Talk:Dominican Order/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Origin

Are these not the ones that were responsible for the worst of the Inquisition? Shouldn't we include that point? Im not sure saying they fought heresy is really saying it right. Fighting heresy means killing Catholics who don't believe as you do, and every Protestant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 13:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That is not what fighting heresy means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.84.10 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this material is taken from the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia (since its history of bishops ends at 1910). If so, there should be credit given. 63.230.177.22 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The God's dogs pun should get mention. 142.177.124.178 03:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can someone do a write-up on the Breviary and Martyrology? -FZ 16:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that they should be linked but not merged Elnutter 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the monastery of Eco's "The name of the Rose" was benedictine, not dominican.

You are absolutely right. It is even mentioned in that book's entry. I removed the 'Dominican" mention. Anchorite 16:26, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In matter of facts Bernardo Gui, The Inquisitor is the only member of the Order of preachers in that book.Jfreyre

Dominicans didn't have monasteries, did they? They're a mendicant order. john k 17:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They do have monasteries. There is one in Washington, D.C. called the Dominican House of Studies; it is a monastery and a college. FeanorStar7

I believe they call there residences Priories, Convents or Houses depending on the size. -Miked84 04:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Convents or Priories (the terms apply to the same residences) have at least six solemnly-professed friars, while Houses are smaller than that. The essential difference is that a Priory (or Convent) can elect it's own prior (superior) whereas the superior of a House is appointed by the Provincial. Peter Hunter OP

This page is hugely deficient in a number of respects:

• It needs some account of the nuns, laity and sisters.
• It needs to be brought up to date in its history.
• The list at the bottom of Dominicans needs to be entirely replaced by the Category:Dominicans link but only once that has been sorted out satisfactorily.

Peter Hunter OP

There should be...

There should be a full discussion of the bloody history of the Inquisition, and the role of the Dominican Order in its operation. The Inquisition is known to have murdered tens of thousands of innocent people over a period of six hundred years, and yet this article glosses over this part of Dominican history. It is articles like this that give Wikipedia a bad name. (SRB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.225.153 (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the "Statute of Jewry" in England during the 13th century and the king's order for forced and open conversion of Jews to Christianity.Jay Kay 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the Dominican's motto of 'Veritas', I'm astonished that there is no mention of the Dominican's role in the Inquisition, and their murder of thousands. My point exactly. I think fighting heresy by word abd deed doesn't exactly tell it like it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 13:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree as well. Dominic De Guzman was a founding father of the dominican order which was responsbile for numerous murders on par with genocide. one of the main reasons the order was founded was to exterminate religious competition with a group of gnostic christians called "Cathars". Atleast one reference I know is the "Jesus Papers".

THERE SHOULD BE ATLEAST TWO PARAGRAPHS TOUCHING ON THE INHUMANITY OF THE DOMINICAN ORDER.

They have had a role in the inquisition, but to say that one of the "main reasons the order was founded was to exterminate religious competition" and which was a an order "on par with genocide" reveals not only a somewhat frightening amount of unjust prejudice from someone claiming for justice but also a clear lack of knowledge... Maybe you should:

• 1. go to the wikipedian page on the founder St. Dominic
• 2. learn that the inquisition started several decenies after the death of the founder of the order and hence could not create an order founded for the inquisition
• 3. learn that the order had been created to preach, not to exterminate (one of the main reasons for its creation)
• 4. read about the black legend
• 5. sign your edits
• I'm not saying they didn't have anything to do with the inquisition, but you're going much much much too far claiming false things...

Haw81 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 1. But exterminate they did. This order is synonymous with the Inquisition. Not any other order. Just them. they were trained to kill and torture. Its what they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a "The Inquisition." An inquisition is a method of legal proceeding used to discover facts leading criminal charges the Roman law equivalent to a grand jury. There have been several inquisitions into heresy staff at times by Dominicans and at other times by Franciscans. Inquisitions in matters related to the faith were generally established by the Pope at the behest of some civil-ruler not at the initiative a religious order. There is not conclusive evidence that Dominic was ever himself an inquisitor. Some of his earliest followers were inquisitors into matters relating to the Cathar heresy. The most notorious inquisition, perhaps what one means by "The Inquisition" was the Spanish Inquisition was establish more the 250 years after Dominic's death to question the fidelity of converts to Catholicism since the Spanish monarchs believed that being Catholic and being a loyal, trustworthy Spaniard went hand-in-hand. It is beyond an oversimplification to call the Dominicans the founders or promoters of "The Inquisition". Miked84 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dominicans in Colonial History

