Talk:Francis Xavier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biased catholic propaganda[edit]

From the very beginning this article is propaganda. "was a pioneering Roman Catholic missionary" - pioneering of what? "one of the first seven Jesuits who dedicated themselves to the service of God " HUH? What 'god'? This is pure christian trash, not an objective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.201.166 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,I agree,this guy was a bastard an evil practicing his evil teaching.He must sent to hell.Ovsek (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No why are Saffron terrorists very eager to propagate their agenda? Look at the source cited for Xavier's role in Inquisitions? Deccan Herald??Mannyboy2015 (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://mathewsophia.wordpress.com/2018/11/29/the-myths-around-the-goan-inquisition-charges-against-st-francis-xavier-the-current-hindutva-attacks-response-to-allegations-by-shefali-vaidya/
https://www.indiancatholicmatters.org/when-st-francis-xavier-protected-a-hindu-kingdom/ 31.189.58.103 (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Incorruptible Body of Francis Xavier - JSTOR Daily 31.189.58.103 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(145) SFX Exposition - Last day, Sant taken back to Basilica - YouTube 31.189.58.103 (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor structure[edit]

Maybe instead of early life and the death, break early life into early life and missionary work. Also, include the inquisition part in missionary work as it's tacked onto the end of everything and makes it seem like somebody with an anti-Catholic/Jesuit POV wrote that in well after the fact. And the founding of the Jesuits is slightly off. At Montmarte, the Companions vowed to visit the Holy Lands, and after they were turned away, they went to Rome and asked to become a religious order. [1] (See paragraph entitled The Company of Jesus)

Removed neutrality[edit]

I suppose someone removed the inquisition paragraph, and left the other reference (the Goa Inquisition) intact, which I thought dramatically improved the NPOV here. Hence I removed the neutrality-questioning notice. If anyone would like to put it back, all I ask is that you quote any sections that are not NPOV. Elektrosev 19:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Elektrosev[reply]

This article is a hagiography not an encyclopedia article, with such gems as "He was an inspiration to many people with his miraculous work." Practically anything suggesting he was less-than-saintly is removed. Puck42 (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to write stuff like this...[edit]

The first section describes a horrible inquisition. Indeed, it's something so serious that for credibility's sake I think it should be cited thoroughly!

I haven't removed it because I don't know enough about the subject and am not about to go research it now. I have, however, removed some obviously redundant and non-NPOV statements, and separated it into a paragraph of its own.

And one more thing: if whoever authored that section is going to write anything anywhere else, they should be more mindful of their mechanics (capitalization and punctuation in particular).Elektrosev 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Elektrosev[reply]

Redundancy[edit]

The tex! "He also proposed the creation of the infamous Goa Inquisition, which was installed six years after his death and resulted in the forced conversions, torture and murder of thousands of Hindus, Muslims,Indian Jews and non-Catholic Indian Christians. Xavier himself was not involved in the acts." appears twice in the article, once in the introductory paragraph and once in the main text. I have removed it from the introductory paragraph. Almost verbatim redundancy is not proper encyoclopedic style.167.80.244.204 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)chevalier3[reply]

Moved from the article[edit]

  • "the consciousness of acting in God's service never forsook him" (speculation)
  • "mere figures may be disregarded, as they are difficult to verify" (pov)

Wmahan 16:00, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Inquisition[edit]

Well in an effort to move the article more to the center you have made it horribly biased towards an anti-Christian POV, a more encyclopedic wording would be better. Cheetoian 22:50 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added one sentence about the Goa Inquisition(cf. Guardian of the Dawn - Richard Zimler 2005) , which I feel is neccessary. The article otherwise is would become quite christian POV. Please do not remove the line Elvenscout742. 60.254.13.20 13:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sentences refering to the Inquisition in Goa, based on the references (listed), that I found during the copy-edit of Inquisition in Goa. I will yield to better researched explantations in this case --IMpbt 20:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

there's barely any mention of the Goa Inquisition in this article. --Dangerous-Boy 07:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this, but just thought I mention this here so someone else who has more info can put this up. There is a myth regarding St Francis Xavier's statue in Malacca, Malaysia which has its right hand missing off. It is said that when St Francis died, his right hand was cut off and sent to the vatican in order to verify his death and to investigate the miracalous claim of his uncorrupt body. Here's one link to the statue in Malacca http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/Malaysia/Negeri_Melaka/Melaka-1281809/Things_To_Do-Melaka-Statute_of_St_Francis_Xavier-BR-1.html

P sorry for my poor command on English 210.187.3.170


The Goan Inquisition was conducted by the Portuguese under the auspices of the padroado. Francis Xavier in particular and the Jesuits in general have no direct connection to it. In fact, there was a not insignificant amount of animosity between Rome and Portugal over the authority Portugal was milking out of the padroado. Considering Xavier's conduct in his other missionary work, it would be hard to believe that someone who risked excommunication by suggesting that the moral non-Catholics of India would not be doomed to Hell (as was the interpretation current in the Catholic Church until Vatican II) would be culpable for the religious attrocities commited after his death. I agree that this article needs a thourough reworking, but the Goan Inquisition is a segment extraneous to this article.


Information obtained from: Rao, R.P. (1963) Portuguese Rule in Goa: 1510--1961. New York: Asia Publishing House. Take it as you will. Page 43: "St. Francis Xavier made it a point not only to convert the people but also destroy the idols and ancient places of worship." --Ringtail Jack 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. WIll have to put that quote in the Goa Inquisition article--Dangerous-Boy 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the people have converted, then they don't have use for the idols and temples anymore. Note that the temple demolitions in Goa took place only AFTER the majority of the natives had converted to Catholicism.

NPOV language and encyclopaedic language[edit]

There is something seriously amiss in the language in this article, which is frequently POV and far from encyclopaedic. For example:

  • He "sprang from an aristocratic Basque family of Navarre". Sprang??? Tabloid language that cannot be used in an encyclopaedia.

(OED, spring, verb1, sense 10: Of persons (or animals): To originate by birth or generation; to issue or descend.; nothing "tabloid" about it)134.58.253.113

  • A nobleman "He poured his heart out to Francis Xavier". More POV emotional language.
  • "Thus intrigued, Xavier baptized Anjiro." Presuming to read the emotional reaction of someone by calling them "intrigued" is completely POV.
  • "Then due to displeasure at the unchristian life and manners of the Portuguese, which impeded proselyting work, he went forth once again into the unknown Far East." That sentence states that (a) the life and manners of the Portuguese was "unchristian", a POV statement in the absence of a quotation or citation, (b) again implies motive that a neutral writer cannot imply with the unsources word "displeasure", (c) uses yet more unencyclopaedic hagiographic language with the words "went forth once again into the unknown Far East".
  • "although all examinations from the time of his death til now have been thoroughly documented, giving credence to the belief that the incorruptible body is evidence of a miracle." A neutral encylopaedia simply cannot say anything gives "credence" to belief of evidence of a miracle. It can say "the lack of decay is seen by religious believers as evidence of a miracle" because it doesn't say or imply that it is true or untrue, just that something leads some people to believe in something. That is as far as can be gone under NPOV.
  • "St.Francis Xavier accomplished a great deal of missionary work". An NPOV encyclopaedia cannot make an unsourced statement of that as fact. It has to say who says that, and give citations.
  • "He had high qualifications as missionary: he was animated with glowing zeal; he was endowed with great linguistic gifts, and his activity was marked by restless pushing forward. His efforts left a significant impression upon the missionary history of India, and by pointing out the way to East India to the Jesuits, his work is of fundamental significance with regard to the history of the propagation of Christianity in China and Japan" - complete POV from beginning to end.
  • "Since the Roman Catholic Church responded to his call, the effects of his efforts reach far beyond the Jesuit order; the entire systematic and aggressive incorporation of great masses of people on broad lines of policy by the Roman Catholic Church in modern times dates back to Xavier." editorialising that is incompatible with NPOV.

