Wikipedia

Talk:Order of Friars Minor/Archive 1

< Talk:Order of Friars Minor
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mannanan51 in topic Citation for saints section
Archive 1

Redirects

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A lot of stuff redirects here that shouldn't, from when "Order of Friars Minor" was mistakenly made the page on Franciscans (mea culpa, I own it). I'll get started, but some help putting them where they belong would be helpful. Thanks. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 05:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I got them all. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

What's going on here???

Latest comment: 8 years ago28 comments3 people in discussion

@Zfish118, Chicbyaccident, and Marauder40: and anyone else: I thought we had agreed to have Franciscans on Franciscans in general and devote Order of Friars Minor to the original order. Why was Franciscans blanked and made into a redirect without discussion? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 16:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean? Please see Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism and Talk:Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is the last discussion of this that I recall was here, and it settled on keeping the OFM article strictly on the OFM (which would not include the Capuchins, the Poor Clares, the Third Orders, etc.). The Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism (recently renamed from Franciscan orders in Protestantism) is not an appropriate substitute, especially not without discussion. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I have no problem with the rename of the Protestantism page; I actually agree it's better than the old title. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that this article we're discussing, Order of Friars Minor, needs to be review according to your perspective. As for now, it containts text merged from locations where it wasn't suitable. As for Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism, please state your opinions about the WP:Bold move there. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any particular comments about the bold move; I was just clarifying my first comment. I believe that everything that's been done to the relevant pages in the last hour or so should be undone and consensus sought before doing anything massive. Consider this a request for the "R" in WP:BRD, except that I'm not sure I've seen everything on my watchlist and don't want to make it worse. No offense, but this has become an unmitigated mess. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
Yes, Order of Friars Minor were and still is messy. Many of its sections shoud be shortened by portioning text to related pages. I'm sorry, but for this we need your help. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
We can clean up Order of Friars Minor later. Right now the blanking of Franciscans needs to be undone. If it's as simple as I think, it should just be a few reversions to that page and the redirects you "fixed". Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.