• There should be a section on the Dominican's role in colonial and modern history of Latin America. This should not just include the conquest, but also their role in the colonial reducciones and corregimiento system. Wikipedia already has a number of articles covering this theme with regard to the Jezuits, but it would be useful to have this extended to the Dominicans. Considering that Latin America currently has the largest Roman Catholic population in the world, and that the Dominicans have played an important role in its conquest and conversion, it is not enough to dedicate two or three lines to this subject, and simply state that the Dominicans could compensate for their losses in Europe with the revenues from the colonies. This does not seem in balance with the order's role in world history, and might have the appearance of being a Euro-centric perspective. Arjuno 20:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• There should be a discussion about place names that relate to the Dominican order. For instance, is the Dominican Republic related, and, if so, how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.36.65 (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The complete absence of any discussion of the role of Dominican priests in the Inquisition turns this article into nothing more than a propaganda page. The Dominican order were behind hundreds of years of bloodshed, with millions of innocent men, women and children killed. We are talking about one of the greatest terrors to affect humanity in history here. There appears to be a clear consensus that a discussion of the role of the Dominican order should be included. I would propose something along the lines of: The Dominican Order (Ordo Praedicatorum) were the prime agents of the Inquisition in Europe, in which millions of innocent children, women and men were tortured to death in the most cruel ways imaginable, over hundreds of years, from Russia to Portugal, from Ireland to Italy. .

References

The reality of the Inquisition is one of the darkest events in human history. Obvious Foxes's book is written from a protestant viewpoint, but the information is widely accepted as historically accurate. The Museum of Torture reference gives the briefest summary of the means applied. The literature contains literally thousands of others. /AD 79.135.110.169 (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)/

Uh...no, Foxe's book of Martyrs is NOT considered historically accurate. I don't know who you were talking to, but the first 3-4 people in the book were real. The entire rest of them are considered to be utter fabrications - meaning they never existed.Farsight001 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Jacobins

I added a note about the Jacobins, but it probably needs a reference or two. WHY are the Dominicans called Jacobins in Paris?--Filll 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the comment concerning the addition of material relating to the dominican led genocide of the Cathars. The part of the article that discusses Dominic's uninvolvement with the actual killing is complete rubbish.

Dominicans vs. Franciscans

I'm curious about seeing more material on how the Dominican and Franciscan orders related to each other in complementary ways, and how and why they later came into conflict.

Fair use rationale for Image:OP sello2.gif

Image:OP sello2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Dominican friar

It's not clear to me that Dominican friar can stand as a separate article beyond a dictionary entry or duplicating the information that already is (or should be) here. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge of course. I'd be bold & just do it. Johnbod 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:OP sello2.gif

Image:OP sello2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Section on Elements of Dominican spirituality

The section on Elements of Dominican spirituality in this article is interesting, but it is long and has no subsections. It is hard to read because is really too long. In fact, my first thought was that it seems "like a freeway that keeps going forever" on the computer screen. I did not write this section so I do not want to break-it up myself. But whoever watches this page and wrote that section, will you please break it up into meaningful sub-sections so it will not feel like the Long Island Expressway? In fact, adding a short introduction that mentions the key elements will be very helpful. This can then be followed by subsections. Your effort will be appreciated. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is incredibly long, has several apparent disjunctions of thought, and appears to have been made by an account with no other edits - the likelihood that its author will reemerge to edit this section is unlikely. I agree it needs serious cleanup - anyone capable of merging it more thoroughly with the rest of the article should probably do so. My knowledge on the subject is insufficient to tackle it appropriately. 24.152.192.253 (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Child Sexual Abuse

There should be a section documenting dominican involvement in the larger catholic child sexual abuse problem. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17728112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.192.15 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the topic at hand.75.42.156.197 (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

why is the subject of sexual abuse by dominicans irrelevant to an article about dominicans? It is part of a balance NPOV, surely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.27.44 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

of course it is VERY relevant, institutional sex abuse Juror1 (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Three sections to remove

I would suggest that three sections be removed from this article: (1) the paragraphs addressing recent developments in the Phillipines province; (2) the two sections that just provide a reference to places where Aquinas' views are discussed.

