Talk:Franciscans/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Franciscans. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

O.S.F.

Why does O.S.F. redirect here? There is no information on O.S.F. in this article.65.37.105.108 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumably because an Anglican-tradition group uses this abbreviation, given in the article in the form OSF. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bread and wine, but how?

The article should explain in detail the relation between priesthood and franciscan friarship. (At least some) franciscans are not priests, meaning they could not trans-substantiate the altar offerings into real Christ, even if the recited the book of mass exactly. On the other hand, some other monks (and friars?) are officially mass-able, so they can be considered priests. 91.82.39.212 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are confused between the difference between someone that is lay vs. someone that is ordained. Just like in the secular world there are people that are lay and some that are ordained, the same thing exists within the Franciscan community. Anyone that has taken vows, whether they be 1st Order, 2nd Order or 3rd Order Religious is considered Religious vs. people who haven't are considered Secular. This doesn't just apply to the Franciscan community it applies to all religious communities. The Franciscan friar is a brother in a community first and foremost. Some of them have also become ordained, but are still brothers. They have been ordained to help the community in some way, usually so they can conduct the Mass and hear confession, either just in the local community or in a parish. They are not seen as above or any better then any other Franciscans. Just a different aspect to their vocation. Similar aspect are involved in most non-priest "centered" religious Orders.Marauder40 (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Article organization

This article contains too much historical detail not comprehensible to the average user. It needs more overall information about the Franciscans. Chelmian (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not real sure what your problem is with the article. Historical detail is most of what concerns people about the Franciscans. What information are you interested in. I pretty much qualify as an expert on Franciscans.Marauder40 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a historian - I'm a linguist studying Bible commentaries, including that of the Franciscan Nicholas_of_Lyra. So I was looking for information such as: how many Franciscan houses were there in Nicholas' time, how dispersed were they geographically, how many Franciscans typically lived in a house, what professions (e.g., teaching) did Franciscans normally take up, etc. Partially I was interested just to understand Nicholas' life better, and partially to understand his time constraints when he became a higher official in the Franciscan order. I had the same problem with the article Franciscan_order_in_modern_times - I should not have said "too much historical detail" if that is in fact useful to other folks, but I was looking for more overview material in addition.Chelmian (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are looking for to specialized of information that may have issues with weight in this article. This article needs to cover over 800 years of information. It sounds like you are looking for just a brief moment in that time, probably related to a specific research project. This article obviously needs to cover the founding and any of the major times in its history. What you are looking for would probably be best covered in Nicholas of Lyra's page itself and highlighted in this article. Feel free to research it, for that page with valid resources. I don't really see any suggestions for what is needed for this article.Marauder40 (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article can't cover the organization of the Franciscans at every moment in time. I would still like to have a better idea of what Fransciscans are all about (as opposed to other religious orders), but I'm not sure that belongs here. I've removed the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelmian (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that what you are looking for about what the Franciscans are all about is more a judgement call then things supported by RS. Even if you only include Catholic Franciscans in the picture, other then following the Rule and life of St. Francis it is hard to nail anything specific down. There are many 3rd Order Franciscan communities each with its own flavor and mission. Even within the 1st Order Franciscans you get a lot of diversity. It is easy to say what differentiates say a Franciscan from a Benedictine, since one tends to be separate from the world as opposed to be in the world, but it isn't always easy to say what the differences are in today's world vs other mendicant Orders and communities, other then just saying following the ideals and tenants of St. Francis. Yes I agree this article needs work, especially in the area of references, but I am not sure we could easily find good RS for what you are looking for that looks at the Order as a whole, not just certain branches of it.Marauder40 (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of stacking of information in this article that could well be distributed to other separate articles. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I have now moved chunks of stacked, displaced text to more specific locations in other articles, and also cleaned up the See also and External loinks sections. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Joseph McCabe criticisms - lack of NPOV

I previously added criticism to this section from Joseph McCabe, drawing from his writings in "History's Greatest Liars". This was dismissed as being a fringe viewpoint. This I disagree with. I'd first note the lack of criticism of St. Francis and Franciscans, demonstrating a lack of NPOV (something commented on by others), and also a conflict of interest in Marauder40 deleting these comments, where he seems to act with a conflict of interest, being a devoted Catholic and member of a Secular Franciscan order, as noted in his bio. I do not see him as someone to act with impartiality in considering criticisms of Franciscans.

