, it doesn't cover using a book by a author that just happens to be a member of the religion. I also changed your tags to be section tags since you only seem to be complaining about the two section related to miracles. Marauder40 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, none of the sources used are reliable. The primary source, Pastrovicchi, is a hagiography from 1753 (not 1980 or 1918), so it qualifies as a primary source at best. (By the way, an English translation of the book is available online at: [[1]]). It certainly cannot be used as a reliable source for things like levitation, which are merely pious elaborations, and even for biographical details, I would definitely prefer a more recent soure. The article now stands as OR based entirely on primary sources. Surely, if this saint is significant, there have been more recent scholarly publications. Whether the scholar in question is Catholic or not is immaterial, but devotional materials do not qualify as reliable sources, and the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia is probably reliable for only basic biographical data, if that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The entire article is based of a copyvio. I've blanked it and marked it for investigation as a result. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have started the replacement article for this, right now it is just the original article with all the potentially copyrighted material stripped out. Talk:Joseph of Cupertino/Temp This link is apparently where the potentially copyrighted material was first added [2] by User:Manualph who hasn't made any contributions to WP since 14 July 2007. Marauder40 (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that version is just about useless, too, as it totally lacks reliable sources. Best to ditch it, find a recent real-world scholarly book or article about the subject, and start from scratch. As I've said before, Pastrovicchi is useless for out purposes except to back up material mentioned in indpendent reliable sources, and devotional materials are useless, period. If this person is indeed notable, recent reliable sources will be available. Otherwise his notablility is strictly in-universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good starting point. The article was rated a "Start" article to begin with, this new version makes a good start. Part of the process is just finding better sources that state what is already there and to put back in the information that existed for several years but in appropriate WikiVoice. All the things currently in the article are pretty easily sourced. It just takes time to find them all and put them in appropriate wikiformat. I don't know about you but I don't have tons of time in the less then a week to go before copyright issues requires action to totally delete the article due to the copyright issues. Are the sources there enough for a feature/good article? No. Are they good enough for a "Start" article to establish notability? Yes. Just because a source is old doesn't make it no longer reliable. Just that we need to go about and source the stuff with newer stuff. Marauder40 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you have that completely backwards. We start with recent reliable sources. What you're proposing is basically OR based on primary sources. Petrovicchi is unacceptable not only because it's 250 years old, but also because it is not independent, and purely promotional. Petrovicchi did not write his work as what we would recognize as scholarly history today, but to promote the subject for beatification purposes. He is highly biased, as his primary goal was to get his fellow Franciscan recognized by the Vatican. Using this source except to back up statements made by modern independent scholars is OR based on primary sources. No hurry, though. Take your time to find reliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not working backwards. I am just not into throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This article has been around for several years and many updates have been made to the article since the problem author created the copyright issue. I am just saying we should get rid of the problem edits and do like is done on all articles, work together to improve the sources, find better sources. Add more information as we find it. Currently there is nothing in the article that I haven't seen in modern sources, it is just getting that information together and putting it together in Wiki format. But I don't know about you, I don't have enough time to do all of that in less then a week. There is no reason the stuff that is currently there can't become the primary article to have something to work with. It is sourced, just with something that MAY be a primary source, that doesn't warrant immediate delete. Marauder40 (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Take your time. I didn't say that you had to do it in a week. Or a month. Or several, even. However, about the source, there ain't no "MAY" about it. It most definitely is a primary source, and clearly unreliable according to our policies. I'm a little disappointed that you're trying to quibble about that. Please make sure that the modern sources you use are indeed independent, scholarly and reliable. In-universe sources are generally unacceptable. Works by Catholic scholars are perfectly fine, provided it meets the standards of modern scholarship. Being a Catholic does not automatically disqualify one from being an independent scholar. Devotional materials, hagiographies and the like, on the other hand, are worthless, both as sources for content and as sources to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't about what is usable, it is what you can use it for. Primary sources are still usable for certain things. Examples include getting direct quotes and things like that. Also claiming things like "He is highly biased, as his primary goal was to get his fellow Franciscan recognized by the Vatican.", sounds like OR on your part. I personally haven't seen statements like that in the modern sources referring to this source. Also the fact that this was " but to promote the subject for beatification purposes." is actually incorrect. This was written as a result of the beautification process, not to foster it. Similar to if someone writes a book about JPII right now, it would include the materials that went into the beautification to inform people about the person. Older sources are supposed to be viewed through the lens of modern sources, that doesn't preclude the use of the older sources for establishing simple non-controversial information. There is no question this person isn't notable. Just the number of articles about him, books about him, entries in places like the Catholic Encyclopedia establish that. Everything in the article that I am working on can easily be found in other sources, just finding the best one is all that has to be done. Very similar to an article anywhere else on WP that has just been tagged with a "primary source" tag or a not enough reliable sources tag. It just needs work. Marauder40 (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20040106012401/http://www.ofmconv.org/English/joscenter_en.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Saint Joseph of Cupertino

Should the title and the article reflect the canonization of Saint Joseph of Cupertino? Is there a reason beyond "yet to be done"? 2600:8802:C11:7220:4EF:D0EF:D63A:D651 (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Honorifics. Wikipedia doesn't normally include 'Saint' in biographical titles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

too much repetition

between opening and early body