The article's language needs a complete overhaul, not to mention some citations in the text. I have suspicions from the language that there may even be some copyright violations, but I've no idea from where. Much of it doesn't read like a 21st century text written by wikipedians. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the language here seems NPOV because the writers are Asians and English is not their first language. They are, however, trying to give an honest account of Xavier, who is generally held in high regard in Asia. Compare the words here to the weasel words used to say Patrick Pearse was a child molester. People, like Fear Eireann, who describe themselves as homosexual bears and who have a hang up about Catholic icons, should be more reticent to chop and change what does not fit into their narrow agendas.

Shalimar the Clown factoid?[edit]

I just started Salman Rushdie's [u]Shalimar the Clown[/u] this week and he mentions what would make an interested tidbit for this article if it is true and verifiable:

"...as once other true believers in another place, in India whose name she bore, had bitten of chunks of the cadaver of St. Francis Xavier. One piece ended up in Macao, another in Rome."

Though it is in a work of fiction, it seems like a funny thing to make up. Can anyone provide any information on this? Toko loko 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the arms is on display at Il Gesù. I have a picture that I could upload. --Error 23:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great man, did so much for my faith.

Japanese and Asian missions[edit]

There is amazingly little here about his activities in Japan and other parts of Asia. I don't know how significant these things may be from the perspective of a biography of Xavier, a history of the Jesuits, but from the perspective of the history of Christianity in East Asia, this is absolutely crucial. Please expand on the dates and events of Xavier's activities in Japan and other parts of Asia. LordAmeth 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not indicate why St. Francis went to Asia. Interesting enough it doesn't even talk about his early work in India, after which he went to Malacca,etc. No mention is made of is appointment by the pope to work with John III, King of Portugal and his mission to evanalize the East Indies. Reading the published article no one understands why St. Francis's body was brought back to Goa, India and why it continues to reside there to this day.

Too much information...[edit]

This article's 'See also' and 'External links' sections are too long. We don't need to put in every possible possibility. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of non notable links and info. Will anyone volunteer to sort these two sections out? Same for the 'Miscellaneous' section - see WP:TRIVIA. Merbabu 15:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis Xavier no was spanish!!! spain in 1512 wasn´t exist! he was navarrorum (basque)!

Non Neutral Point of View[edit]

Comments on St. Francis Xavier's personal views on Hinduism and Brahmin interactions have been taken out of context. The letters cited are only a couple of the letters he wrote while in India. It would be imperative to look at the full composition of his letters, form the book THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF ST. FRANCIS XAVIER by SJ Henry James Coleridge. Until then please remove the undue biases.

Requested move[edit]

I have requested that this page be moved to St. Francis Xavier because the current title is missing a space. ... discospinster talk 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial moves don't require a discussion section. Next time, you can use the format from the header of the "uncontroversial moves" section instead of the one for "other proposals". Dekimasuよ! 02:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Educational institutions named after this guy[edit]

There are far too many to be listing them so haphazardly in this article. I have removed the current content and placed it below in case anyone wants to add notable pieces of it back in. Most of these schools have articles which are linked on Saint Xavier and St. Francis Xavier (disambiguation).

moved[edit]

I've moved the article back to Francis Xavier, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy). Gentgeen 21:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Is it really neccesary to give his name in so many languages? It just seems excessive and unhelpful. Especially Chinese and Japanese. I mean this is the English Wikipedia not a multilingual version. 92.6.96.197 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the above has been dealt with, fewer variants now given. But the following was awkward, inaccurate, and unnecessary: "It is also notable that it is common in English-speaking fiction that a character named Francis has the middle initial X (for Xavier). This is possibly attributable to the actor Francis X. Bushman or to Sir Francis Xavier himself. Notable examples are the character of Francis X. Hummel in The Rock and the X-Men character Charles Francis Xavier." In fact, many English-speakers have been named after Francis Xavier, Bushman being only one of them and not the source name. Since it's a real, not-uncommon name, it will of course be used for fictional characters too, and this no more worth mentioning than the fictional use of most other names. I've deleted the passage quoted and altered the preceding sentence to read "In English speaking countries, "Xavier" is one of the few names starting with X, and until recently was likely to follow "Francis"; in the last decade, however, "Xavier" by itself has become more popular than "Francis," and is now one of the 100 most common male baby names in the US." (And I've cited the Social Security baby name database.) 66.241.73.146 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life[edit]

This article is VERY light on aspects of his early life, including his education in Paris and how he came to meet Ignatius. This section should be expanded. Proxy User (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navarrese vs Spanish[edit]