I now look at whether Joseph McCabe's views can be considered as "Fringe" Joseph McCabe has an entry in Wikipedia, n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_mccabe , and was himself a Franciscan Monk till the age of 19. He therefore draws on his own background in critiquing the Franciscans, and is a recognised scholar.

Of this particular comment, the origin is not Joseph McCabe alone, he draws from "The Middle Ages" by Professor James Westfall Thompson, where on page 674 he says "With wealth the old familiar evils that had corrupted the older orders corrupted the Franciscans and Dominicans too". He also draws upon the writings of Father Hoetzappel, a historian of the Franciscan order, not to mention his own pertinent background and experiences.

In this light, I consider the comment I introduced earlier as appropriate to Wikipedia, providing a range of views and importantly, criticism from a recognised scholar. In will engage in this talk page, but consider other processes within Wikipedia and seek the involvement of others within Wikipedia if need be. JohnAugust (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

First off you seem to have not read any of the polices regarding WP:AGF and the WP:COI policies that you seem to try to be invoking. Second you should read WP:RS. Just because someone writes a book doesn't mean it is a reliable source. Just a quick look around searching on the internet you will find many people, including atheists that have issues with the writings of McCabe. Just like today people won't allow people that leave Planned Parenthood be reliable sources on the inner workings of Planned Parenthood, that doesn't qualify someone that left the Franciscan Order be a qualified source on the entire Franciscan Order. Also just because someone has an entry on WP doesn't mean he isn't fringe. You can not use WP as a source for itself. If you have sources beside McCabe for criticism, feel free to bring them up. In addition to that, the entire entry that you were trying to add was specifically opinion and the opinion of one BIASED person. Also by policy criticism sections are to be avoided. There are already many criticisms about the Franciscan Order listed in the article. Following policy they are incorporated into the appropriate sections. Marauder40 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the other things you have brought up, which I'll deal with - probably in the new year, my post above noted other sources - Professor James Westfall Thompson and Father Hoetzappel - which McCabe drew from in making his original assertions. I have brought up other references, something you've not acknowledged. Also, please give me a reference to the policy that there be no separate criticism section - I've seen it in several Wikipedia articles, and thought it was a convention.JohnAugust (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your post noted other sources, but apparently they are other sources for his book, not the statements you tried to add. The article is about facts and history about the Franciscan Order, it is not about one person's personal opinion of that order. Especially if that person is biased. As for the policies WP:CRITS, and I quote "Articles dedicated to negative criticism of a topic are discouraged because they tend to be a a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy. Likewise, sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are superior to sections devoted to criticism. Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." Yes some articles have criticism sections because either the people that made them were lazy or because they are left around from before this was created. This article has all the criticism already within the body of article, like it should be. The only time criticism articles/sections are warranted is when the back and forth of the criticism becomes so large it swamps the article (i.e. Criticism of the Catholic Church, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of atheism, etc.)Marauder40 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Marauder40, apart from the other issues which I'll get to, I need some help - I used google and found many pages saying good things about Joseph McCabe, but could not find any criticism - be that from Atheists or Christians. Could you please point me in the direction of these criticisms you note, particularly ones from Atheists ?JohnAugust (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Marauder40, I still do not have any criticisms of McCabe from any Atheist sources - all the Atheist commentary I can find points to his position as a respected authority in those circles, contrary to what you asserted. Could you please clarify your position ?JohnAugust (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dissensions during the life of St. Francis

In the first paragraph in this section is found the following sentence:

"Elias of Cortona originated a movement for the increase of the worldly consideration of the order and the adaptation of its system to the plans of the hierarchy which conflicted with the original notions of the founder and helped to bring about the successive changes in the rule already described."

To me, this sentence is a bit long and somewhat unclear. Perhaps someone who knows the topic could work on it and clarify, and perhaps simplify, it.CorinneSD (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Teachings and Beliefs

This page does a great job at describing the history of the Franciscans, but I don't see anything on the subject of what it means to be a Franciscan. What are their beliefs? The only thing that is said is that they are a relgious group "who adhere to the teachings and spiritual disciplines of Saint Francis of Assisi". However, these teachings and disciplines are not mentioned (or, if I overlooked them, they don't have their own section). 128.221.224.58 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the link I have inserted enough? Esoglou (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Tau cross?

The text says that the cross in the Franciscan symbol is a tau cross, i.e., shaped like the letter "T". The cross in the picture is a Latin cross. Any suggestions on how to resolve this discrepancy? Caeruleancentaur (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably the text is inexact. The Franciscan arms given as part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco also have the cross in Latin form. Perhaps the form of the cross is not essential. Esoglou (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

How many?