As to (1): its presence is jarring, to say the least. Here we are discussing the history over 800 years of an entity with a worldwide presence, and it is capped with a minor controversy in a sub-part?

As to (2): people looking for Aquinas' views will find them. It is unlikely that someone looking for Aquinas' views would come first to an article on the Dominican order. And if they did, they would quickly find the materials elsewhere.

I want to give people an opportunity to respond before removing, though. So if you want to defend their presence, please do so soon. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps at all, I don't want to be solely DEstructive. I plan on editing to make improvements, and perhaps adding in the process. But the more I read, the more things seem to be extraneous. As another e.g., much of what is in the part on spirituality would be appropriate in the article on St. Dominic -- but that doesn't mean that it ALL needs to be included here. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The person who added the part re. Phillipines responded on his talk page, and did not object. I am going to remove it now. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, the parts just providing duplicative or otherwise unnecessary links re. St. Thomas are now out. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

While attempting to be respectful of the previous version, I have done three main things in the introduction. First, take out "fratrum." The entire Dominican Order is the Ordo Praedicatorum. The fratrum are the friars, one branch of the family.

Related to that, second, I put up front the various branches of the Dominican order. While there are controversies over the precise legal status of the various branches, I think the version I gave is neutral.

Third, make the intro shorter. I have deleted duplication and pushed down into the body some thigns that belong there. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Foundation

I have re-organized this section. It seems to me that the discussion begins with the historical encounter with Albigensians. It is only after that historical encounter that one addresses the form the new foundation would take (i.e., not monastic, urban, etc.). And while I am sure some would complain if discussions of subsequent Dominican battles against heresy were removed, I have moved it to the end of the section. (The section is, after all, about the FOUNDATION.) The only reason it seems justifiable to keep it in at all is by assering that the later activities of the Order were inspired by those of its founder.

theloavesandthevicious (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The section on the Albigensian Crusade is a little off. The Dominicans came in after the end of the Crusade and were instrumental in actually cleaning up the heretics. Also, there's not a Duke of Albi. Albi had a Vicount from the Trencaval family. At the start of the crusade, it's Raymond-Roger Trencaval.

Dominican spirituality

I propose a radical chopping of the section on Elements of Dominican Spirituality. As I read the edit history, it had been a separate article and was pasted into this article in Novmeber 2007 by a user who does not have a user or talk page. As others have noted, it is long and rambling. Someone obviously put a lot of work into it, but I can't tell who, and much of the work is useless anyway (e.g., many of the citations are simply to the last name of an author and there is no indication of the title of the work being cited).

Anyone want to try to dissuade me from chopping? theloavesandthevicious (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I am proposing that Dominican nuns be merged here, as there is very little content in that article. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look a little closer, it is already here word for word, so I'm just gonna redirect. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuns are not sisters; sisters are not nuns

I'm putting this here because twice in the past week people have attempted to combine the section on nuns with the section on sisters, on the false premise that they are the same thing. That is entirely incorrect. Nuns and sisters are of different status under canon law, and in the Dominican family the nuns are the "second order" and the sisters are a particular form of "third order" life in community.

This is something that is so fundamental and commonly expected that the Dominican homepage does not discuss the difference. But as circumstantial evidence, see, e.g., the links in the right-hand bar at Dominican homepage (separate section for nuns and sisters).

The nuns were founded by St. Dominic at Prouille in the 13th century -- the sisters are a more modern form of Dominican life.

See generally [1] & [2].

theloavesandthevicious (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could you make it clear in the article text, so that this won't happen again? Thanks. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I took a crack at it. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Other Prominent Dominicans

I have gone through and made sure all of the people in the list were tagged with the Dominicans category. Therefore there is no reason to keep this list, and I delete it. If you restore it, please chime in here with a reason to keep it. theloavesandthevicious (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Section: Dominican Emphasis on Learning

This section contains nothing that ties in with the section header. So Dominic had one habit and wouldn't allow others to serve him. Maybe so, but where's the emphasis on learning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.27.44 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

This whole article reads like a Dominican tract. It should be removed entirely or rewritten in a style suitable for an encyclopedia.