I agree things have gotten real confusing with this article. Order of Friars Minor is only one Order of many within the Franciscan Order. It was the first Order founded by St. Francis but it isn't the only Order within the Franciscan Order (even if you are only counting Catholic Franciscan groups.) Marauder40 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Except, what is the "Franciscan Order" but the Order of Friars Minor? It was all really confusing before, with substantial effects of WP:Original research. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
But it wasn't at "Franciscan Order", it was at "Franciscans", inclusive of all Franciscan orders (there are many) within the broad Franciscan movement. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Most uses of "Franciscan Order" do refer to the OFM, but not all; there are the Poor Clares, the Capuchins, the Third Order Regular, the Third Order Secular, and others. They're all "Franciscan orders". Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Also see the discussion here. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. There is still Category:Franciscan orders remaining. Perhaps it is Franciscans (disambiguation) that you're looking for? It could be further enhanced. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
That category should stay. The disambiguation can stay. But the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE page needs to be restored. Like, now, before things get messier. Then we can discuss how to proceed. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
If you review that now restored page's history, you will see why it's raison d'être has been objected. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
A cleanup tag is not blanket permission to blank and redirect. I agree these articles all need cleanup and organizational help, but it needs to be done carefully, slowly, and with appropriate discussion, especially before major changes like you made. Now, have I missed anything in my restoration crusade? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, for future reference, when exporting/importing content from one article to another, it's best practice to include a {{copied}} banner on the target's talk page. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The main problem was the Franciscans article that you have now reverted for more discussion. That is fine. However, I would ask you to not erase material on Order of Friars Minor like this. Yes, this article needs a lot of rework, but it is easier to make a good result if all the text relevant to the subject is there, rather than on Franciscans or other articles about Protestant movements or organisations inspired by Order of Friars Minor and its associated, Catholic organisations. Yes, the text masses are messy, but at least the different messy text masses on Catholic and Protestant subjects are located in their proper articles. This way we may actually hope that the mess will be looked after. As for now, you are spreading and mixing texts on different subjects in different articles again, as in its previous state. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Since this keeps going back and forth we may want to consider what other encyclopedias do with the topic. It looks like Britannica does this [1] It calls the article "Franciscan" or "Franciscan (Religious Order)", yet the link itself is "Franciscans". Since WP doesn't like using parens unless it has to I think the MAIN article should be either "Franciscan Order", "Franciscan" or "Franciscans". It should be an overview of the Order, not just a DISAM page and each of the main branches should each get their own page referenced on the main page.Marauder40 (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, "the Order", as you're reffering to it, has an article that is Order of Friars Minor (also called the Franciscan Order). We don't need the duplicate content. It's just confusing and making the preexistant mess worse. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the OFM is not the only Franciscan Order it is one of many, but it was the first. The OFM article itself, lists the three other branches of the Franciscan Order. All of the official Catholic Franciscan Orders make up the Franciscan Order. The OFM Conventual are just as much a Franciscan Order as the OFM are. The Poor Clares are just as much a Franciscan Order as the OFM are, the Secular Franciscan Order is just as much a Franciscan Order as the OFM are. You have a big misunderstanding if you think that OFM is the Franciscan Order. You act like this is OR but it is referenced throughout the OFM article (which use to be the Franciscan article.) It was a big mistake taking what use to be an article about the entire Franciscan movement and making it about one particular group of Franciscans. From the Catholic Encyclopedia "Franciscan Order - A term commonly used to designate the members of the various foundations of religious, whether men or women, professing to observe the Rule of St. Francis of Assisi in some one of its several forms." [2] Marauder40 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I do promote an article about the Rule of Saint Francis of Assisi that might serve the purpose you and also Catholic Encyclopedia is suggesting. However, for the rest, feel free to give a official website link to the "Franciscan Order"? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I did provide a link for "Franciscan Order" directly from the OCE. There is no one Franciscan Order because it is made up of several different orders. The closest you come is that there is a commission made up of members of the primary Catholic Franciscan Orders that meets to discuss things together in Rome. But there is no one group that is in charge of all the rest. OFM is not more in charge then the OFS is they all have votes and each only ultimately answers to the Pope. Marauder40 (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't objected to your organisations being referred to colloquially as Franciscan, since they are all inspired and either directly or indirectly in the tradition of Francis. I'm just wondering how that opinion, or perspective, requires it's own Wikipedia article, when that can be well expressed in either of the very articles of the organisations that Francis did found, and/or in the text of articles on organisations that are dervied from the former ones. Sorry, I don't know what OCE is. And I still haven't seen that "Franciscan Order" that you are referring to. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
OCE refers to the Original Catholic Encyclopedia an article on which can be found here Catholic Encyclopedia. It is a document produced by the Church several years ago that is now in public domain. Earlier I provided a link directly to the "Franciscan Order" page of the Catholic Encyclopedia with a quote directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The problem isn't splitting things into different articles the problem is that the split was happening, but then all of a sudden the OFM page is now the one being directly link to "Franciscan", "Franciscan Order(s)" and others as if that group is THE primary group when it isn't. As I said before OFM is no more Franciscan then OFM Conv, OFM Cap, Poor Clares, TOR or OFS. All the groups are equally Franciscan, all of them together make up the Franciscan Order.Marauder40 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is a great explanation of the Franciscan Order. I know it can't be used as a RS since it is a YouTube video, but it clearly explains what I have been trying to explain.[3] Marauder40 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that the mess has been cleaned up (I think), I'd suggest starting a new discussion on this page, perhaps copying your last comment. To keep things neat and organized. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The state of divisions of the subject into different articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Francis is considered to have founded Order of Friars Minor, Order of Saint Clare, and Third Order of Saint Francis. I suppose this is what you refer to collectively to as the "Franciscan order", "Franciscan movement" or simply the "Franciscans". That might be in a colloquial, verbal sense - well sufficiently covered in Franciscans (disambiguation). As for Britannica, it states on its articles on "Franciscans" "any member of a Christian religious order founded in the early 13th century by St. Francis of Assisi". That is not really a reliable encyclopedical statement, no matter the good reputation of the publication in other cases. The problem is that there are hardly any encyclopedical relevance for articles "Franciscan order", "Franciscan movement" or simply the "Franciscans". Therefore, a disambiguation is enough, and then Order of Friars Minor, Order of Saint Clare, and Third Order of Saint Francis, as well as indvidual pages for secessions and derived groups (Catholic), as well as other organisations inspired by any of these (dating from 19th century until today): Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism. Anything else borders WP:Original research, is confusing, and makes the existing mess even more messy. Why would anyone advocate such a solution? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

