Talk:Thomas à Kempis

à

I guess that à is French. Could you explain why, how and where else it is used? --Error 4 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

It should not be used, because it is wrong. It is Latin in stead of French, and it means: coming from. Thomas a Kempis is the right Latin name of Thomas van Kempen. The French are using his name correctly by the way... May I be so bold to change it here? Groucho NL (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

• It is a fairly common misspelling of his name. Because it is a misspelling, I have requested that this article be moved to Thomas a Kempis, which is currently a redirect to Thomas à Kempis. Normally, I would have immediately moved this article to the proper name, but since the misspelling is quite common and seems to be entrenched in many minds, I believe this is not a straight-forward move. À is indeed a French form, while his name is a Latin name, meaning Thomas of Kempen. This means that there should be a plain a between Thomas and Kempis. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support

• Support as the nominator. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support --Francis Schonken 19:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support the correct form of his name. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support User:Onderwijsgek. I live in Zwolle near the place where Thomas a Kempis lived. His correct name is Thomas a Kempis. This is our chance to beat Encyclopedia Brittanica by spelling his name the right way.
  

Also see:

• http://www.thomasakempis.nl/
• http://home.hetnet.nl/~djdijkink/

By the way: His real name is Thomas van Kempen! See photo in article.

• Support Would it not be prudent to move and leave a redirect link? Gerhardp 16:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Don't spread mistakes. Groucho NL (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support We don't use obsolete glyphs for English letters on Wikipedia, so there is no reason to use them for Latin letters either. Rwflammang (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Name with accent is more common. And it is not the French preposition "à"; the Latin preposition "a" (the short form of "ab") was written with an accent too, in certain periods (see eg. [1], page 11). This older notation seems to have survived only in the name Thomas à Kempis. Eugene van der Pijll 23:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

See also the illustration at http://www.nndb.com/people/824/000094542/, which has a latin caption, with the accent. Eugene van der Pijll 23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. The version with accent is more common. Whether it's French or medieval Latin isn't very relevant. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Same reasons as above. I always see it written with the accent. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interesting discussion. I'm going to throw in that this is also one of those cases where in English, the accent seems to be necessary for pronunciation. And since Jtdirl and I seem to be agreeing, which doesn't happen often, I might just be right. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• I have seen Thomas à Kempis as the most usual form. I would think that a Google test would produce misleading statistics, as ASCII preferrence in computing would inflate the proportion of spellings without the accent. THe spelling with the accent is traditional, no matter how illogical it might seem. --Gareth Hughes 17:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know if "traditional" is the right word, but the version with the accent is indeed quite common. That's why I think the accent shouldn't be deleted from Wikipedia altogether. I believe the name with the accent should be a redirect to the name without the accent, as opposed to the other way around. Or, to put it differently: I believe the common, incorrect name should be a redirect to the common, correct name. Aecis ^praatpaal 15:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• The Catholic Encyclopedia: Thomas à Kempis [2]
• Encyclopædia Britannica: Thomas à Kempis [3]
• MSN Encarta: Thomas à Kempis [4]
• The Columbia Encyclopedia: Thomas à Kempis [5]

I don't know how this accent came about but it seems likely that it is more than a simple mistake. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, most other language Wikipedias have Thomas a Kempis, except for Greek, which uses "à", and Finnish, which doesn't have either of Thomas a Kempis or Thomas à Kempis. That "à" is not French can be seen from the French Wikipedia article fr:Thomas a Kempis, which uses "a". The "a" seems to me to be Latin (same as "ab"), Thomas of Kempen, so "à" is most probably a misspelling, perpetuated be belief in other encyclopedias. I don't really care either way, but I think more research is necessary than pointing at other English-language encyclopedias to really find out how the "à" came to be used so widely in his name. No matter how the move dispute ends, a remark about the spelling of his name in the article would be a good thing. Kusma (討論) 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"à" is not a misspelling. See above. Eugene van der Pijll 20:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I should read before I post. Thanks for the clarification! It seems this is more an issue of historical typography than of spelling, then.Kusma (討論) 22:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be popular among medievel Tommys. See Thomas à Beckett. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooops! Sir Thomas à Beckett was an Australian judge around the turn of the 20th Century! Who knew the à was around in English that late in history. But I meant to say Thomas à Becket!! He had a brother, The Hon Sir William à Beckett --B

Here's another fellow: William à Court, 1st Baron Heytesbury, Conservative politician and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I think we're establishing precedence here... --B

Result

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Buried Alive?

Is this a Internet rummor or is there any truth to this at all? "And the 13th-century Thomas a Kempis, the reputed author of the great devotional work The Imitation of Christ, was never made a saint because, it was said, when they dug up his body for the ossuary they found scratch marks on the lid of his coffin and concluded that he was not reconciled to his fate."