I don't mean to sound rude, but this comment is unhelpful. Please bring up one specific place in the article that needs fixing, provide a suggestion for how to rewrite it with proper sourcing for the new info, and then stick it here. Then we discuss the change, come to an agreement, and place it in the article. After that, we'll move onto your next suggestion. It is a long and arduous process, but that's kind of how it's got to be on wikipedia.Farsight001 (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the article, you will see that there are many "citation needed" tags which need to be satisfied. If this were done, which is presumably what you mean by "proper sourcing", it might indeed go some way to reducing the impression that this article is less than encyclopaedic in tone.--TraceyR (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Torquemada

It is true, they say 2000, but your edit suggested more by saying "thousands, at least 2000". That is not in keeping with the source. just "2000" or "about 2000" would be accurate. Your version insinuates that it is far more than 2000 and that 2000 is the bare minimum.

Second, the source does not say that 2000 were burned at the stake. It says that 2000 were killed and only SOME of those burned (it does not say at the stake, but that is not a big deal to me). You also added "(the method approved by the Catholic Church at the time)", which your source does not mention. Nor do I see indication that this was done "under Torquemada's jurisdiction", though I might have missed that part.

so I have no problem with citing the newadvent encyclopedia. I do have a problem with your misrepresentation of it, intentional or otherwise.Farsight001 (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph cited reads

Much has been written of the inhuman cruelty of Torquemada. Llorente computes that during Torquemada's office (1483-98) 8800 suffered death by fire and 9,654 were punished in other ways (Histoire de l'Inquisition, IV, 252). These figures are highly exaggerated, as has been conclusively proved by Hefele (Cardinal Ximenes, ch. xviii), Gams (Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, III, II, 68-76), and many others. Even the Jewish historian Graetz contents himself with stating that "under the first Inquisitor Torquemada, in the course of fourteen years (1485-1498) at least 2000 Jews were burnt as impenitent sinners" ("History of the Jews", Philadelphia, 1897, IV, 356). Most historians hold with the Protestant Peschel (Das Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877, pp. 119 sq.) that the number of persons burnt from 1481 to 1504, when Isabella died, was about 2000. Whether Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable is a matter that has to be decided not only by comparison with the penal standard of the fifteenth century, but also, and chiefly, by an inquiry into their necessity for the preservation of Christian Spain. The contemporary Spanish chronicler, Sebastian de Olmedo (Chronicon magistrorum generalium Ordinis Prædicatorum, fol. 80-81) calls Torquemada "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order"

So you see that it does say that they were burned. The Wikipedia article referenced by my edit ("Burned at the stake") points out that this was the Church's approved method. The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that most historians agree that the number burned was "about 2000" - all of these figures can only be estimates and there are others who put the figure much higher. Since Torquemada was Grand Inquisitor for 15 of the 23 years covered by the period given by the Catholic Encyclopedia, this qualifies in my book as being "under his jurisdiction".

For these reasons I think that summarily deleting the edit, rather than amending it, in line with the sources cited, to cater for your objections would have been the more constructive course of action.

The most chilling aspect of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry quoted above is

"Whether Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable is a matter that has to be decided ... chiefly by an inquiry into their necessity for the preservation of Christian Spain."

"Ferreting out?" "Punishing (i.e. killing) heretics" "Necessity?" "Christian?" --TraceyR (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops. You got me on one thing. It does say that they were all burned(though not at the stake, not that that's important. I just find that really odd). Wikipedia articles are not, though, considered reliable sources. So if it was the approved method, head to that article and find the source IT uses and use that here instead. You mention that other estimates are much higher than 2000. That is irrelevant. The only source you provided was the Catholic encyclopedia, which does NOT mention other higher estimates except to oppose them. And even if that qualifies as "under his jurisdiction" to you, it doesn't matter because again - the source you gave for the statement doesn't say that. Extrapolating it from the source like that qualifies as WP:OR.

Also - that "chilling" quote is not so chilling to me. It's kind of misleading, honestly. But I wouldn't know how else they'd word it without taking five pages to explain the nature and attitude of the heretics and exactly who carried out their execution and that only guilt or innocence was determined by the church while the sentence was made by the government, etc, etc, etc.Farsight001 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not all were burned "at the stake". This method usually resulted in a relatively quick death from suffocation. They found that slow roasting over hot coals worked much better. I'm sure it's what Jesus would have wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.196.6 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Candidate for Deletion?