To everyone: I have to step away for a bit, but as I said before, please keep this process slow, careful, and discussion-based, more so than bold, given its messy history. Best of luck, —Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to turn this into an RfC to try to attract a broader range of editors. See below. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC on organization of articles on Franciscan orders and spirituality

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments2 people in discussion

How should the various articles on different Franciscan orders, movements, and spirituality, and the overview article on Franciscans in general, be named and organized?; with particular attention to recent discussion here, here, and here (listed in reverse-chronological order). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  • List of involved categories:
I've over-included some things that are probably just fine, just to be sure I didn't leave anything out. If anyone notices that I did miss an article, please feel free to add it to the list. But please don't remove from the list. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC), expanded list 10:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC), again 10:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC), added categories 11:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Here are a suggestions of improvements to make this sphere of articles more specific, clear and encyclopedical:
  1. Merge Franciscan Order in modern times with Order of Friars Minor. Largely overlapping and an abundant complication.
  2. Update Order of Friars Minor. This article needs some substantial rework. But prefably only after it has merged with content relevant to its subject from Franciscan Order in modern times and Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism, in order to have the raw material for the rewrite complete, and not spread out over other irrelevant articles.
  3. Merge Franciscan orders in the Anglican Communion with Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism for the same reason.
  4. Merge Franciscans with Rule of Saint Francis, which is what many people actually are referring to: organisations that adhere to the Rule of Saint Francis. Those which aren't can be found in (merged with) Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism. The rest could be found in Franciscans (disambiguation).
  5. Rename Category:Franciscan orders to Category:Rule of Saint Francis in the same fashion - meaning those "Franciscan" orders which adhere to the Rule of Saint Francis. Simple.
  6. Rename Category:Franciscans to Category:Friars Minor. That way it get's more specific and avoids current misunderstanding and ambiguous references. Listed articles (members) which then don't apply, may be categorised in Category:Members of the Society of Saint Francis (for the Anglican Society of Saint Francis) etc.
Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I like some of these. I'll respond to each, in order.
  1. Disagree; merge it with Franciscans.
  2. Half-agree; it does need work, but not with those merges. Merge Franciscan Order in modern times with Franciscans (see #1), and keep Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism (see #3).
  3. Agree; the Anglican communion one is short and unnecessarily specific. Anglicanism is part of Protestantism, so no reason not to lump it in.
  4. Disagree; "Franciscans" refers to the groups and spirituality, not the rule. That has enough information surrounding it to merit its own article.
  5. Complicated; the categories are a bit of a mess. There's no reason for some of them to exist separately of others, and some of those should be merged. "Rule of St. Francis" is too specific though—that's a whole one article.
  6. Disagree; not all Franciscans are Friars Minor, as I and Marauder40 have tried to explain previously. SSF is a very specific Anglican order and is not the appropriate category for generic Franciscan people.
Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
2: I think that is a wise solution for the time being. Would you mind merging it? None is objecting. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
3: Then why did you revert the relevant edits? You are the only one who have objected , so might as well wish to redo the merge again? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Sure. Just give me a couple of minutes.
3. Because too much was happening too fast. It was less a problem with that particular edit than with the whole whirlwind of changes, some neutral or good, some bad. And of course, it's nothing personal. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Alright. So would you like to redo also merge #3? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure. And #2 is done. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
And #3 is done too. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Chicbyaccident: May I strike out the completed items from the lists? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Great to see some progess. Please do. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Nos. 2 (relevant portions) and 3 have been struck out. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 11:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Next step:

