Talk:Pietro d'Abano

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter and the Inquisition

There are several problems with this article, but the one that currently is catching my eye the most is the section on Peter's involvement with the Inquisition. Most of the claims made in the section are not sourced, but I suspect a lot of them are coming from Naude's work and from Barrett. These are both extremely old sources, but simultaneously far removed from Peter's own time. Aside from the article in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography, the best and most recent comprehensive English-language scholarship on Peter is found in Thorndike's Encyclopedia of Magic and Experimental Science (1923). Thorndike successfully shows that a lot of the later claims regarding Peter's death are likely fabrications and exaggerations of what actually happened. For instance, the earliest account of Peter's biography (Savonarola) makes no mention of him dying during an Inquisitorial trial. There are three sources (including one claimed eyewitness) which assert that Peter's body was indeed successfully burned after his death, but they don't claim that it was the result of an Inquisitorial judgment. In contrast, they give the impression that the burning was perpetrated by a small group of Dominicans who believed Peter to be a heretic, despite no formal condemnation from the Holy Office. If someone could give citations for the claims made in the section, it would be very helpful. Otherwise, I think I'll edit the article using Thorndike as my primary source sometime over the next couple weeks. I don't read Italian, so if anyone has read current Italian scholarship on the subject and would like to contribute that would be very helpful as well.(Waltharius (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Quotation from Naudé

The section contains an extensive quotation from Gabriel Naudé, comprising essentially the whole second paragraph. It lacks a full citation, having only the title of the source, and that is in Latin. This, combined with the archaic style of the text, very strongly indicates that the quotation is a translation from the original and at least a couple of centuries old.

That in itself wouldn't need more than {{citation needed}} and the edit summary. But the following paragraph, which is not included in the {{blockquote}} formatting, was in the same archaic style and practically unreadable; as I said in my own edit summary, with a reference to this Talk page section, "I rewrote the entire last paragraph, which was written in an archaic style and as one monstrous 173-word sentence." But I couldn't responsibly just shove it into the {{blockquote}} template, because I don't know if it is an exact quote or, if not, what was changed.

--Thnidu (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)