This article should either be completely rewritten or deleted. It is full of unreferenced POV statements, many of which have been 'fact'-flagged for some time. It is not encyclopedic and, in its present form, is a waste of space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.102.34 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is of low importance, and like all articles of low importance, is not all that great, true. However, it is far better than nothing, and I certainly think you are in the minority in asking for it's deletion.Farsight001 (talk) 06:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It's classed as being of mid-importance and B quality by the project. Can't think why; that certainly doesn't speak for the project! I don't agree that it is "better than nothing", because it drags Wikipedia's reputation down with it. Anyone looking at this article will surely get a poor impression of Wikipedia's standards. It might be worth going through it and removing every unsubstantiated or tagged statement - it would certainly be a lot shorter! :-) --TraceyR (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates in Spirituality section

Rather than have the section filled with cite tags, I've put the Unreferenced section template at the beginning of the section. The addition of the numerous tags without a section tag or any discussion looks like drive-by tagging as described in the Fact template writeup, or even outright POINT, and many of the paragraphs in the section already have multiple citations. It's possible that those sources don't cover the tagged material, but if they do the tags run afoul of "Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require...that citations be repeated through every sentence in a paragraph"; the anon editor doesn't seem to have checked which case may hold. Ergative rlt (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of "pockmarking" tagging?

What constructive purpose is served by putting a "citation needed" tag at the end of every single sentence?? AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The content of Wikipedia is supposed to be cited. I don't think every single sentence has a tag. Tb (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I was posing a slightly rhetorical question for rhetorical effect. Nevertheless, by my quick-and-dirty count there are still over 50 {{fact}} tags in the article, and I still really don't see what "pockmark" tagging on this scale accomplishes. If there are major grave problems with the article, then you should tag the article as a whole, or tag whole sections as a unit, or start deleting highly-dubious material. However, the purpose of a {{fact}} tag is to signal the presence of an assertion which is at least slightly disputed or controversial, and not just because theoretically it might be nice to have a source reference for the sentence (on Wikipedia, that always goes without saying), and if an article as a whole has a conspicuous lack of sources, then again you should tag the article as a whole to indicate this (and not add a "citation needed" tag at the end of every single sentence). AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is "you" here? Someone thought those things needed citation. If you disagree with one of them, then it would appropriate to suggest here that the tag should be removed. (Just removing it would be wrong, because the tag's presence is an indication that removal would be controversial.) I'm unwilling to agree with any "bulk" strategy: just as it would be wrong to add a tag to every sentence, it would also be wrong to just remove a bunch on the theory that there are "too many". There is not consensus that the tag should only be used in the case of a "slightly disputed or controversial" assertion. Briefly looking shows that nearly all the tags identify assertions which are in the nature of simple facts, not likely to be controversial, but certainly in need of checking. Tb (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

These were added in bulk [3] and are inappropriate WP:Tag bombing. Gimmetrow 18:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The page WP:Tag bombing is not policy, but a mere essay. (And the examples there are to large banner tags, not "citation needed" tags.) More to the point, the fact that the tags were all added at the same time does not mean they are all inappropriate. Editors can and do add appropriate material in an inappropriate way. Each tag should be judged on its merits. Some of them could surely go, and some are perfectly good calls for a citation. For example, this one seems unnecessary: Members of the order generally carry the letters O.P. standing for Ordinis Praedicatorum, meaning of the Order of Preachers, after their names. But this one seems perfectly sensible: The Order of Preachers, which should have remained a select body, developed beyond bounds and absorbed some elements ill-fitted to its form of life. And this one is marking a statement which is probably impossible to source and should be removed: Father Heinrich Denifle, one of the most famous writers on medieval history (d. 1905). I would be happy for work to clean up the tags here, evaluating each singly. The person who added them did wrongly by doing so in bulk without proper consideration. Let us not repeat his mistake. Perhaps there is an undercurrent here that "citation needed" is some kind of black mark. It's not: it's just a way to say "I think this could profit by a footnote." Tb (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to improve the article, but the tag bombing is disruptive. One template is sufficient. Gimmetrow 13:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of the original editor's unthinking bulk edit, but I am also not in favor of your doing the same, particularly in the face of objection. If you wish to eliminate the individual tags that you think are unnecessary, please do so with individual explanations here. Tb (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet, you are restoring every tag, and removing the {{refimprove}} tag, without individual explanations and without fixing anything else in the article. You have 24 hours to make substantial fixes to the article. After 24 hours I will evaluate what you have done and make an adminstrative decision. Gimmetrow 19:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am simply restoring the status quo. I would suggest that it is extremely improper for you to "make an administrative decision" when you are involved in the conflict. Tb (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the fact tags got fixed in various ways. Well done. Gimmetrow 12:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fact tags

I have removed some fact tags that are either about topics well-covered by articles linked from here, or relate to obvious things (that OP stands for Ordinis Praedicatorum, for example). I found a few existing claims could be backup up from the OED or the Catholic Encyclopedia. There remain these. Many of these are doubtful because they involved loaded language or judgment calls which require either removal or sourcing.