Could Spaniards please leave their nationalistic claims out of this article? Yes, Navarre is part of Spain and has been since the dynastic origin of Spain in 1479. Claiming that FX is Navarrese and not Spanish is misleading (how many people do actually know that Navarre is part of Spain?). Since Francis Xavier was born in 1505 he is a Spaniard. In their Wiki-article, Gutemberg is referred to as “German goldsmith and printer” when Germany did not exist, and Aristotle is a “Greek Philosopher” when Greece did not exist as such. Should Picasso be listed as “Andalusian Painter” or Edison as “Ohaian inventor”? Let’s be serious. --Karljoos (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think that calling Francis Navarrese is the less nationalistic thing one could assert. Navarre was not part of Spain until 1512, some years after he was born. It was the state where he was born, whether you, he, or me like it or not. And even if we argue about calling him "Navarrese" or "Spanish", saying that the place of birth is "Javier, Navarre, Spain" is definitely wrong; it wasn't part of Spain at the time. Besides, if you are concerned about nationalistic views, if you call him Spanish some others could perfectly call him Basque; then, there will be even less consensus. I think it's much better to leave him as Navarrese. - Keta (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your post. I lived and worked in Spain in the early 90s and I know how strongly some Spaniards feel about these things. I must tell you, though, that as a foreigner I can only say that they seem pretty sterile, and sometimes ridiculous (i.e. was Gaudi a Catalan and not a Spaniard?). However, and citing my previous post, since Gutemberg was born in what now is Germany, he is a German (even though Germany did not exist) and so happens to Baldassare Castiglione (he was from Matua - not officially part of Italy until 1866) and Benjamin Franklin (the States did not exist until 1776). Please do not change it back until a consensus has been reached. Cheers. --Karljoos (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I won't change anything. We'll have to wait until people jump in here to continue the discussion :) - Keta (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I think Karljoos is right. Francis Xavier should be listed as a Spaniard, because he was born in a city that is part now of Spain and historical figures that were born in countries that do not exist anymore are listed as citizens of the countries where their place of birth is now, and Karljoos has given good examples. I say let's go for Spanish/Spaniard and mention that he was born in the Kingdom of Navarre, which is now part of Spain. --Nandonaranja (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What I'm changing, though, is the place of birth in the table. You can see that the place of birth is given in all articles as the administrative region, or political division, at the time. - Keta (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nasco-navarrese? What's that? Okay he was born in a kingdom that does not exist anymore, but he spanish. I think the commentaries above are very eloquent about this. It should be "Spanish.... born in the kingdom of...." --81.35.14.69 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks Karljoos for calling me through a message. Wow, nationalist PoVs come again on the table.
Anthropology criteria are something I know. I brought references that FX was born in a Basque speaking area, Basque language first was its mother tongue with Romance (not Spanish language), and a huge part of his family was from Bastan Valley, tell us for sure that he was also of Basque origin. Other reference could be easily found when he used to speak Basque with Ignatius of Loyola.
For me, Navarrese or Spaniard, Québecois or Canadians, are the same dilemma. Saying that he was Basco-navarrese or a Spaniard of Basque origin is not really important to me because he was both, depends when? But ignoring anthropology criteria on the fact he was also a Basque person, mislead people.
Is Geronimo was only an US citizen from Arizona, yes but that's just a PoV. OOOps, he's an Apache and anthropology is a valid criterion that works for him but doesn't match with FX. Think first about what you 're writing...... It's sad to see that only nationalist PoV matters to you.
Finally, I'm laughing at you when I see people, getting rid of references on WP. Because of a such attitude, WP is everything to me but reference. --Zorion (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may be joining late. I think it could be put as "in present-day Spain", otherwise it would be like saying Trajan or Viriathus were born in Spain, which is not accurate, but some seem so interested in applying Spanish to everything, with some political editors of the Wikipedia dedicated almost just to that, claiming POV (suffered it myself). Adding he was Basque somewhere is just adding information for the reader, as ethnically he was so, like everyone in the area, except for those of the Romanzado (Leire...).Iñaki LL (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's not Spanish, then St. Xavier should be edited to say so. JIMp talk·cont 20:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman empire is too far...FX etc are 16th/17th Century. I say we go to "Spanish", otherwise let's change Guttemberg from German and Franklin from American. --Karljoos (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check what Santiago Leoné Puncel says about this. All you have to know is resumed and compilated here [2]. --Zorion (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zorion, thank you for your post. I still agree with Karljoos. I think it would be misleading to say that Francis Xavier was Navarrese and not Spanish and the examples he gabe are perfectly valid. Would "Spanish Navarrese" make everyone happy? --Nandonaranja (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you thank me Nandonaranja if you do not take into account my post? It took me more than an hour to go through all this amazing work done by Santiago Leoné Puncel (unfortunately, it is in Spanish language). Puncel tried to answer on what we are debating right now and let us know who was FX (Was he Basque, Navarrese, Spaniard or French?). According to me, FX was Navarrese of Basque origin but with historical circumstances, he suddenly became a citizen of Spain. Spanish Wikipedia says that FX is only Navarrese to split the difference; will we write in four centuries from now that the Dalai Lama was Chinese? … If we follow your logical way of thinking, the answer is yes. Anyways, I have learnt ten times more with Puncel than with you guys but it is also because of you. Thank you. --Zorion (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word proselytizing[edit]

"For forty five years the Jesuits were the only missionaries in Asia, but the Franciscans also began proselytizing in Asia as well. "

There is no citation for this at all. Delete it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.158.45.149 (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navarrese is not an origin[edit]

  • FX is a Spaniard of Basque origin OR
  • FX is a Navarrese of Basque origin NOT
  • FX is NOT a Spanish missionary of Navarrese origin

It's simply impossible to be of Navarrese origin because any cultural anthropology books (ethnology) has defined Navarrese as an ethnic group, demonstrating that Karljoos has no knowledge of what he is writing. Nowadays, Navaresse are split into two ethnic groups, the Basque people and the Spaniards. --Zorion (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you do, right? I don't care what you Spaniards think about this, but for the rest of the world, FX is a SPANIARD whether you like it or not. --Karljoos (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither Karljoos, as Canadian ;), I do not care and I do not revert anyone. In fact, you revert everybody else's edits (so you do care) and clearly your last answer demonstrates how incompetent you are in this matter and how you want to rule anyways this introduction sentence, without any references added. That's fine with me, like I said WP is everything but reference. Bye now Mister World Representator (...for the rest of the world). --Zorion (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last good edit[edit]

Prior to this post just took place by the anon IP. This post just in case we need a reset point for April 1st. --Morenooso (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

preservation of the body of st francis xavier[edit]

i just visited the basilica sometime back and wanted to know more about the preservation on his body but this article has nothing on it. i think its one of the main reasons behind why lakhs of people come there and wanted to know whether its an actual miracle or a hoax. havent been able to find any material on it online so if anyone does know anythin about it which is true and relevant can u please add it to the pre existing article 117.192.135.28 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article page[edit]