Why are no numbers in this article e.g. how many members does the OFM have? How many brothers, how many ordained, trends in membership etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.124.250.5 (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have added something, just the numbers as reported in a publication of early 2013. Esoglou (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Article title is awkward

The article title is very awkward using the adjective "Franciscan." I suggest the title of this article should be changed to Franciscan Order.JustTryintobeJust (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@JustTryintobeJust: Fixed. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! A good start for making the article a little bit more clear, although much work still needs to be done. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Books

In a real bibliographical entry the name of the author comes first, not the title of the work. That way, in references, the book can be cited by author and date alone. It is also more efficient in looking for an item. The whole book list should be redone to reflect Wikipedia expectations. See, for example the citation templates, by clicking the "cite" link at the top of the editorial window. --Vicedomino (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You can use RefTag to make life easier Ogress 02:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ogress and Vicedomino: I'm working on this. Please don't re-alphabetize the list until I'm done. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jujutsuan: I won't, thank you for doing it. Unrelatedly, RefTag is the best thing ever. Ogress 03:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ogress and Vicedomino: All done. And yes, Reftag did make that a ton easier. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing the work, and double thanks for doing it so promptly. I have a thing or two more to add. --Vicedomino (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

==Images: coats of arms==

The article now boasts three renderings of the modern coat of arms of the Franciscans. Isn't that at least one two many?? --Vicedomino (talk) 11:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Bad placement of section "Dissensions during Francis' life"

This section seems out of place within "Development after Francis' death", doesn't it? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Organisations not formally part of O.F.M.

@Jujutsuan:and others: The article extensively includes text about organisations not formally part of O.F.M. A bracket about need of clean-up could well be at hand, if not on the top of the very article, then at least for the section of the external links as well as the legacy section. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This is due to recent move of moving the page Franciscan to here. Originally this page was meant to cover the ENTIRE Franciscan order, not just OFM. Franciscan also still redirects here. Since OFM was first much of the early history of the Order is tied up within them, but the Poor Clares and the Brothers and Sisters of Penance (now called the Secular Franciscan Order) were formed around the same exact time. Personally I think this should be moved back to an article called either "Franciscan" or "Franciscan Order". A sub-article could be created just for the OFM that contains their distinct history separate from the other Orders but where it is common, links back to the main article. Marauder40 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marauder40: I would be fine with "Franciscan religious orders" with a new "Order of Friars Minor" page created to deal with that one specifically. (btw I moved this page here. Was that a bad/uninformed decision? I was under the impression that thw whole Franciscan order was part of OFM. You would certainly know better than I would, Marauder.) Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 13:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

No, the whole Franciscan Order is not part of OFM. When originally found there were three distinct Orders. The OFM (which was created first), the Poor Clares (for religious sisters) and the Brothers and Sisters of Penance (for lay people that wanted to follow the Franciscan ideal). All three were founded during St. Francis' time. Since then there have been many splits and things like that. I think it would be best to move this back to either where it was of just "Franciscan Order", "Franciscan religious orders" would be bad because the term "religious" is a loaded term within Orders. There is more to the Franciscan Order then just the "religious orders" since the Secular Franciscan Order (current name of Brothers and Sisters of Penance) is not a Religious Order (big R) it is a secular order.Marauder40 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Marauder40: Okay then. I guess the only question remaining is "Franciscan Order" vs. "Franciscan Orders". Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think "Franciscan Order" would be better, otherwise it would lead people to try to merge groups in from things like the Third Order of Saint Francis, thinking their particular group deserves to be in the main article. "Franciscan Order" should just be about the Order as a whole from the high level.Marauder40 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have permissions to make the move? I just tried and because there's a redirect, i can't. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not have that permission.Marauder40 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Do you have permissions to make this move, or know anyone who does? Consensus has been reached. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 15:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not have the user permissions to perform this move. However, given that a consensus has been built here, you might request a technical move. However, it may be best to use a move request to allow editors a week to stumble across the discussion and add their two cents. The basic format is:

{{subst:Requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change}}

I am not familiar with the history of individual branches of the Franciscans, so I think it would be best to allow other editors a chance to weigh in. A requested move with put on notice on the appropriate notice board to attract interested editors who may not be watching this talkpage. --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

This page was definitely moved without proper discussion and it should be corrected. You should be able to ask a moderator to revert the move back to "Franciscan'" for the moment and then open a discussion about where it should go according to the process outlined in Wikipedia:Moving a page. Ogress 21:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The move was WP:Bold - and legitimate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Concur. Per WP:BOLD, revert, discuss. It was a legitimate move that can be disagreed upon and further discussed. [See below] --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning up moving forward