• Referring to the fight with the Cathars, "Dominic saw the need for a response that would take the good elements in the Albigensian movement to sway them back to mainstream Christian thought." None of the refs I checked mention anything about "taking the good elements".
• "Unfortunately, Dominic's ideal of winning the Albigensians over was not held by all office bearers and the population of Albi was devastated in the Albigensian crusade." This attributes the ills of the crusade to people at odds with Dominic, and seems to absolve him of responsibility.
• "In 1207 Dominic was given authority over the convent by the local bishop." No indication of this in the Catholic Encyclopedia ,and it's used to argue that the nuns came first, which is an important point.
• "Dominic's new order was to be a preaching order, trained to preach in the vernacular languages but with a sound background in academic theology." It's not at all clear that the academic emphasis was there at the founding. The Catholic Encyclopedia traces it to 1220, as far as I can tell.
• "the Dominicans were prominent in all Catholic Inquisitions" certainly requires a source.
• "The thirteenth century is the classic age of the Order, the witness to its brilliant development and intense activity. This last is manifested especially in the work of teaching." Potential puffery ("brilliant development") requires sourcing at least, as well as "classic age".
• The claim that Aquinas' thought "was to rule the ages to come in the life of the Church" needs sourcing; it took quite a while for Aquinas to be that important.
• "An enormous number of its members held offices in Church and State" requires some source to indicate what counts as "enormous". Is it more than other orders of similar size?
• "The Order of Preachers, which should have remained a select body, developed beyond bounds and absorbed some elements ill-fitted to its form of life." Contains normative claims and judgment calls, which require sourcing.
• "A period of relaxation ensued during the fourteenth century owing to the general decline of Christian society." Both the terms "relaxation" and "general decline" are loaded, and require sourcing or removal.
• The mystical movement "assumed remarkable proportions in the congregations of Lombardy and the Netherlands, and in the reforms of Savonarola at Florence." What makes it "remarkable"? More than other communities by size? More than other mystical movements?
• "At the beginning of the sixteenth century the order was on the way to a genuine renaissance when the Revolutionary upheavals occurred." What is a "genuine renaissance"?
• "Its gains in America and those which arose as a consequence of the Portuguese conquests in Africa and the Indies far exceeded the losses of the order in Europe, and the seventeenth century saw its highest numerical development." Is this in absolute numbers or relative? A source would make it possible to know, but as it is, it is doubtful that it could be both.
• "In modern times the order lost much of its influence on the political powers, which had universally fallen into absolutism and had little sympathy for the democratic constitution of the Preachers." The claim here is that political powers disliked it because it was democratic. Is that really the reason? Why did democratic sentiments also cause problems then?
• "The Bourbon courts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were particularly unfavourable to them until the suppression of the Society of Jesus." Then what happened? They got more favorable? Why "particularly"? What is this disfavor? Loss of influence? Persecution?
• "In the eighteenth century, there were numerous attempts at reform which created, especially in France led by Juan dela Cruz, geographical confusion in the administration." What is "geographical confusion"?
• "Also during the eighteenth century, the tyrannical spirit of the European powers and, still more, the spirit of the age lessened the number of recruits and the fervour of religious life." What is a tyrannical spirit? Which European powers? The "spirit of the age" is what? How do we judge fervour?
• "The revolutions not having totally destroyed certain of the provinces, nor decimated them, simultaneously, the Preachers were able to take up the laborious work of restoration in countries where the civil legislation did not present insurmountable obstacles." What is an "insurmountable obstacle"? Was this work more or less "laborious" than other work? Why is that there?
• "The province of France has produced a large number of preachers, several of whom became renowned." What is a "large number"? What counts as "renowned"?
• "The Dominicans of the province of France furnished most of the orators: Lacordaire (1835-1836, 1843-1851), Jacques Monsabré (1869-1870, 1872-1890), Joseph Ollivier (1871, 1897), Thomas Etourneau (1898-1902)." Are four of them "most"?
• "Père Henri Didon (d. 1900) was one of the most esteemed orators of his time." Really? More esteemed than Abraham Lincoln? A reference would make clear what is actually being said here.
• "Likewise Yves Cardinal Congar, O.P., one of the emblematic theologians of the Twentieth century, was a product of the French province of the Order of Preachers." What makes him emblematic? In whose judgment?
• The paragraph "The province of the Philippines is recruited from Spain...in the Belgian Congo (now Democratic Republic of the Congo), and so on." reports many things which may have been true once, but are likely not all so anymore, and all of which require verification (consider the case of Chinese establishments after the revolution in China, and the reference to the "Japanese Empire").
• "Father Heinrich Denifle, one of the most famous writers on medieval history (d. 1905)." According to whom is he "one of the most famous"?
• "However, due to the influence of the Franciscan Order, the Nuns began to be referred to as the "Second Order" but this is not exactly correct for the Dominican Order as for the Franciscan Order." Why is it not correct? Says who? It's in pretty common use; the numbers aren't necessarily in order of creation.
• The paragraphs on the Sisters are confusing and require some distinction from the nuns and references for the odd statements there.
• "Albert the Great was the first theologian to clarify how wisdom and understanding enhance one's faith in God." This was certainly a frequent topic before Albert. It all depends on what counts as clarification. So, according to whom?