  1. Both Category:Franciscans and Category:Franciscan orders in their current respective state can hardly be motivated. One of these should only containt people (preferably Category:Franciscans), one of them only organisations (preferably Category:Franciscan orders). Then Category:Franciscans should be split in subcategories, such as Category:Friars Minor containing Category:Conventual Friars Minor, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Chicbyaccident: My thoughts:
  1. I think to be clear the people category should be called Category:Franciscan people or similar.
  2. Since not all Franciscan organizations are "orders", especially some of the Protestant ones, the groups category should be called Category:Franciscan organizations.
  3. I see no reason the Friars Minor, Conventuals, and Capuchins' archcategory should be different from the Poor Clares, Regular Tertiaries, or Secular Tertiaries'. I propose instead a shared archcategory for them called Category:Catholic Franciscan orders, contained within the hypothetical Category:Franciscan organizations. It might then have three subcategories, Category:Catholic Franciscan first orders, Category:Catholic Franciscan second orders, and Category:Catholic Franciscan third orders.
  4. A new Category:Franciscan spirituality could then house both Category:Franciscan people and Category:Franciscan organizations. We can create further subcategories from there.
What do you think? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Still confusing and perhaps a bit overextensive, although at least better than the present state. So yes, I would support that for the time being. Please be WP:Bold and carry on. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This might be a slow step, so let's be sure not to rush through it. I've left an inquiry at here at the Teahouse to see if we can speed it up. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 14:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that each order has a subcategory already for its members' articles. I think we should keep those but also create a broad people category and put them there as well. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there's one of those already, too. I'm going to start a CfD to rename it. I'll put the link in here. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Chicbyaccident: As promised, here is the CfD link. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge Organization and Secession sections

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think a relatively uncontroversial improvement to this page would be to consolidate unique information found in the Organization and Secession sections. --Zfish118⋉talk 18:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. While you're at it, you could go ahead and delete information not about the OFM, and copy it to Franciscans if it's not already there. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Redundant content removed if needed: Talk:Order of Friars Minor/Deleted Content

Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
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: nomination withdrawn. Discussion on how to improve the article can be held later. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Order of Friars Minor → Franciscans – We have gone in circles on this topic a couple times, but think that Order of Friars Minor is a clear WP:Primary topic for the category of Franciscans related content, and also the WP:Common name for the subject of the article. The order is the oldest and largest contemporary Franciscan organization (although not overwhelmingly larger), and the history of the related orders is inextricably linked to the original. When I initially split this article, I thought there might be a significant body of information for the OFM distinct from the broader topic. However, my assumption appears mistaken, as aside from the side bar listing the Minister General, there is little dedicated content to the OFM in particular. Such an article would be only a very brief summary of the Franciscan main history, plus the infobox content, similar to the OFM Capuchin and OFM Conventual articles. I think that when people research the "Franciscans", they do not necessarily know that there are three orders, and related organizations. The renamed article would serve as a gateway, introducing the original order, and in provide disambiguation in the newly renamed and positioned "Name and demographics" section at the top of the article (a recommended practice in "WP:OTHERNAMES"). In particular, much of the content unrelated to the OFM, a major concern expressed earlier regarding OFM/Franciscan related article naming conventions, has successfully been transitioned to either Franciscan spirituality in Protestantism, or the article now titled List of Franciscan organizations. --Zfish118⋉talk 20:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A bit of a mess, really, this sphere of related articles. Thanks for having the energy to proceed. As for your question, I am slightly negative to the propsal, prefering to keep the existant article name although with the proposed name as redirect (in order to limit confusion). Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • How can anyone oppose this move now that Franciscans has already been moved and redirect to this title? I don't think that's good process. That said, I support the move. The primary meaning is the OFM. Srnec (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose: Contrarily to what most people think, this order, established in 1897 through the Leonine union, was the last of the three main male Franciscan groups to be formed and is not, thus, the original one. The article contains several historical errors. [[Franciscans]] should be a disambiguation to all the Franciscan groups, not just this order, the Conventuals and the Capuchins, but also the minor ones and the female orders. --Checco (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    So where's our article on the original one? Srnec (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    There is none (even though one could easily argue that the Conventuals are the more coherent evolution of the original order), but this is not the issue here. The problem with moving this article to "Franciscans" is that not all the Franciscans are part of the Order of Friars Minor: think of the Franciscan sisters or the non-Catholic groups. In this case, we should take example from it.Wiki, fr.Wiki and es.Wiki. --Checco (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Primary topic and common name. This article deals with the whole history of the order, not just the one established in 1897. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    I agree that [[Franciscans]] should deal with the whole history of the order and include also the female orders and non-Catholic groups, while [[Order of Friars Minor]] should be an article in its own right, along with those on the Conventuals and the Capuchins. --Checco (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That was my original intent, actually, to create a short article for OFM here and leave the main article at the original Franciscan. --Zfish118⋉talk 23:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: For the same reasons stated above by Checco. The present article with more focus and a bold editor could be the one specific to the group of friars currently led by Michael Perry and could keep the present title. The article titled 'Franciscans' would be created/recreated and refer to all the many Fransican groups.TimeForLunch (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that all those Protestant "Fraciscan" entities were established in the late 19th century onwards, in denominations which turned against precisely Catholic teaching. Please cease to unreflectively group these with the Catholic entities. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I would image @TimeForLunch: is refering to the Poor Clares and Tertiaries rather than the Protestants. Am I correct? --Zfish118⋉talk 17:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the ambiguity - I was thinking chiefly of Catholic groups. My main concern was to emphasize my objection to the renaming.TimeForLunch (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn, pending conclusion of comment period. I greatly appreciate the feedback, particularly regarding the Leonine Union of 1897. At this point, I intend to withdraw the move as proposed, though I believe this has been the most productive conversation on the matter thus far, and would welcome any additional comments or feedback. --Zfish118⋉talk 23:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Very good. Thanks to Zfish118 for the withdrawal and his edits. Here are my suggestions:
    • this article and "Franciscans", should be more differentiated;
    • "Franciscans" should be merged with "Franciscan order in modern times";
    • the "Observants" and the other small orders which were merged into the OFM in 1897 should have their own articles.
    • In fact, while Pope Leo XIII gave to OFM a sort of priority among the Franciscan first orders, the Conventuals are still to be considered the oldest surviving and, arguably, the "more original" of the three current Franciscan first orders. --Checco (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This discussion highlights clearly how poor our coverage of Franciscan history is. We need a general article on the Franciscan movement/order from the Middle Ages to the present. Srnec (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2017 (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.