Which organizations are formal parts of the Orders of Friars Minor? Which are not? Which have historical ties, but branched? I think the easiest solution would to leave the current content here, and restore a previous version at "Franciscans" or "Franciscan orders" (possibly with "History of" appended), and make clear which "branches" are independent/dependent. --Zfish118^⋉talk 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

My understanding (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, esp. Marauder40) is that only OFM is part of OFM, whereas the other First Orders are closely related but separate, and the Second and Third Orders (also separate) were created by Francis and Clare to allow women religious (2nd) and laity (3rd, esp. OFS) to follow the Franciscan Rule.

Separate note: Why have so many subsections been made main sections? That's just cluttering the article and obscuring the connections between upper and lower sections. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 01:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

There appear to be a lot of small main sections in this version that could easily be made subsections and hidden with template:TOC, or outright consolidated. It likely grew haphazardly from multiple authors adding content over time. --Zfish118^⋉talk

The explanation given by Jujutsuani is a very simplified explanation of the divisions within Franciscanism within the Catholic Church. In reality it is a lot more complex. Beside OFM, OFM Conv, and OFM Cap there are other 1st order groups, Mainly people that were part of the big three but split off either due to mission or due to a disagreement. Also there are MANY other official groups that are called something related to St. Francis that are technically either a TOR group or a OFS group. Usually these groups also involve a split due to mission or are startup groups that take on the TOR rule or OFS rule but customize it for their mssion (with permission of Bishops and the higher ups in the Franciscan order.). It isn't always easy to figure out the providence of a group without asking someone that know the explicit history of the group.Marauder40 (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be an argument with basically three people involved. The contemplated move does not solve any of the problems you face. I am opposed to the move. And, BTW, two or three weeks is not an adequate time for comment, considering the importance of what is proposed. It seems to me that what you need is a categorized index of various groups which fall within the compass of the article. --Vicedomino (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 04 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Franciscan → Franciscans – Per talk page discussion; completely non-controversial. – Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@/Jujutsuan:This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And moving to Franciscan Order has also been mentioned. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a housekeeping move to correct a typo/misread. Moving to Franciscan order or Franciscan movement should be proposed separately; see Merge Proposal below. --Zfish118^⋉talk 19:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Merge proposal

Didn't we just find solutions to this article? We just made some quite hard-work effort with Order of Friars Minor, migrating displaced information to Franciscan orders in Protestantism. Then somebody basically recreates its old version into this article. I don't understand. The contents of this article, as was the case with the older version of the Order of Friars Minor, ought to merged with Franciscan orders in Protestantism (which may well be changed to "Franciscan movement in Protestantism" or something similar). Republishing this chunk of text that is currently presented in this article, mixing things up like its raining cats and dogs, is not encyclopedical. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose the merge as presented: This is simply a case where the Franciscan movement is larger than any one order or denomination, and the histories overlap considerably (similar to History of Christianity versus History of the Catholic Church). This page should be trimmed using WP:summary style to link to the proper articles with more detail. Separately, the new Order of Friars Minor is indeed considerably improved and cleaned up. I would support a proposal to the make that page "Franciscans" or "Franciscans (OFM)" ~~"Franciscans (OSM)"~~ as the OSM is likely the WP:Primary topic, and rename this page Franciscan movement as an overview page. This should go through a rename proposal, ideally with both discussed simultaneously, such as:

{{subst:requested move | new1 = Franciscan movement | current2 = Order of Friars Minor | new2 = Franciscans (OSM) | reason = (Detailed proposal goes here) }}

Such a proposal would allow editors with familiarity a chance to weigh in. --Zfish118^⋉talk 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am a Franciscan and I don't know why you are using OSM as an abbreviation for Franciscan. Of course there are many different Franciscan groups, which group are you referencing with OSM?Marauder40 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, either; this article makes me dizzy! The OSM ~~OSM~~ article is about whichever branch has Michael A. Perry as minister general. Is there a better name for this particular branch/article? --Zfish118^⋉talk 02:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, he is the minister general of OFM not OSM.Marauder40 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment:Ugg, that was a typo, haha, that I made above, and did not even notice when I replied... --Zfish118^⋉talk 18:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is it that this article covers that Order of Friars Minor and Franciscan orders in Protestantism didn't perfectly cover before this article was created? I have a hard time not seeing the existance of this article bordering WP:Original research. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Order of Friars Minor is one organization. Michael Perry is the head of this organization. He is not the head of the Poor Clares or the second and third orders. @Marauder40: is this a correct interpretation? --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is the Minister General of just the OFM. The OFM Conv and OFM Cap each have there own minister generals. OFS also has a minister general. There is a committee where each of the main groups had a voting member. All of the groups are considered equal, but different, if that makes sense. The mission of OFS is different from OFM.Marauder40 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

