Jump to content

Talk:Order of St. Gregory the Great

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

Not the highest

[edit]

I removed the text that stated the Order of St. Gregory is the highest honor in the Catholic Church that a lay man or woman can obtain. First, the Order of St. Pius V, which is still awarded, is senior (higher) than St. Gregory. Secondly, The Order of Christ and the Order of the Golden Spur are senior to both of these orders, and while neither has been awarded in decades, have not been abrogated. Thus the Order of St. Gregory is the fourth highest of the five orders of knighthood of the Holy See. Additionally, there are other honors given to lay people by the Pope, which could conceivably be considered higher--the honor of Gentleman of His Holiness is not officially designated as being senior or junior to St. Gregory, but is certainly highly regarded and rarely awarded.

Sources: http://www.papalhonorees.org/intro.htm, http://www.chivalricorders.org, Burke's World Order of Knighthood and Merit (Sainty and Heydoo-Mankal, eds.), Orders of Knighthood and the Holy See (Bander van Duren)

167.80.244.204 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)chevalier[reply]

Hold list of notables down?

[edit]

I don't see how we can hold down this list of notables. If there is an article, do they go here, even though most of us have never heard of him/her? Student7 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Wikipedia was "up to date"....

[edit]

The degree of a "Knight Grand Cross of the Second Class" was abolished on the 7th. of February 1905. I thought that Wikipedia was "up to date"....

Robert Prummel (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a source on internet is [1]

Umm. Are we sure that "suppression" (what the article says) is identical to "abolished?" See Another site. Student7 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This "antiquarian" is a bona fide source but it is definitely not the best available source. The site mentions bits of information gathered from all over the world but it gives no sources. Mr. Guy Stair Sainty, a knight of several catholic orders and the author of [2] is a very precise and knowledgable gentleman, and so is Hieronymussen who gives the rank of Commander with Star in his book.

The antiquarian , by the way, mentions two commanders' grades, not two grandcrosses as in the period 1831-1905. What source shall we use? The German and Dutch Wiki claim that the 2nd grandcross was abolished in 1905. But then I have contributed to both. Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notables

[edit]

Odd that the article never contained the name of Conrad Black until he was convicted. Up until then he was not notable enough for inclusion. What changed? Do Boy Scouts of American, PTA, his local credit union, lodge, all take equal hits? My thought is to take the good with the bad. If he wasn't interesting enough to be in here before, he shouldn't be here now. Same with scouts, PTA, etc. If he was in their articles, however, then they have to take the bad with the good. But they don't all get added retroactively. Student7 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Levine and the use of "Sir

[edit]

There's a discussion at Talk:Gilbert Levine about the fact that he's become known as "Sir Gilbert Levine". Some of us are trying to make the point that papal knighthoods do not carry any such pro-nominal title; while others are arguing that Benedict XVI has spoken and his word is law. If anyone can help settle the issue, please come over and join us. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notables, again

[edit]

Student7, I notice that you have deleted quite a few attempts to add new names to the list based on the fact that you haven't heard of the person. What criteria are you using to determine who to keep? Why did you decide that, for example, an American conductor or philanthropist is more notable than a Canadian senator? Is it strictly nationality? Is it literally that you personally haven't heard of him? Maybe there should be some set guidelines that more than one person can be in on. I'd be happy to work on that with you. Cheers Dawn Bard (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, the Vatican has distributed these to thousands of people over the years. By distributing them to well-known people, they hoped to enhance the reputation of the order. So when they distributed them to the ordinary folks, they would "mean" something. We could fork people who were ordinary but somehow have an article. In other words keep a few in the main article. This still would mean using some judgement that a movie star is better known than the guy next door. This is pretty much the way most cities have gone. They all tried to hold the line at well=known people then finally gave up and forked a list of "everybody." I suppose we could do the same. The only time anybody ever looks at the page is when trying to insert their grandfather, so the potential editors just don't stay around. I came to insert my wife's grandfather and realized he didn't really belong here. And stayed to try to maintain some balance. Otherwise the article would be an unreadable thousand names with a little explanatin at the top. Student7 (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Waxman is so prominent, why does editor have to tell us that he is. Article is brand new. It has taken someone this long from Wikipedia's inception to create an article on him. If he were really prominent, people would have fought over the opportunity. I think he should be deleted. Student7 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motto?

[edit]

It would be nice if the article says what "Pro Deo et Principe" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.66.68.102 (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get "for God and rule." The first part translates okay. The second, "for rule" sounds funny. Needs more liberal translation for modern ears, I fear. Literalists may not like a liberal translation. Student7 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English version

[edit]