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/gruesome/buried.asp

Bobmutch 03:06, February 24 2007 (UTC)

I have heard the apologetics host on ewtn thursdays 2pm say that several times. it can be found in a Google search as premature burial.

dab295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C0:1:B2ED:3DDE:922E:C871:A17D (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I heard the same story many years ago. But the Catholic Encyclopædia makes no mention of it, nor does any other reputable source I've been able to check, so I suspect it's a myth. The fact that he was never canonised is probably due to the fact that for a long time there was considerable doubt as to the authorship of the Imitation. Vilĉjo 15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any repurable source either and I know there is doubt as to the authorship so that makes more sense why he has not be canonised. I love the book and read it over and over and over! I have it as an audio book also. Bobmutch 10:21, May 27 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find reliable sources either, if mentioned it is qualified as "rumours", "urban legend" or "unverifiable claim". So I removed it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

interesting. i came to this WP article because of a recent article in Newsweek written by Mathew Schmalz, an Associate Professor of Religion: http://www.newsweek.com/catholic-church-sainthood-saints-pope-francis-646850?utm_source=internal&utm_campaign=right&utm_medium=related1

Schmalz mentions this theory/possibility, and the news article links to a website dedicated to the principles of a’Kempis's book, "The Imitation of Christ." that site has a page about this theory/possibility: http://www.timothyedmoore.com/why-isnt-thomas-akempis-a-saint-of-the-catholic-church/

but there's zero info on the site about the site's author. still, given that this possibility keeps appearing, maybe there should be a small section in this WP article about it? even if it's just to say that it has been repeatedly raised as a possibility/reason for a’Kempis never receiving sainthood, but there is no evidence to back it UP??Colbey84 (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

This article seems to have more pictures than it needs. Either more text should be added, or some pictures should be removed. Any thoughts? --Entoaggie09 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism?

this page seems to have been largely copied from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc06/Page_309.html

Date of death - 25 July or 8 August?

25 July [6] and 8 August [7] seem to be the favourite death dates. Anyone know which is correct, and why? -- JackofOz (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Vera Sapientis

I removed Vera Sapientia Or True Wisdom (reprinted ed., appeared 1904), ISBN 0-9706526-7-4 attributed by Rev. Byrne to Thomas à Kempis. I cannot find any reliable references stating that Vera Sapientia is a work written by Thomas à Kempis. So I removed it. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Not venerated in Church of England

I just checked the list of saints in Church of England, but he's not there, so I removed that from the article section Veneration. Reading his book De Imitatio Christi, he gets so much of Christian ethics backwards and upside down, so my personal prediction is that we don't need to explicitly await a sudden canonization - he won't pass the tests. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

He is found on the calendar of the PECUSA Book of Common prayer. Rwflammang (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

His day is 24 July. Rwflammang (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

added "Hammerkin" and set "small hammer" in brackets

It now reads: Thomas à Kempis, C.R.S.A. (Thomas van Kempen or Thomas Hemerken or Haemerken, litt. "Hammerkin" (small hammer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.249.160 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's consensus that policy compels us to keep the WP:COMMONNAME in this case, even if it is, in some sense, "incorrect". (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Thomas à Kempis → Thomas a Kempis – See the related discussion from 2005 -- the 'a' here is a Latin preposition, not a French one. Demoxica (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thomas à Kempis or Thomas von Kempen seem to be the most common spelling in reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • At what point (if any) does a majority spelling in authoritative reliable sources become the de facto correct spelling even though it can legitimately be disputed? IMO the fact that the subject himself didn't prefer either of these spellings means there's more flexibility. In addition, it appears the topic was already argued to death years ago to a resounding stalemate. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO spellings in German or Dutch are not relevant in this context, unless we're also moving The Hague's page to Den Haag and so on. TooManyFingers (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Where I wrote "authoritative reliable sources" I should instead have written "sources that are generally treated as authoritative and reliable".) TooManyFingers (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • (Where I wrote "authoritative reliable sources" I should instead have written "sources that are generally treated as authoritative and reliable".) TooManyFingers (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussion and WP:COMMONNAME. Not an error. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. A difficult one and the common name is so obviously incorrect that I am tempted to argue IAR to remove the accent. But on balance, this is OR and the redirect will need to do I think. Andrewa (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Too many images

Too many images interfering with readability. Please remove a few. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pub date

The pub date of The Imitation of Christ in this biography differs from the one in the article about the book. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Changed to 1418 in parity with our other articles and current sources. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You realize there was no "pub date" as such? It circulated in manuscript copies for the first 50 years or so. The misleading infobox header should be changed. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to the infobox in the book article? The Catholic Encyclopedia (only an example) says "It was first published anonymously in A.D. 1418." Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. What do you, or the CE, think "publishing" meant in 1418 exactly? Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I understand the history of the work. I think you’re getting unnecessarily hung up on the definition of a word that is used loosely in common parlance. The word is used correctly here, no matter what publishing entailed in 1418. Most words like this do not have strict, narrow definitions, and are used to help the reader understand when a work was introduced as literature to an audience. To publish, as in to prepare and issue for readership. The word is used correctly and appropriately. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You used it first. In my experience, good RS don't use it of medieval works, and we should not. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

What are the alternatives you propose? Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)