The following text was placed by an anonymous user on the article page, at the end of the "Burials and relics" paragraph. Parts of it might be valid article material. I am moving the text here for the moment. olivier (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Born in the Castle of Xavier near Sanguesa, in Navarre, 7 April, 1506; died on the Island of Sancian near the coast of China, 2 December, 1552. In 1525, having completed a preliminary course of studies in his own country, Francis Xavier went to Paris, where he entered the collège de Sainte-Barbe. Here he met the Savoyard, Pierre Favre, and a warm personal friendship sprang up between them. It was at this same college that St. Ignatius Loyola, who was already planning the foundation of the Society of Jesus, resided for a time as a guest in 1529. He soon won the confidence of the two young men; first Favre and later Xavier offered themselves with him in the formation of the Society. Four others, Lainez, Salmerón, Rodríguez, and Bobadilla, having joined them, the seven made the famous vow of Montmartre, 15 Aug., 1534.
After completing his studies in Paris and filling the post of teacher there for some time, Xavier left the city with his companions 15 November, 1536, and turned his steps to Venice, where he displayed zeal and charity in attending the sick in the hospitals. On 24 June, 1537, he received Holy orders with St. Ignatius. The following year he went to Rome, and after doing apostolic work there for some months, during the spring of 1539 he took part in the conferences which St. Ignatius held with his companions to prepare for the definitive foundation of the Society of Jesus. The order was approved verbally 3 September, and before the written approbation was secured, which was not until a year later, Xavier was appointed, at the earnest solicitation of the John III, King of Portugal, to evangelize the people of the East Indies. He left Rome 16 March, 1540, and reached Lisbon about June. Here he remained nine months, giving many admirable examples of apostolic zeal.
On 7 April, 1541, he embarked in a sailing vessel for India, and after a tedious and dangerous voyage landed at Goa, 6 May, 1542. The first five months he spent in preaching and ministering to the sick in the hospitals. He would go through the streets ringing a little bell and inviting the children to hear the word of God. When he had gathered a number, he would take them to a certain church and would there explain the catechism to them. About October, 1542, he started for the pearl fisheries of the extreme southern coast of the peninsula, desirous of restoring Christanity which, although introduced years before, had almost disappeared on account of the lack of priests. He devoted almost three years to the work of preaching to the people of Western India, converting many, and reaching in his journeys even the Island of Ceylon. Many were the difficulties and hardships which Xavier had to encounter at this time, sometimes on account of the cruel persecutions which some of the petty kings of the country carried on against the neophytes, and again because the Portuguese soldiers, far from seconding the work of the saint, retarded it by their bad example and vicious habits.
In the spring of 1545 Xavier started for Malacca. He laboured there for the last months of that year, and although he reaped an abundant spiritual harvest, he was not able to root out certain abuses, and was conscious that many sinners had resisted his efforts to bring them back to God. About January, 1546, Xavier left Malacca and went to Molucca Islands, where the Portuguese had some settlements, and for a year and a half he preached the Gospel to the inhabitants of Amboyna, Ternate, Baranura, and other lesser islands which it has been difficult to identify. It is claimed by some that during this expedition he landed on the island of Mindanao, and for this reason St. Francis Xavier has been called the first Apostle of the Philippines. But although this statement is made by some writers of the seventeenth century, and in the Bull of canonization issued in 1623, it is said that he preached the Gospel in Mindanao, up to the present time it has not been proved absolutely that St. Francis Xavier ever landed in the Philippines.
By July, 1547, he was again in Malacca. Here he met a Japanese called Anger (Han-Sir), from whom he obtained much information about Japan. His zeal was at once aroused by the idea of introducing Christanity into Japan, but for the time being the affairs of the Society demanded his presence at Goa, whither he went, taking Anger with him. During the six years that Xavier had been working among the infidels, other Jesuit missionaries had arrived at Goa, sent from Europe by St. Ignatius; moreover some who had been born in the country had been received into the Society. In 1548 Xavier sent these missionaries to the principal centres of India, where he had established missions, so that the work might be preserved and continued. He also established a novitiate and house of studies, and having received into the Society Father Cosme de Torres, a spanish priest whom he had met in the Maluccas, he started with him and Brother Juan Fernández for Japan towards the end of June, 1549. The Japanese Anger, who had been baptized at Goa and given the name of Pablo de Santa Fe, accompanied them.
They landed at the city of Kagoshima in Japan, 15 Aug., 1549. The entire first year was devoted to learning the Japanese language and translating into Japanese, with the help of Pablo de Santa Fe, the principal articles of faith and short treatises which were to be employed in preaching and catechizing. When he was able to express himself, Xavier began preaching and made some converts, but these aroused the ill will of the bonzes, who had him banished from the city. Leaving Kagoshima about August, 1550, he penetrated to the centre of Japan, and preached the Gospel in some of the cities of southern Japan. Towards the end of that year he reached Meaco, then the principal city of Japan, but he was unable to make any headway here because of the dissensions the rending the country. He retraced his steps to the centre of Japan, and during 1551 preached in some important cities, forming the nucleus of several Christian communities, which in time increased with extraordinary rapidity.
After working about two years and a half in Japan he left this mission in charge of Father Cosme de Torres and Brother Juan Fernández, and returned to Goa, arriving there at the beginning of 1552. Here domestic troubles awaited him. Certain disagreements between the superior who had been left in charge of the missions, and the rector of the college, had to be adjusted. This, however, being arranged, Xavier turned his thoughts to China, and began to plan an expedition there. During his stay in Japan he had heard much of the Celestial Empire, and though he probably had not formed a proper estimate of his extent and greatness, he nevertheless understood how wide a field it afforded for the spread of the light of the Gospel. With the help of friends he arranged a commission or embassy the Sovereign of China, obtained from the Viceroy of India the appointment of ambassador, and in April, 1552, he left Goa. At Malacca the party encountered difficulties because the influential Portuguese disapproved of the expedition, but Xavier knew how to overcome this opposition, and in the autumn he arrived in a Portuguese vessel at the small island of Sancian near the coast of China. While planning the best means for reaching the mainland, he was taken ill, and as the movement of the vessel seemed to aggravate his condition, he was removed to the land, where a rude hut had been built to shelter him. In these wretched surroundings he breathed his last.
It is truly a matter of wonder that one man in the short space of ten years (6 May, 1542 - 2 December, 1552) could have visited so many countries, traversed so many seas, preached the Gospel to so many nations, and converted so many infidels. The incomparable apostolic zeal which animated him, and the stupendous miracles which God wrought through him, explain this marvel, which has no equal elsewhere. The list of the principal miracles may be found in the Bull of canonization. St. Francis Xavier is considered the greatest missionary since the time of the Apostles, and the zeal he displayed, the wonderful miracles he performed, and the great number of souls he brought to the light of true Faith, entitle him to this distinction. He was canonized with St. Ignatius in 1622, although on account of the death of Gregory XV, the Bull of canonization was not published until the following year.
The body of the saint is still enshrined at Goa in the church which formerly belonged to the Society. In 1614 by order of Claudius Acquaviva, General of the Society of Jesus, the right arm was severed at the elbow and conveyed to Rome, where the present altar was erected to receive it in the church of the Gesu.
It looks like this text is from Catholic Encyclopedia, so it is possible to use this material in the article, since it's in public domain. EugeneZ (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

There have been a flury of edits to the controversy sub-section lately, since the layout was modified. I would like to present a few sources, information from which could be incorporated in the text.

  • Xavier was aware of the brutality of the Inquisition which was established at his behest in Goa: Teotonio R de Souza, Head of the department of history, Universidade Lusofona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Lisbon.[3]
  • The Holy Inquisition was dispatched to Goa on Xavier's encouragement. For Hindus temple worship was banned, shrines destroyed and brahmins banished: David Abram in Goa [4]

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied changes in Wikipedia article about St. Francis Xavier[edit]

Hi,

changes I have made in article about St. Francis Xavier were removed under the pretext of not citing verifiable sources. Let's have a look at what I did and was removed: 1. I changed the month of canonization from March (March 12) to April (April 12). Anyone who is not devoid of reason and common sense and has elemental knowledge of Christian practice knows that in Lent no one has ever been canonized. Does this need citation from a verifiable source?? 2. I changed categories like Spanish Jesuits into Basque Jesuits, Spanish saints into Basque saints etc. Everybody who is not devoid of reason and common sense and has an elemental knowledge of history knows that Basques are not Spaniards but are ethnicity for themselves although they have lived in Spain. Thus, if there is no reliable evidence that St. Francis expressly renounced his well-known Basque origin and expressly declared himself as a Spaniard he isn't a Spaniard nor Spanish and his inclusion in Spanish categories is falsity and a theft from Basque categories. If anyone objects that St. Francis Xavier was born on the Spanish territory or that he lived there then the reply is: a Basque born in Spain is still Basque, not Spanish; he lived in Paris, India, Japan etc. and manifestly isn't French saint, Indian saint or Japanese saint. Does this need citation from a verifiable source?? 3. I added Croatia and Zagreb (Croatia) as being under patronage of St. Francis Xavier. I admit this is not self-evident and lacked citation from a verifiable source. I could have cited Croatian sources which no one of you who don't speak Croatian could verify. But where are cited verifiable sources for all the other patronages stated in article about him? 4. I removed "Anglican saints" and "People celebrated in Lutheran liturgical calendar" categories since Anglican and Lutheran beliefs expressly contradict Catholic i.e. Christian faith of St. Francis Xavier so that their mentioning of him is as unreasonable as it is a theft. Does this need citation from a verifiable source??

