Talk:Religious institute

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved to Religious institute (Catholic). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Religious institute → Catholic religious institute — "religious institute" is a generic term used for any religious institution, and should redirect to Religion-supporting organization like Religious institution does. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• More or less agree with the renaming proposal, but I think Religious institute (Catholic) would be better, in line, for instance, with Congregation (Catholic). Oppose, on the other hand the proposal for the redirect of Religious institute. A religious institute in the Catholic canon law sense, rather than "supporting" religion, is, in one sense of the word "religion" (admittedly now uncommon), a "religion". There should be a Religious institute (disambiguation) page. Religious institute could redirect to Religious institute (Catholic), as with other terms that mostly refer to one of the possible meanings of the term. Wikipedia seldom uses "religious institute" in other senses. Esoglou (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I can live with "Religious institute (Catholic)". 76.65.128.198 (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Query Thanks for accepting "Religious institute (Catholic)". Now, don't you think that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC suggests that the redirect from Religious institute should be to Religious institute (Catholic)? In spite of what I wrote earlier, I think there is no need for a disambiguation page: the hatnote that you added to this article is enough. Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Reply no, I think it should redirect to Religion-supporting organization, with a hatnote to the Catholic usage. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Comment Sorry, I still oppose that second proposal, while agreeing with the first. Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with "Religious order"?

I wonder if this article should be merged with the Christian section of Religious order as much of the same material is covered. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Within the Catholic Church - and this article is specifically about the Catholic Church - religious orders (Catholic religious orders) are only one subcategory within the wider category of Catholic religious institutes. This wider category also includes the subcategory congregations.

The article religious order is much wider: it concerns such entities in other religions also and does not make the Catholic distinction between orders and congregations. Esoglou (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The religious order article overlaps with this one quite a bit, so something should be done. That article splits into sections on Christianity and Buddhism, and detailed information on both don't need to be in the same article. Also, I understand that the distinction between order and congregation isn't recognized any more. This leaves the question of what to call a merged article. If it's under Religious institute, that is R.C.-specific but will cover entities which were historically not considered as orders. If it's under Religious order, that wouldn't be as clear but it could also cover orders in other denominations (Anglican etc.). Maybe a start would be to slim down the R.C. section on religious order. There are quite a few related articles as well and I think that some of them could be merged, for example Catholic religious order. Count Truthstein (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

By all means do slim down the Catholic section of Religious order, but make clear that in the Catholic Church what is meant by "religious order" is quite different from what is meant in that article. What is meant by "religious order" in the Catholic Church is a subsection of a subsection of a subsection of what that article means by "religious order". The reader must not be misled into imagining that the meaning is the same. That would be serious confusion.

In the Catholic Church, religious orders are a subsection of religious institutes, which in turn are a subsection of institutes of consecrated life, which indeed are in turn just one form of consecrated life. "Religious order" in the sense of the general non-Catholic article would also include many associations, such as missionary societies, that do not fit even into the highest of the categories that I have just mentioned. Wikipedia isn't meant to give inaccurate information.

The need for distinct articles on these distinct topics is to some extent similar to the need for distinct articles on baptism, circumcision ... instead of putting them all together in a single article on religious initiation, or the need not to lump all the different religions in the world together as a single article. Esoglou (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)