Much of this was from the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which is why a lot of 19th-century people were mentioned. It is the source of lines like "Denifle, one of the most famous writers on medieval history (d. 1905)" and "Père Henri Didon (d. 1900) was one of the most esteemed orators of his time." Gimmetrow 12:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

To expand

Could be more on the modern emphasis on higher education and advanced degrees for its priests. It would also be nice to have a list of Dominican provinces somewhere on Wikipedia. AnonMoos (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dominicans in the United States

Created stub article Dominicans in the United States, would be nice to expand it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

File:OP Caracas.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:OP Caracas.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:OP Caracas.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

hope all this info is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.123.232 (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Blackfriars?

I thought the Benedictinians were called Blackfriars, not the Dominicans?Cynicalquest (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:Dominican people (Dominican Republic) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dominican Order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150118114346/http://www.op.org/international/assets/pdf/Stats/english/HistWW_en.pdf to http://www.op.org/international/assets/pdf/Stats/english/HistWW_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110819183956/http://laity.op.org/eng/library/ to http://laity.op.org/eng/library

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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) 18:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Um...wikipedia has its own style rules. I would recommend using them instead. I also gotta point out that if its using Foxe's book as a reference, your source might not have the highest standards.Farsight001 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style on biography called "Honorific prefixes", which states that, in general, honorific prefixes should not be used in front of a person's name. It does note an exception for cases in which the honorific prefix is so commonly attached to that person's name that it has effectively become part of the person's name -- one example given is "Mother Teresa". Wikipedian WCCasey (talk) has brought this to our attention. Mksword (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dominican Order. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100905151930/http://curia.op.org:80/roma2010/ to http://curia.op.org/roma2010/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213065901/http://curia.op.org:80/en/library/document-library/doc_download/24-the-rule-of-st-augustine to http://curia.op.org/en/library/document-library/doc_download/24-the-rule-of-st-augustine
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618023044/http://www.domcentral.org/trad/shorthistory/short01.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/trad/shorthistory/short01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514013749/http://idi.op.org:80/en/node/3 to http://idi.op.org/en/node/3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sinsinawa.org/site_map/spectrumjan2016/trinidad-celebration.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331235853/http://www.domlife.org:80/beingdominican/WhoWeAre/Associates.htm to http://www.domlife.org/beingdominican/WhoWeAre/Associates.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dominican Order. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://curia.op.org/roma2010/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522032105/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Saint_Dominic to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Saint_Dominic
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618042902/http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domdocs/0011.htm to http://domcentral.org/trad/domdocs/0011.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229185458/http://www.domcentral.org/study/opstudy.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/study/opstudy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618034722/http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domwork/domwork03.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/trad/domwork/domwork03.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.800.op.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150331235853/http://www.domlife.org/beingdominican/WhoWeAre/Associates.htm to http://www.domlife.org/beingdominican/WhoWeAre/Associates.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008051051/http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/ds02ital2.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/ds02ital2.htm

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) 08:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)