Talk:Cistercians

Coat of Arms

The coat of arms depicted appear to be those of France with an escutcheon of Burgundy; i.e., more appropriate as the arms of the Abbey of Citeaux rather than of the entire Cistercian order.

I disagree: it is the coat of arms for all of the Cistercian order, but all the individual abbeys, priories, &tc have their own coat of arms in addition to this. Please visit the OCSO official website for confirmation. +Br Geoff van der Weegen O.Cist (brabo@talktalk.net)

Reformation section

The text only discusses the experience of the order in England, whereas dissolution would have occurred wherever Protestantism came to be state religions. So there's a need for a country by country analysis of the record. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Cleaning up an article overflowing with tangents

@Drew Stanley : Could you make some detailed explanations about why you reverted my changes to the page? I have been working on the page for a few days now, trying to trim the numerous tangents, lots of WP:UNDUE, and a fair share of redundancies. I have taken out some sourced material, but only in cases where it was superfluous. I would welcome your input. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hpw can a photo be redundant and how could a source be superfluous

the article is so lacking in sources as it is probably better to start with removing the tangents without sources. maybe you can remove one tangent at a time instead of all at once so that you can explain what is wrong with them. Otherwise it looks like vandalism Drew Stanley (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, may I ask you to refer to specific examples? There are many superfluous photos deleted from Wiki articles every day, and there are also sometimes sourced assertions which should be deleted. Vandalism is destructive; my edits are an attempt to improve the article. Let's focus the discussion with concrete examples. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes my example is the photos that you deleted. They are relevant to Cistercians but you deleted them. i put them back. how did you improve the article? Drew Stanley (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There are many photos relevant to the Cistercian Order, but we can't put them all in the article. Which picture's removal did you find problematic? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

and you work for the Catholic Church Drew Stanley (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"Working for the Catholic Church" does not disqualify me from improving articles about Catholic institutions. See WP:NPOV. Do you have substantial objections that we should discuss? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

do one thing at a time. You have vandalized in your attempts to improve the article - that is substantial.

See WP:COI. You should actually be posting here in the discussion about your edits Drew Stanley (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to a specific question, otherwise your recent edits will not stand. Wikipedia editors need to establish consensus; if you have any logical arguments to make, we would welcome them. So far, you have argued that deleting an image from an overloaded article amounts to "vandalism". Please support your arguments. I just opened a request for a third opinion. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently adding redundancies is "not vandalism," and this Catholic Church employee went on this page because i work on it. good thing you opened a request.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Lady_Seat_of_Wisdom_College_(Cameroon)&diff=prev&oldid=1252693064 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Our_Lady_Seat_of_Wisdom_College_(Cameroon)&diff=next&oldid=1252693064 Drew Stanley (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe @I dream of horses wants to help resolve this dispute. It's getting a little bizarre. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006, so, am I correct in telling Drew Stanley that The way that the Catholic church works is that he is not employed by the entire order of the Cistercian, but by one Cistercian order in particular to be a historian, which actually makes him a subject matter expert. when talking about you? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a good general explanation, correct for all general purposes, but let me be more precise, while respecting WP:ANON. The Roman Catholic Church includes countless religious orders, and the Cistercian Order is one of them, so is the Benedictine Order, the Dominican Order, etc. The Cistercian Order consists of monks who belong to an abbey or a priory. There is only one Cistercian Order, there are very many abbeys and priories (but no sub-orders, as it were). I am in the employment of the Roman Catholic Church. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 and Drew Stanley: There's a policy on Wikipedia we have called "Ignore all rules." It isn't meant to be treated literally. It's meant to remind us to follow the spirit of policies and guidelines, not the letter.

The letter of the paid editing guidelines say you're a paid editor, but I don't think the spirit of that policy is, especially in the context of you being so open about it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the good advice and the appraisal of the situation. To be precise, I certainly do not get paid to make edits. I work for the church, but my wikiwork is private. It would be comparable to someone working for a public hospital and writing about medical subjects in his free time. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There may also have been a further misunderstanding above: I am not employed by the Cistercian Order, either. I have no financial interest in my work on this article (Cistercians) or on any other article, for that matter. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 Thank you for clarifying. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for explaining 16:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Melchior2006 I think it would be good to have a sentence about the abbott general or maybe remove the picture if not Drew Stanley (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm all for it. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Married Cistercians

There is reference to married Cistercians on the Anglican Cistercians page. It seems to have been removed from this page because of a bad source. Need to find a proper source and add it back. See below ---

The Order of Cistercians (OC) is an uncloistered and dispersed religious order of ordained and lay men, single, celibate and married, who endeavour to live according to the Rule of Saint Benedict as expressed in the Trappist tradition. It is currently the main representative of the Cistercian tradition within Anglicanism, and in 2013 it received formal acknowledgement from the Anglican Communion's Advisory Council on the Relations of Bishops and Religious Communities. An entry in the online Anglican Religious Life Yearbook can be found in the section (Section 3) of all the recognised and acknowledged religious communities. --- Drew Stanley (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Drew Stanley (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

More demonstration of notability https://ocso.org/who-we-are/our-lay-associates/ https://laycistercians.com/what-is-a-lay-cistercian/ https://cistercianfamily.org/ https://www.anamchara.com/on-being-a-lay-cistercian/

Drew Stanley (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The blogpost from ten years ago is not a very good source. The one from the ocso homepage would pass scrutiny. The topic is to be handled with a certain reserve. Anyone who has read the Rule of St. Benedict or Cistercian sermons would understandably smirk at the notion of married Cistercians, but it is reasonable to call them oblates or lay associates (as, indeed, the ocso homepage does). -- Melchior2006 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be best to spend less time laughing at the people with whom we disagree Drew Stanley (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)