The "original" first order

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This article, let alone Franciscans, still misses a point. The "Obervants" were not the "original" Franciscan first order, but were actually a reform-minded splinter group from the mainstream branch and thus original first order, the "Conventuals". Even though the Conventuals became a separate order only in the 16th century, they can be easily considered the oldest surviving and, arguably, the "more original" of the three current Franciscan first orders. The fact that Pope Leo XIII gave to the Order of Friars Minor (resulted from the union between the "Observants" and some minor groups" in 1897) priority among the Franciscan first orders does not change history. The Conventuals are still in charge of the most important convents exactly because they have been there all the way since the beginning. I accept that someone might disagree with me, but I think that Wikipedia articles should at least include both versions of the story. --Checco (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I support this. --Zfish118⋉talk 17:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention, but can you explain your opinion better? Cheers, --Checco (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
This article has been a thorn in my side for several months. I am glad to see someone willing to step up to maintain and improve it. My only concern would be to properly document the sources for the material you add. One major issue in this article is the extensive bibliography, but near complete lack of inline citations. I believe that some of it is copied from the public domain Old Catholic Encyclopedia, but I am uncertain where the claim that the "Observants" are the original originated (I may have added that line, but it was based on material already in the article, I am thus disclaiming any objection to the revision on this point). The OCE roughly agrees with your assessment that the Conventional are more original, though note the primacy given to the consolidated OFM Observants. Any sources you can add to clarify the origins of the OFM and Franciscans in general would be much appreciated. --Zfish118⋉talk 00:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. We can surely settle on this: OFM Conventuals' originality, OFM's primacy. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the issue and I do not have sources to add. Hopefully, others will join our debate and will be able to improve the articles on Franciscanism. This said, those articles have been improved a lot and that is mainly thanks to you, User:Zfish118, so thanks! --Checco (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation for saints section

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to see citations for the "Saint and Beati" section, mainly to verify that they are members of the O.F.M. in particular, and not other Franciscan branches. (FYI Mannanan51). –Zfish118⋉talk 16:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Awesome job - thanks! –Zfish118⋉talk 16:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Cannot now remember nor locate where the original list came from, but must have been an OFM site as only one entry was not. Having posted the citations, I'm wondering if that whole section should be split off to a separate article of Franciscan saints separated by branch. The OFM page looks a little heavy with citations for that particular section. Mannanan51 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_Friars_Minor/Archive_1&oldid=1122670570"