So, essentially, the contents of this article should be split into mainly Franciscan orders in Protestantism, and perhaps a little into Franciscans International. Other than that, it should be perceived as on article on a view or an opinion on the subject from some particular person or organisation, or else it would be considered WP:Original research. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: Not sure if I understand you entirely. I would say this article should primarily summarize the other articles that exist on Franciscan spirituality, organizations/orders, and related subjects. Very much like how Catholic Church is largely a summary of other Catholicism articles, with "Main article" hatnotes in most of its sections. So yes, there should be coverage of the various Catholic and Protestant orders, Fr. Internat'l, the Rule of Saint Francis, etc. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Fransiscan" typically refers to a member of organisations that attempt to follow the Rule of Saint Francis. It might also designate that of organisations that in a more vague way attempt to follow what they perceive as Franciscan spiritualy. The latter may qualify as a Wikipedia article, but I have a hard time understanding what else you're actually referring to. What are the sources? Other than such Protestant organisations trying to find their place in the context? Chicbyaccident (talk)

We should treat this article as the broadest article dealing with "Franciscanism"—organizations, orders, movements, the most notable people, and miscellany, whether Catholic, Protestant, or other. What I mean is that this article should summarize all such articles as Order of Friars Minor, Order of Friars Minor Capuchin, Order of Friars Minor Conventual, Poor Clares, Third Order of Saint Francis, Secular Franciscan Order, Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism, Rule of Saint Francis, etc. This is the parent article; the others I just listed are child articles of this one. They have depth but little breadth; this one has breadth but little depth. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation

It would seem to me that the Franciscans led by Michael Perry should have an article dedicated to that particular organization. This article currently has a detailed and complete sidebar to the particular branch and leadership. The Organization section, however, describes each of the First, Second, and Third orders as having separate leadership and organizational structures. Michael Perry is not the head of the Capuchin, Saint Clares, etc. This should be better distinguished at a minimum. My vision, however cloudy, is for the current Order of Friars Minor page to be a subpage of the current Franciscan page, similar to Order of Friars Minor Capuchin or Order of Friars Minor Conventual. --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I have created a Franciscans (disambiguation) article. The text granted in the current version of this article, Franciscan can thus be devided in its proper specific articles, while the article itself may be merge with Franciscans (disambiguation) as an overview list of the term Franciscan. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything improper about an overview article covering all branches of Franciscans, separate from the disambiguation page. --Zfish118^⋉talk 23:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither do I. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

TOR

This is probably another project for another time, but shouldn't the Third Order Regular get its own article like the Secular Franciscan Order has, rather than being lumped into the Third Order of Saint Francis article? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 23:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but please initaite that discussion on the talk page of the relative article. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Before it got blanked and made into a redirect, this was the article on Franciscans generically, so it was the relevant page. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Concern about sourcing/references

There is a long bibliography on this article, but very few inline references for its length. I imagine the bulk of the text was written based on the bibliography sources, but how is information to be sourced without inline references? IOW, how do we or anyone else know that the article is actually inline with the listed sources if they're simply listed at the end with nothing inline? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 00:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this article used Answers.com as a source of information under the section Visions and stigmata. I don't believe that site would be a very credible source for referencing. I suggest finding a source that is credible which provides the same information. Pteich (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Franciscans → Franciscan spirituality – Since the CfD on the category of the same name seems to be going nowhere fast, how about making this article's ambiguous title more clearly express that it's an overview? The Category:Franciscan spirituality is the overview of all things Franciscan, so no real reason not to make this overview article match. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Notifying editors involved in the main RfC at Talk:Order of Friars Minor: @Chicbyaccident, Marauder40, and Zfish118:. —Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Marauder40 again... Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. Was also my idea. Would solve pretty much the whole present issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose(1) It does not seem to me that "Franciscan Spirituality" is an appropriate title for 'all things Franciscan'. 'Franciscans' is! 'Franciscan spirituality' should mean the spiritual life and practices of Franciscan friars'. It should not be about various Franciscan groups, or about their administrative organization, or about their churches, convents, schools, colleges and other material property (all forbidden by the Franciscan Rule). (2) That a page is 'going nowhere fast' is not an excuse to start a new page. If you can't work things out on the current page, what makes you think you will be able to do so on a page with a new title? (3) What person will come to Wilipedia with the thought in mind, "Golly, I just have to find out about 'Franciscan spirituality'"? Won't the average, even above average user, want to know about 'Franciscans'? The use of redirects to solve your conceptual problems is not a good solution. So, I am completely AGAINST the proposal. As William of Occam, O. Min., said (allegedly), Essentia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitudinem. --Vicedomino (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