All who oppose or cover the truth shall be punished for that. Goodbye. --89.201.210.119 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Re[reply]

First of all, thanks for finally bringing this to the Talk Page. In response to your assertions, here are a few points:
1. The March 12, 1622 date is based on the text of the web preface of The consistorial letter by Urban III on the canonization of Francesco Saverio published in The Vatican's website (see [5]).
2. The categories you added do not exist on Wikipedia. Technically speaking, Francis Xavier was Navarran. Without a doubt, Navarre was a kingdom of Basque origin. That point is well documented. I'd suggest you set up a new category on Wikipedia first. Currently there are subcategories for Catalan saints and Valencian saints within the main Spanish saints category. This would be a good place to put the subcategory.
3. This, admittedly, is open ended and primarily from the region's self identity. I personally would have no problems if Croatia and Zagreb was added although I have found a citation stating that it is the Mother of God of the Stone Gate that was declared the patron saint of Zagreb in 1991 by the Archbishop of Zagreb ([6]).
4. Your assertion here is primarily from your own conjecture of Francis Xavier's theological position. Since both the Anglican Church as well as the Lutheran Church include a liturgical celebration of Francis Xavier within the Church calendars, the removal is not justifiable. You may disagree with their theology but you cannot deny that they do include a host of saints in their Church calendar as part of their self identification as part of the Catholic Church.
On you oft repeated question as to whether your changes "need citation from a verifiable source", the answer is yes (see WP:VERIFY). This is a cornerstone of Wikipedia's content policy. There may be some flexibility granted by some editors, myself included, if its on some minor points, but the range of your edits was quite broad and sweeping. Hence the need for citation and verifiable sources.
I hope this clarifies why I felt your edits ought to be reverted. - Bob K | Talk 06:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


1. Again, March 12, 1622 was Saturday in Lent ([7]), the day when fasting and abstinence from all flesh meat was obligatory and when thus no pope would solemnly canonize anyone. Solemn feast with fasting and no flesh meat?? Come on, Bob... It seems that everybody on the web just copies the wrong information without thinking. My old prayer book issued by Jesuits in Zagreb in 1946 states that his canonization was on April 12, 1622 and this must be recorded somewhere else. In any case March 12, 1622 is impossible date for any canonization and is thus manifestly wrong and should promptly be removed from the article.
2. There is category "Basque people" and you removed even that valid change to the existing category. In any case Basque categories cannot come under Spanish categories because Basques are not Spaniards nor Spanish. Basque can rightly come under "... from Spain" categories if there are such categories but cannot rightly come under "Spanish" categories. For would declared Germans born in France be correctly classified under "French" categories, Bob? Basques are to Spaniards exactly what Germans are to French or British are to Americans etc. Different ethnicity in short. Thus "Spanish" categories for St. Francis Xavier, a Basque, are most clear errors and thefts from the Basques.
3. A city or whatever entity can have more than one patron saint. I didn't write that The Mother of God of the Stone Gate wasn't the patron of Zagreb. I stated that St. Francis Xavier was the patron of the city of Zagreb and of Croatia also (there is inscription on his church "For salvation of the thousand years old Croatian kingdom"). Your source is correct but incomplete because the following source in the last paragraph of its article most clearly states that St. Francis Xavier was, by authorities of the city of Zagreb, officially proclaimed the patron saint of the city of Zagreb in 1762, more than 200 years before The Mother of God of the Stone Gate: [8].
4. The facts are that St. Francis Xavier was Catholic and that he recognized pope while the facts are that Anglicans and Lutherans most fiercely reject the very same pope as anti-Christ (see the quote immediately below the page title and Anglican Thomas Cranmer's quote on [9] for Anglicans; see Martin Luther's quote on [10] for Lutherans). What would you say and do, Bob, if you are alive and some Francis keeps telling that it isn't the truth (but only my own private conjecture) that the people who provenly consider the man you obeyed in the name of God as the most evil criminal are your own enemies, are thieves and liars?
When it isn't about self-evident truths Wikipedia's insistence on citations from verifiable sources is right. But to insist on citations when it is about self-evident truth which follows as the necessary consequence from a cause (e.g. that no solemn feast is possible on fasting day when all flesh meat is forbidden - see the 1. point above) is ridiculous, absurd and gravely insulting to reason.
I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that the changes I made were rightly made and that they will finally be accepted. If not, that shall most clearly be opposition to and covering of the truth and as such shall bring due punishment to you.
--89.201.195.127 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Re[reply]
For starters, watch the personal attacks. We are dealing with a disagreement on content, not on people. Secondly, I'll leave this to the other editors to decide. I've already said my piece on why the additions were removed and I stand by them. I understand the whole issue of Basque nationalism, both past and present, and can see where part of this argument is heading to. You have a good source on St. Francis Xavier being declared a patron saint of Zagreb so I'd suggest you use it. The other arguments you put forward, I have dealt with in my earlier post. - Bob K | Talk 23:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. regarding the canonization date I am ready to send you a scanned copy of the page from the prayerbook where it is twice(!! - thus excluding the possibility of a typo) stated that the date of St. Francis Xavier's canonization is April 12, 1622, not March 12, 1622. The verifiable source is Jesuit prayerbook "Srce Isusovo Spasenje naše" (eng.: "Heart of Jesus our Salvation"), Zagreb, 1946, p. 425. Will you accept this verifiable Jesuit source (St. Francis Xavier was a Jesuit!) when I post it as an embedded file? If not (I hope you will accept it), I will have to ask you why this verifiable Jesuit source (St. Francis Xavier was a Jesuit!) isn't good enough for you? If you don't want to delete the impossible March 12 then, when you verify the copy I will have posted, at least put in-line April 12 before/after March 12 with a [?] or so at the end with an annotation explaining the dilemma. That would be NPOV.
2. I have to correct myself on this point: if there is a strong evidence that St. Francis Xavier declared himself as a member of Spanish kingdom then he can be categorized as both Basque and Spanish. But if not, he cannot be categorized as Spanish. For it isn't sufficient that a man in some way belongs to Spanish territory to belong to Spanish territory: if St. Francis Xavier detested Spanish kingdom in his Navarre (for royal Spanish army occupied St. Francis Xavier's homeland Navarre and destroyed much of his family castle), not the Spanish kingdom in general nor Spanish people, he manifestly didn't belong to the Spanish kingdom and thus wasn't in any way Spanish even when the territory of his Navarre belonged to Spanish kingdom (by force of arms i.e. by occupation) and was thus manifestly Spanish territory.
The truth is always but one and all the rest, infinite in number, are lies. Hope no one discovers he has held on to a lie when it's too late.
--89.201.201.11 (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Re[reply]
And not to forget: Navarran is only a demonym while Basque is ethnicity and a demonym as e.g. Kosovar is only a demonym (for an inhabitant of Kosovo: [11] - on the right) and Albanian is ethnicity of vast majority of Kosovars (there is no Kosovar ethnicity: [12]) and also a demonym for inhabitants of neighboring Albania.
Thus St. Francis Xavier was certainly a Basque (ethnically) and a Navarran (territorially). Whether he declared himself as a Spanish Basque or Spanish Navarran because of Spanish kingdom ruling Navarre during his lifetime is unknown to me and probably unknown at all and must be proved by a strong and indisputable evidence. Anything else is a manifest falsity.
--89.201.201.11 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. With these contradicting sources, the best compromise I can suggest is that the date of canonization is disputed, put in both dates and link it to both the sources. It has to be noted that newer sources, including this Jesuit source ([13]) states the date as March 12, 1622. It is possible that one reason for this inconsistency is the date difference between the Gregorian and Julian calendars that were adopted in different times by different countries. I am not saying this is definitely the case but it could be a possible reason why some older publications put the date as April whereas contemporary sources state it as March.
Re: Basque identity, again I am not certain of the convention for categorization. It does seem to me that historical territories are included as sub-categories of contemporary categories, which is why we would have Category: Catalan people, Category: Navarrese people, and Category:People from the Basque Country as sub-categories of Category:People by autonomous community in Spain. Interestingly, there is a separate category called Category:Basque people outside this main category, probably as an acknowledgement of the nationalist tendencies of the Basque people. So I am generally stumped here. Perhaps a new subcategory for Basque saints can be added to Category:Basque people and added to this article.
One final point to bring up. If you were to read the sources of the Lutheran Reformation (one of the best sources perhaps would be the papers in the Book of Concord), you would find that the point of contention was not the Catholic Church but the contemporary abuses within the Church. It is also arguable that it was the individual Pope that was being attacked, not the office of the Pope itself. This is perhaps why its been easier to work on dialogue and reapproachment in contemporary times. And that is also why the Lutherans and the Anglicans have always considered themselves part of the apostolic, catholic Church, just not subject to the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, this is academic and not within Wikipedia's parameters of engagement. If both these Churches acknowledge the saint and endorse the liturgical celebration of these saints, there is no reason to remove it from this article, theological disagreements notwithstanding. - Bob K | Talk 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, to justify their non-subjection to the bishop of Rome, the Pope, all the Reformers have to attack the office of Pope or Papacy (as ostensibly sinful above measure) as one of them explicitly stated: "Every Reformer, without exception, spoke of the papacy as Antichrist" -R. Allen Anderson, Unfolding the Revelation, p.137 (see on [14]).
Let's assume that Jesus Christ doesn't want one man to rule The Church but a council of men representing The Church. Let's assume that Jesus Christ has permitted that there is no consensus needed but that ordinary absolute majority (>50% of votes) suffices even for the most important decisions. What would happen in The Church thus led? Not rarely there would occur three or more parties in the council where none would have absolute majority and would most firmly stand by its position being assured that it's in the best interest of The Church. Thus there would be a deadlock in The Church which would paralyze and rent The Church for a long time and sooner or later forever. But this most disastrous scenario isn't possible with one man as the head of The Church in the name of God. As God permits people to do evil in the world He also permits people to do evil in The Church. While some Pope can be evil the council of men representing The Church can also be evil i.e. can have evil absolute majority. But while Pope cannot be in deadlock the council can be. This is the reason why almost everywhere in the world most of the time one man rules over many or all men or over many or all things: one man rule is by far the most efficient form of rule.
It is obvious that God would never do anything but the best for His Church and that it can only be a one man rule in His Name over His Church (Luke 22:31-32). From this necessarily follows that all who reject one man in the name of God over the whole Church reject God and cannot be of Him no matter what they say (for every liar says he's telling the truth and every thief says he is an honest man).
As you can see now, Bob, the office of Pope is not only an academic or insignificant theological issue but the very cornerstone of Christian religion and Catholic faith directly touching God and The Church and no one who rejects it can be a Christian i.e. a Catholic no matter what he says. But Wikipedia says these guys are Christians and their religion Christianity ([15])! Yes, it is what vast majority of the world believes. But is it true??? It is no wonder that The Catholic Church is by far the largest single religious community in the world (Mohammedans aren't uniform in their beliefs but have many differing communities that are thus much smaller than The Catholic Church: Hanifites, Shafites, Malikites, Hanbalites etc. - [16]) with over 1 billion members and yet it visibly displays unity while two or three times smaller Protestants and "Orthodox" don't (Protestants are divided on theological basis, "Orthodox" on national basis).
If Lutherans and Anglicans hate Antichrist as they say how do they have a stomach to have St. Francis Xavier, a man who most passionately served and loved the man they believe is Antichrist (Pope) i.e. a man of (whom they believe is) Antichrist (Pope), on their calendars?
As regards the files regarding the date of St. Francis Xavier's canonization: I have them but don't know how to post them on this discussion page. Can you help me, Bob?
Thank you for all your replies so far, Bob.