I have removed the American English tag and reverted the main article. Tagging is overkill when the article subject is not closely associated with a particular version of English. The justification that the original article creator is American is not justification under WP:RETAIN for assigning the language variation of the article. Excepting URLs, prior to the tagging of the article, there were three instances of "honour" and one of "honor", after the original tagging of the article, there were two instances of "honour" and two of "honor". The predominant usage on other Papal orders is "honour" which, combined with the earlier trend on this article, I think is enough to have established prior editorial consensus in favour of "honour" per WP:RETAIN. AusTerrapin (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I have credentials, having tagged a number of articles with other English tags when an American speaker tried to change existing words. I researched the article's antecedents and tagged it accordingly. The first instance of "honour" or other differences in spelling, should not be the basis of labeling. The fact that the original American author did not use those words is being held against future development. The whole idea of tagging is to avoid disputes, for crying out loud, not to extend them! If the author can't be used, then there is no reasonable way of establishing a basis. Waiting for the first instance of anti-clockwise or lift is not sensible IMO. Otherwise, we'd all be jumping in, like the coordinates or Wikinews people, trying to "trap" every new article into being one way or another. That would be chaotic. Student7 (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, you need to tag is for somebody. Is it "British English" or "Australian English" or "Indian English" or what? (You'd be guessing if you picked. I wasn't guessing). Student7 (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because of the comment on the MOS talk page. I don't agree with taking presidence from other articles. But under WP:RETAIN "two out of three ain't bad" I vote go with honour. If it had been the other way then I would have voted for honor and if a tie then the first usage in the article. As for the template, I think that should be reserved for articles that have strong national ties to a topic. This one does not. -- PBS (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it given the initial liberal spelling of hono[u]r, if it were to be tagged then "Canadian English" would probably have been appropriate ;-) -- PBS (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is, when someone tries to alter an existing change, we must research back through; find, not the original editor, but the "first use" of some difference in spelling; determine what country that dialect is representing; and use that?
I tagged the article in good faith. See my recent changes to Ur. This sort of protracted research is, IMO, silly. Why go to such great lengths over what may be a recent visitor "tagging" an article with a dialect? It should be simple. This isn't IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the word should have emerged soon on this page, take another hypothetical article where the word "honor" emerged; was later replaced with different language; then replaced, maybe in a different subsection relatively recently with "honour"? What then? "First "permanent" use of dialect" or "first use of dialect"? Student7 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so excellent.

[edit]

Article prsently says: "Knights Grand Cross of the Order are entitled to be addressed with the style His/Her Excellency in front of their name." and cites: [3] "Satow, Ernest Mason, Sir - A Guide to Diplomatic Practice". I don't think I buy this, for various reasons: in what purports to be the full text online, [4], there's no mention of the order at all, much less of this privilege; I find no mention of it anywher else; no claim is made for any such privilege for any of the "higher" papal orders; it's not consistent with the practice with knightly orders of other countries; it doesn't seem to make sense with regard to other Vatican practice, as it uses "Excellency" for nuncios and bishops.

I propose to remove this entirely, unless someone argues what a horrible mistake that would be. 84.203.74.123 (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! Thanks for researching it! If it turns out otherwise, the editor will have to furnish a reliable citation. Student7 (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are people stripped of the award? Re: Jimmy Savile.

[edit]

The wiki article on alleged paedophile Jimmy Savile, states that moves are afoot to strip him of the award posthumously. Does anyone know how this is carried out? And was there any significance (templar?) in his burial position (at a 45 degree angle)? 80.42.235.106 (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)twl80.42.235.106 (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He will not be stripped until a police investigation is concluded in a year or two. It has hardly started yet. Accusations, so far. It will take the Vatican a year or two after that, to take any action if the police investigation is negative. All of the people with awards have done something wrong about which they would be embarrassed, so the Vatican may do nothing in the long run. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 October 2015

[edit]
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 Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Order of St. Gregory the Great → Order of Saint Gregory the Great – Redundant abbrevation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - according to WP:MOSABBR we should base it off of common usage, not simply grammatical correctness. Reviewing the source documents it appears to be 50/50 split between the abbreviated version and un-abbreviated. As such, I suggest it remains the way it currently is. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Fusioned request

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved (as to each). This is a single close of multiple related contemporaneous moves requests by one nominator – in no particular order, of:

The nomination text is near identical as to each ("To recover/relief/remove from/the abbrevation") and opaque to the extent that we can only infer that abbreviations in article titles are considered poor or improper for unspecified reasons and without a policy- or guideline-based rationale. Each has been opposed on the basis that there is no overarching prohibition or preference in our naming conventions against the use of abbreviations and that the common names policy does not support the move—that the use of St/St. as to each title is more common in a preponderance of reliable English language sources, than is Saint spelled out. Since that was only supported by assertion and by reference to a web search (as opposed to a search that tends to concentrate reliable sources, such as of books), I have done a spot check and it is borne out by quite a significant margin, e.g., this versus this. The chief ground for supports was to avoid contests/edit wars over whether or not to affix a period to the abbreviation, i.e, St versus St. We generally do not choose titles based on the possibility of edit wars but rather based on what title is proper, on the merits, under our naming conventions. If any user wishes to take on a requested move on that issue, that can be done separately – though they should probably read all subsections of Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English first. Finally, I note that though one contributor was found to be a sockpuppet and his or her !vote was struck where it appeared, the sockpuppet charge as to the nominator was returned unsubstantiated, and does not figure in this close.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of St. Gregory the Great → Order of Saint Gregory the Great – To relief abbrevation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC) Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The result of this discussion may be impacted by the sockpuppet investigation of the proposer, and should await its outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

--Relisting. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I don't know how above discussion came to be about miscrediting my user account. In any case. the investigation turned out to prove the accusers wrong. Therefore I am relisting the request to give it a fair try.

Reasons as per authoritative sources in support of the name Order of Saint Gregory the Great:

Some of the above listed sources, as well as numerous others proposed in the previous discussion, does use the abbreviated form, however clearly referring to its full name by - it's full name. Which should also be the case on Wikipedia, at least in the article's name and leading section. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Order of St. Gregory the Great. 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) 15:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Kaybeesquared (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Cicely Saunders was made Dame of the Order of St Gregory the Great (awarded by His Holiness the Pope) according to the Cecily Saunders Institute. I cannot find her name on the list of UK deceased members (she died in 2005). When did she get her award?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_St._Gregory_the_Great&oldid=1204451022"