Jump to content

Talk:Order of Saint Augustine

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

There's a howling gap in the history

[edit]

It jumps from the 14th century to the late 18th. Needs some infilling. Also the data for professed members is incomplete; a table of membership over time of the various provinces would be a substantial and useful addition. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Father" as a priest title is unacceptable in Wikipedia articles

[edit]

In Wikipedia articles, the names of priests should not be preceded by the title Father. Note this guideline concerning use of Father as a title:

Father

Use the Rev. in first reference before the names of Episcopal, Orthodox and Roman Catholic priests. On second reference use only the cleric’s last name. Use Father before a name only in direct quotations.

(Source: Religious titles | Religion Stylebook -- http://religionstylebook.com/entries/category/religion-and-culture/titles) Mksword (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Wikipedia is not bound by any one style book, not by Chicago style or APA style or by this Religion Style Book. If you know somewhere in Wikipedia where the title "Fr." is explicitly ruled out, please give here the precise location. Thanks! Jzsj (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Fr. is in no way ruled out. Kaklen (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kaklen, per MOS:HON the honorifics are only permitted in limited cases such as the lede sentence and an infobox. They are not used in the article body, in lists, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Order of Saint Augustine. 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) 12:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest claim

[edit]

User Elizium23 has placed the tag warning of a conflict of interest in the article giving my connection with the organization. I believe that this tag is disproportionate, unnecessary and not applicable for several reasons.

  1. According to the guidelines, the user must start a discussion promptly. When the user does not start the debate, the tag could be removed. In this case, instead of removing it, I decided to start the discussion myself.
  2. The tag is meant to be used when there are severe problems regarding bias or neutrality, neither of which Elizium23 has provided.
  3. After revealing my close connection with the organization, Elizium23 has accused me of affecting the neutrality of the article saying that I am a major contributor to it. My edits account for less than 2% of the original article and are mostly minor style editions.
  4. I made a mistake more than 11 years ago (2009) because of inexperience: I performed a cut-and-paste action instead of a move action. This is my only significant contribution to the article. Although I acknowledged this mistake, it does not affect its neutrality.
  5. The tag undermines the hard work of several people who are the actual major contributors to the article, suggesting to the reader that the information is biased. This is unfair, disproportionate and misleading.

Is my opinion that the tag should be removed as soon as posible. --Kaklen (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we must undertake a thorough review of the articles in question and check them for neutrality. Kaklen has had 11 years of undisclosed editing, and that is more than enough time for problems to creep in. I do not doubt that he is here in good faith and I do not question his motives, but the simple fact of being affiliated with these organizations means anyone would have difficulty staying neutral. There is currently an issue raised at WP:COIN. Elizium23 (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You keep accusing me of " 11 years of editing" without even reading it or checking my contributions. I have never added content to the article. My only contribution has been adding an image and changing the infobox for the religious organisation one. You make accusations lightly undermining the work of many people. If you are going to raise an issue at least read the article. Kaklen (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kaklen, I have checked your edits to the article and found them neutral, as you have said. I have removed the COI tag from this article. I will be checking the other articles in turn. Elizium23 (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Augustinians articles

[edit]

Hello everyone, TI am proposing a major reorganisation and reestructure of the Augustinian family articles. Possibly, a merge between the Order of Saint Augustine and Augustinians articles, or another solution that can really reflect what the Augustinians and Augustinian Orders refer to in the tradition of the Church. The full proposal and references are in the Augustinians talk page. Kaklen (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know it's almost a yr later. Sorting out this lot is fine, but merging a 97K article with a 37K does not seem at all helpful. This one is already tagged for being too long. Manannan67 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of the article

[edit]

I want to propose a reorganization of the sections in the article. History sections are too long and cover different topics, with "Missions" being the largest. I think it can be improved. Kaklen (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is an artist's interpretation of the Augustinian logo, and includes elements not found in the typical ones actually used by the Order. It might be instructive to include it somewhere in the article with such an explanation, but I oppose its use in the infobox. Elizium23 (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Saint_Augustine&oldid=1195084628"