--89.201.209.209 (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Re[reply]

I'd rather not engage in the theological differences here. This is not the correct venue for such discussions. Let's just stick to the 2 issues we have generally agreed on:
1. The dates. Wikipedia's citation policy generally prefers secondary sources rather than primary so that WP editors do not have to bear the burden of interpreting those sources (see WP:CITE). Nonetheless, since we have already discussed this, there is no need to actually post the scanned image. Just do a citation to the publication using the format and guidelines provided in WP:CITE.
2. The Basque identity. I'd suggest that we just add an additional category called Basque Saints as a subcategory within Basque people without necessarily removing the category Spanish saints (since part of Basque country is in Spain today and there already exists a separate category called French Basque people).
I hope that these compromises will be acceptable to all. - Bob K | Talk 03:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Bob.--89.201.202.147 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Re[reply]
I have been unable to add "Basque saints" subcategory to "Basque people" category in spite of looking for a way to do that. Can I do that? If yes, please tell me how. If not, please do that as soon as possible.
--89.201.200.7 (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Re[reply]

Patron Saint of West Bank, Uppingham[edit]

I removed the following section from the article. It seems to be little more than trivia and, even its reference only mentions it in passing as little more than an act of ironical humour. Here is what I removed:

"A most sombre act of homage that has been paid to Xavier is that he has been made the Patron Saint of a Public School House. In the 1970s Jeff Abbott, Housemaster of West Bank, Uppingham School, Rutland, had one of the school chaplains perform a service whereby Xavier was made Patron Saint of West Bank house. Abbott, a firm advocate of corporal punishment, chose Xavier on account of the fact that Xavier had introduced the scourge to Japan. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

independent Kingdom of Navarre????[edit]

Navarre pertenecia to Spain was not independent.. Fernando the Catholic like monarch of Navarre with his marriage with Isabel I her incorporates to Spain in 1492. The end of the independence of the kingdom produjó when Fernando Catholic realized the military conquest in the summer of 1512. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.149.231 (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the offending phrase. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name discrepancy[edit]

We have a serious discrepancy about his name. Firstly, the lede para says:

  • Francis Xavier, born Francisco de Jasso y Azpilicueta ...

So far, so good. It semes to mean his name at birth was Francisco de Jasso y Azpilicueta and later became Francis Xavier.

We move on. Early life says:

  • He was born ... the youngest son of Juan de Jaso ...and Doña Maria de Azpilcueta y Aznárez ...

Now we have a problem. Was his father's name Jasso or Jaso? And was his mother’s name Az-pili-cueta or Az-pil-cueta?

But it gets worse:

  • Following the Basque surname custom of the time, he was named after his toponym; his name is written Francisco de Xavier.

