Talk:The Imitation of Christ

Translators

Perhaps someone could add a list of translations and dates? Pied beauty 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

When was the first English translation done and by whom? Pete unseth (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

page move

Seeing as how most resources (including the Library of Congress) tend to list the book as The Imitation of Christ (rather than just Imitation of Christ), are there any objections to me moving the page to The Imitation of Christ? Esrever 15:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. Esrever 03:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Excellent as these counsels are, they are set in the minor key and are especially adapted for souls burdened with care and sorrow and sitting in darkness. They present only one side of the Christian life, which can be supplemented by counsels for integrity, bravery, and constancy in the struggle for daily existence which encompasses the bulk of humanity.

What do such POV remarks have to do with WP and with such an article? I've deleted them. Lumendelumine 14:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

References needed

I like what this paragraph says, but it needs to be more specific and avoid weasel words, and to do that it needs sources. For that reason I'm pulling it out of the text and putting it hear for future work. Rwflammang (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The primary Protestant complaints about the book are with regard to what they might call non-biblical practices or beliefs based on church tradition: the merit of good works and transubstantiation & Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (IV:2 - i.e., volume IV, chapter 2), purgatory (IV:9), and the honoring of saints (I:13, II:9, III:6, III:59). Also, the book quotes passages from the Apocrypha along with canonical books (vol. III, 12:4). These aspects of Kempis' writings, however, are in full conformity with the Catholic faith which he practiced and with the Catholic faith today. Some editions published by Protestant publishers, such as one by Moody Press, do not contain certain portions of the book; 17th century editions from Calvinist printers in Holland also censored parts.

The Author

Nobody is sure about the author of this book. There are three possible authors: Tommaso da Kempis or Jean Gerson or Giovanni Gersen (citations in the italian wiki).--93.149.140.77 (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing Opinion?

I sort of feel like the following paragraph reflects opinion: The work is a manual of devotion intended to assist the soul with its pursuit of holiness and communion with God. Its sentences are statements, not arguments, and are pitched in the highest key of Christian experience. It was meant for monastics and ascetics. Behind and within all its reflections runs the counsel of self-renunciation. This seems more like speculation than provable fact.

John Paul I

The article asserts that John Paul I is said to have died with a copy of this book. I read that this is actually untrue; he died with work papers. I suggest removing this. Opinions? J.J. Bustamante (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I just did a books search, and this piece of information seems to be supported by RS. However the article needs cleanup and citations. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your google search does not support the story - I examined it, and the sources either agreed (1 source), or said it was a good untrue story (2 or 3), and the rest didn't mention it in the same sentence. I'll remove it as an urban legend. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: will be moved when redirect deleted Kotniski (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

---

I think we can remove "(book)" from the title, per WP:COMMONNAME. If there is a consensus on this we can request a move. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I see a discussion on this move, as early as 2007; But again later "(book)" was reintroduced. I will be adding a requested move, If any editor has objections, please raise them.

The Imitation of Christ (book) → The Imitation of Christ — per WP:COMMONNAME and justified by a google scholar search. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support. In fact there's only one other article with this particular title, and it's sufficiently borderline that while there's a stub article on the (recent) painting Imitation of Christ, he artist who painted it has only a blue link. We do need disambiguation, but only just. The book is the clear primary meaning. Andrewa (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Weak sourcing + POV + huh

The article is somewhat usable and compact, but I find the following flaws:

1. There are too few inline citations, so that statements such as

The Imitation of Christ is a writing of the mysticist German-Dutch school of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries

and

The Jesuits give it an official place among their "exercises"

are hard to control,

2. and statements like

is widely considered one of the greatest manuals of devotion in pre-reformation Catholic Christianity

seems like an adherents boast talk, and I'm not one of those adherents, so I want a more balanced view in order to get a picture of the degree of acceptance in different parts of Christianity.

3. statements like

Its sentences are statements, not arguments, and are pitched in the highest key of Christian experience.

are either similar boast talk or complete rubbish, as in my Swedish ears; I suspect this is blue-cloud-of-ecstacy talk that is factually rubbish, and only comprehensible as some kind of highest praise in some quite non-encyclopedic society.

I propose fixing these issues by adding citations to the more factual statements, and removing or factualizing the boasts. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned up quite a few problems listed above and added citations...there are couple of minor ones, for which I have {{cn}} and will eventually clean them up. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image usage

Currently the article uses the non-free image File:IChrist.jpg, however, since there are other free equivalents, this fails the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which states — Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. I will remove this image and replace it with a public domain free alternative. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat telegraphic article

This seems a really short treatment of a widely read book. Much of the content seems telegraphic. The Devotio Moderna were not even mentioned, so I added that but there are many more missing items. But there are no huge factual errors that I can see at first glance, except many errors of omission. History2007 (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, pls add the missing pieces. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I need to be promised an image of a $100 bill if I am going to do it right... History2007 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well , The actual promise is even greater : "I will give thee an eternal reward for short labour.."(Book 3, Chapter 35) --TheMandarin (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I was asking for an initial deposit. History2007 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, despite the lack of the deposit, to do it right, I had to write the page on imitation itself as a theological/Christological item so background could be provided. I was actually surprised there was not even a single sentence on the general theology of imitation, Francis, etc. within Wikipedia. Now, I will add a small section on that, and point to it to provide the background. Then the Book 4 item needs attention, given that it is just a single sentence. That cannot be right. I think each of the 4 books needs a separate subsection. Would you like to expand those, given that you know the book so well? I will appreciate your help. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we need a subsection for each book; Will work on it in a sandbox and once it is in a decent shape, will add it here. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Great. My hope would be that a user who will not get to read the Imitation itself should be able to get the "basic message" from each of the 4 Books by reading 3 to 4 paragraphs about each Book, perhaps with a sample quote or two. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Kempis' own page has a flag on the top, if you feel like fixing that. I will probably not be able to look at that among so many other things. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Henry VIII and Thomas More

It's highly polemical to characterise Henry VIII's selective persecution of Catholics who denied his supremacy over the Church in England as a "pogrom". The last thing he wanted was mobs in the streets. "Persecution" will do. JamesWim (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Apart from the Bible, no book has been translated into more languages than the Imitation of Christ."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_works_by_number_of_translations disagrees … — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.3.79 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)