(1) If you practice Franciscan spirituality, you're part of a Franciscan order, organization, or other movement. So yes it does encompass the organizations. And this article needs expansion anyway, and the spiritual life and practices belong here. (2) Sure it is. It's obviously failing. I think I can work it out better here because it's not the same question at hand. (3) If they search "Franciscans", it would redirect here. Wouldn't the average user want to know about "Benedictines" rather than "Order of Saint Benedict"? Or "Dominicans" rather than "Dominican Order"? Or "Conventuals" rather than "Order of Friars Minor Conventual"? Your argument doesn't work. That's exactly why we have redirects. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 13:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I would weakly support "Franciscan movement", but not so much "spirituality". --Zfish118^⋉talk 06:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment the current layout seems very confusing. "Current status" references the 1700's, for instance. --Zfish118^⋉talk 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this article is in need of some serious work, most likely a partial merger from Order of Friars Minor. But let's stay on topic: the name. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply/weakly oppose, I believe the purpose of the page should be clarified before the page is moved to avoid duplicate efforts such as the original split. Right now, the content does not reflect "Franciscan spirituality", it is more of a list of organizations, with little organization itself. Fransican spirituality should focus more on the unique liturgical practices shared among Franciscans, as well as perhaps details of the Rule of Saint Francis, which I believe is covered mostly the Saint Francis of Assisi article. --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I personally oppose for most of the reasons listed by Vicedomino. In addition to that I would see "Franciscan spirituality" as a sub article that talks about what Franciscan as a whole believe, not about the organization(s), history, etc. I personally think any of the following is better, "Franciscan", "Franciscans" or "Franciscan Order".Marauder40 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

How would you feel about "Franciscan movement"? IMO "Franciscan Order" implies it's about one order, even though this is supposed to be the parent article, and the others have all the problems mentioned in the nomination. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Original research?

@Zfish118: @Marauder40: @Jujutsuan: @JoeHebda: @OnionRing: @Rms125a@hotmail.com: There is now Wikipedia pages on first the original Catholic orders (including Rule of Saint Francis#Legacy), then Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism, and lastly Franciscans (disambiguation) (with now updated overview on all previously mentioned). Of course, more articles on actual individual organisations could be added, including various international cooperations and so on. However, provided these mentioned existing articles and what they now together concretely cover - what would be the difference of keeping this article "Franciscans" and a superfluous page built on WP:Original research, please, instead of redirecting it to either Order of Friars Minor according to general Wikipedia rules, or at least to Franciscans (disambiguation)? Its current contents have anyhow been migrated in an updated form to Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Order of Friars Minor which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicussion at Order of Friars Minor

Hello, I started a thread on the scope of this article and that of Order of Friars Minor at Talk:Order of Friars Minor#The "original" first order (I believe the Conventuals are the oldest surviving and, arguably, the "more original" of the three current Franciscan first orders). I will appreciate any comment. --Checco (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

After reading through the article on the Franciscans, I found some problems within this source of information. Overall, the article seemed to provide accurate information regarding the history of the Franciscan Order. However, something I noticed is that the structure of this article was rather clumsy and disorganized. This was a complaint within the article's talk page as well. The article started to focus on particular parts of the Franciscan Order, and drifted away from the general topic. Another problem was that some sections were missing citations and better sources of information. The references came mostly from religious sources and that appeared to me as a bias toward one position. Other sources seemed to lack credibility as well. Some sections of this article could have been broken down into articles of their own. This article still needs much more work and improvement. Pteich (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Questions on Female involvement

New to this Wikipedia life, however, was curious as to why there isn't more content on the involvement with women other than the Poor Clares. Also I found that this was very all over the place and hard to stay focused moving throughout the article. Alexandra678 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Alexandra678

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Franciscans. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Franciscans. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Honorius III approving the Rule of St. Francis, Bartolome del Castro, c. 1500 (Philadelphia Museum of Art).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The image was not deleted. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)