That suggests he was never called Francisco de Jasso/Jaso y Azpilicueta/Azpilcueta, but was known as Francisco de Xavier from birth, regardless of his parents' names. So, what's it to be? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might shed some light. --SMasters (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general comment: I have not read much on Francis Xavier, but having looked at some other literature of the period (Bernardino de Escalante, João de Barros, Juan González de Mendoza), I am not surprised anymore at a great variety of spellings we have for the personages of the period. Spanish spelling (as well as English or Portuguese) has changed quite a bit since the 16th century - and back then, spellings weren't all that stable, even more so if we talk about Basque names. So a question such as "Az-pili-cueta or Az-pil-cueta" may often have the answer such as "they wrote it both ways". In some cases, of course, the person is sufficiently well known so that a standard modern spelling exists, but then it may be different in Spanish and in Basque. -- Vmenkov (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"See also" section[edit]

I have removed the entire "See also" section because I do not believe it meets the requirements of WP guidelines at WP:ALSO. In case you it states, among other things that a "reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one." In this case, the article is rather well-developed and a long list of churches, schools and other institutions named after Xavier is not what the "See also" section is for. If there is a need for a list of things named after Xavier, then one could create an article or a category.

If individual links are to be reinstated, then it would be good to follow the guideline, which states that editors "should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous."

Finally, there were several articles already linked in the main body of the article, rendering these superfluous in the "See also" section.

Note that the guideline specifically says that "a good article might not require a "See also" section at all." Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed my revert and reinstated a few links that probably do meet the guidelines. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good--thanks. Rjensen (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure ! :) Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freeze[edit]

I am being forced to freeze this article. I will strive to keep this neutral and objective. Please don't make this a forum or rant page but keep it as an encyclopedia. I apologize in anticipation to the editors.--Jondel (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not my game to edit here, but maybe you can fix it yourself that if Francis is in the middle, Anjirō is on the left in the 3 statue image, it does not need to say that Bernardo is on the right. I know this is the internet generation, but let us pretend to give them some credit for thinking once in a while at least... History2007 (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er could you do it? It should be write enabled for users now.--Jondel (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

Why cant i edit the article even after with an account? HeritageCastilian (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change of false canonization date of St. Francis Xavier etc.(!) needed[edit]

Hello,

"Formerly Bulls were dated according to the year of the Incarnation, which begins on 25 March. This medieval style of dating remained peculiar to papal Bulls, and in time gave rise to much confusion. Pius X ordered these documents to be dated in future according to common custom, by the year which begins on 1 January." (article “Roman Curia” of The Catholic Encyclopedia).

The date of canonization of St. Francis Xavier and of some other saints(!) (see below) is March 12, 1622 not A.D. but of the Incarnation of The Lord (“Bullarium Romanum”; TOMO XII, 1867; Gregorius XV: parte IV, pagine 649-701; bolla LIII).

By January 1, 1622 of the Incarnation of The Lord being March 25, 1622 A.D. and December 31, 1622 of the Incarnation of The Lord being March 24, 1623 A.D. of necessity follows that March 12, 1622 of the Incarnation of The Lord is June 3, 1622 A.D., the true date of canonization of St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Philip Neri, St. Theresa of Avila and St. Isidore the Farmer and that canonization date for all of them should be corrected.

Because of this confusion St. Francis Xavier might indeed have revealed the Novena of grace to be made from March 4 to March 12 inclusive in spite of his canonization on June 3, 1622 A.D.

I also ask for removal of footnote no. 23 (Jesuit prayer-book) which I made since April 12, 1622 is false date of the canonization in every case (either A.D. or year of the Incarnation of The Lord).

--95.178.159.163 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Re[reply]

I strongly suspect you've taken it too far. True, in some contexts back then, the year did begin on 25 March. But all that means is that 24 March 1526 (say) was New Years Eve, and was immediately followed by New Years Day 25 March 1527. The number of the year changed, but the dates themselves just continued in their usual sequence. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 07:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The French chronologists remark, that those who commenced the year from the Annunciation, March 25, were nine months and seven days in advance of others, whose year began on the 1st of January." (Robert Thomas Hampson, "Medii Aevi Kalendarium", Vol. II, p.17). So, Jack of Oz, your strong suspicion is wrong and your imaginative theory is a falsity.

According to the French chronologists, the correction is also to be made for the year of the canonization of St. Francis Xavier and the other four saints and not only for the day and the month of it: 1621 AD, not 1622 AD since dates in the year of The Incarnation are 9 months and 7 days ahead of the corresponding AD dates.

Interestingly, in the bull of the canonization itself (see on the link above) there is this footnote regarding 1622th year of the Incarnation: "1 Erronee edit. Main. habet 1621 (R.T.).".

So, Jack of Oz and everyone else, the date of canonization of St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Philip Neri, St. Theresa of Avila and St. Isidore the Farmer is June 3, 1621 AD, NOT March 12, 1622 AD.

And dates of all canonizations, beatifications etc. in Wikipedia originally given by the year of the Incarnation and copied to Wikipedia with the addition of AD instead of the year of the Incarnation have to be corrected.

--5.43.175.20 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Re[reply]

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience.[edit]

This section onwards needs to be cleaned, if anyone has any idea, besides cutting short those subsections to a few lines, please reply? Otherwise I think it seems to be the only way and I will go ahead with it. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Inquisition[edit]

It is an indisputable fact that St Francis was not tolerant to other religions and that such relevant fact should be in Wikipedia. I’ve added myself views from Jesuits that openly condemn St Francis views on this subject and I’ve provided references to the article that document Saint Francis intolerance. However there are several paragraphs related with the Goa inquisition that are better placed in the article on Goa Inquisition. This is an article on S. Francis not the Goa Inquisition and therefore the historical context should be reduced to a minimum. Especially if we consider that the Goa inquisition was established almost 20 years after S. Francis death. I am not saying the content should be removed from Wikipedia, but I am saying that this is not the place for such content. JPratas (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely disagree. Removing the Goa Inquisition completely from Xavier's biography is whitewashing, sugarcoating and censorship. This was the longest-running inquisition (almost 300 years) and it inflicted tremendous medieval torture on a peaceful people. At the very least the article on the Goa Inquisition should be referenced here. Sooku (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a neutral point of view[edit]

Similar issues have been discussed here before. I just read this article for the first time (while working on a writing project on Jesuits in India) and it has some very obviously biased passages. I'm putting back the tag disputing its neutrality, which has apparently been removed once before. The assumption seems to be that Francis Xavier's work was objectively for the greater good, and that the people who hindered his work (including both natives and Portuguese) were inferior to him, and unable to see what's best for them. A lot of the language betrays an underlying reverence without making factually incorrect claims ("many were the hardships which Xavied had to encounter"). This text needs a serious rewrite--it sounds like a Sunday school textbook. Some examples: 1) "The Christian population had churches, clergy, and a bishop, but many of the Portuguese were ruled by ambition, avarice, revenge, and debauchery." 2) "To meet this challenging situation Xavier decided that he must begin by instructing the Portuguese themselves in the principles of faith ..." 3) "Many were the difficulties and hardships which Xavier had to encounter at this time, sometimes because the Portuguese soldiers, far from seconding his work, hampered it by their bad example and vicious habits." 4) "Despite Francis' different religion, he felt that they were good people, much like Europeans, and could be converted." (The writer claims to know how Francis felt, half a millennium after the fact.) 5) And finally, the fluffy section "Legacy" should be deleted. Obviously, as a pioneering missionary, his legacy is extremely controversial, which really doesn't come across here. 143.89.88.45 (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The article was probably written by people who worship Saint Francis and based themselves on books also written by people who also worship him. In addition, naturally, significant views that have been published by reliable sources on Saint Francis are mainly favourable views and wikipedia should reflect that. Having said that I tend to agree that the article could benefit from a more neutral and factual language. I am not a native english speaker therefore I will not try it myself. Why don't you step forward and revise it? I have a lot of reliable sources in my library and am willing to collaborate JPratas (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can edit the text to get rid of the worst Sunday-school sentences, but the article needs the attention of an expert on the topic. The style of writing betrays that it's written by folks who, as you say, worship Francis Xavier as a saint, and that it's based on biased sources. So just on the basis of that, I'd dispute its neutrality even after my own edits, until someone more knowledgeable has taken a look at this and made sure there are no serious omissions. I also propose deleting the entire "Legacy" section.143.89.88.45 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I changed my mind. The offending passages are beyond repair. I can't take an obviously biased statement, such as "His mornings were usually spent in tending and comforting the distressed in hospital and prison", and rewrite it in a more neutral tone without perpetuating the same bias. I have no idea how much time he spent in hospitals and prisons, whether he did it in the mornings, and, most importantly, what his agenda was. Again, a historian needs to look at this (I'm not one), and the neutrality-in-dispute tag should remain until then. 143.89.88.45 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least you could edit the text to get rid of the most obvious worst Sunday-school sentences and still keep the neutrality-in-dispute tag. It would be an improvement. JPratas (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that simple. What would I do with the sentence about, say, Xavier comforting the sick every morning? Just delete it? I have no idea how that statement relates to what we do know about the person. I also don't think it's an improvement to make a clearly biased text merely sound more palatable. Right now, the text is written in such a way that most educated people will easily perceive that it's not even trying to be objective. I'd rather see the text remain like that until it receives a comprehensive facelift. Propaganda like this is often riddled with factual mistakes, too (and I can't be the judge of that on this topic), and omissions. It's better that the text is identifiable as what it is, rather than us trying to make it seem more objective--since we don't have the expertise to actually improve the content.143.89.88.45 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese saint[edit]

I thought there was enough evidence that St. Francis Xavier should be considered a Portuguese saint, in the same way St. John of God is also considered a Spanish saint, despite being born in Portugal. St. Francis Xavier when he came to Portugal he became a subject of the king of Portugal, John III, and he always used Portuguese as the missionary language in the Far East. He appears in "O Grande Livro dos Portugueses" (Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1991). I included St. Francis Xavier in two portuguese categories, but after some thought I removed him. I wasn't able to find enough NPOV sources for these categories. Mistico (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier wasn't a subject of Portugal, he traveled to Portugal and other places as a member of the Society of Jesus. Similarly, Anthony of Padua remained a Portuguese subject even throughout his years in the Italian peninsula. 49.15.231.21 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Francis Xavier. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Francis Xavier. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 17:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crab and crucifix[edit]

I was looking at this tumblr page:

  • red scharlach. "Saint Francis Xavier, a missionary who spent a lot of time on ships". tumblr.

There were a number of images of Francis and the Crab.

Anyone else know where the images come from? --evrik (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Franciszek Ksawery d' Abancourt de Franqueville" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Franciszek Ksawery d' Abancourt de Franqueville. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ミラP 03:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link for expansion of Legacy section[edit]

[1]

References

  1. ^ "How St Francis Xavier became Goencho Saib". The Times of India. Jan 4, 2015. Retrieved 2019-12-24.

Issues with "Role in Goa inquisition" section[edit]

The first paragraph does not comply with NPOV:

  • It states opinions as facts. For example, it cites James Patrick Broderick's opinion: "James Patrick Broderick, though writing an admiring biography, condemns as Xavier's "woefully inadequate views about Indian religion and civilization"." Broderick's admiration of Xavier and his condemnation of Xavier's views are both opinions and both equally irrelevant.
  • It slants the discussion by citing irrelevant material in the first sentence. Xavier may have had opinions on God's glory or on the abilities of humankind which we disagree with or find ridiculous, but those provide no factual info at all about his possible role in the inquisition.

Now, if we were historians, we could try to analyze his beliefs, his actions, his letters, etc in order to try to build a case about his attitude towards the inquisition and what actions he took on the basis of these attitudes. But that would constitute original research and would violate Wikipedia:No original research.

Micheln (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021[edit]

66.171.81.13 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is the patron saint of Japan

That's not what the source says. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Indian Communities[edit]

Francis Xavier had some pretty questionable views on Hinduism , Hindu gods and Hindu Practices. He is also mentioned to have committed some questionable actions

When all are baptized I order all the temples of their false gods to be destroyed and all the idols to be broken in pieces.[1]
Whenever I hear of any act of idolatrous worship, I go to the place with a large band of these children, who very soon load the devil with a greater amount of insult and abuse than he has lately received of honor and worship from their parents, relations, and acquaintances. The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.[2]
They[brahmins] are liars and cheats to the very backbone. Their whole study is, how to deceive most cunningly the simplicity and ignorance of the people.
These Brahmins have barely a tincture of literature, but they make up for their poverty in learning by cunning and malice.

This is not an edit request so Please don't quell this with that "please suggest a x to y change" message. I am seeking suggestions to as how can these facts be introduced in the page considering i don't think anything like this is mentioned in the article (correct me if I am wrong). Extorc (talk)

References

  1. ^ https://archive.org/details/LifeLettersOfStFrancisXavierV1/page/n311/mode/2up
  2. ^ https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1543xavier1.asp
They're not questionable views, they were standard for Europeans in India during his era (read the works of Diogo Couto, Alessandro Valignano, Luís Fróis, etc.). Also, if ALL the native Hindu villagers were now baptized Christians then they no longer had any use for the idols and temples. His views on the local Brahmins might also be seriously valid, they're not known for their literary output even during pre-Portuguese times. The Brahmins also exploited weaker sections of society, leading to the creation of groups like the Kalawantin aka Gomantak Maratha Samaj. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.68.73 (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the rest of your blatantly biased views, "not known for their literary output"? Every major Sanskrit text was virtually written by a Brahmin or those educated by them. Seriously valid my foot. 122.174.67.31 (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Every major Sanskrit text was virtually written by a Brahmin or those educated by them." That wasn't the situation for Brahmin communities in the areas Xavier visited (Nambudiris, Saraswats, etc.), they hadn't produces anything new that was seriously comparable to literature in contemporary European society. They were more interested in enforcing the caste structure, e.g. such was the state of Hindu society in Kerala: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_Kerala#Ritual_pollution 42.107.76.9 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh[edit]

It doesn’t tell how he died? 118.3.225.176 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His death is mentioned in the last sentence of the article section titled "Missionary work": "He died from a fever at Shangchuan, Taishan, China, on 3 December 1552, while he was waiting for a boat that would take him to mainland China." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:319F:6A0A:B1AE:152F:5197:6349 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Xavier&oldid=1211942203"