Talk:Prayer of Saint Francis/Archive 1

Text and translations

Dying to self?

One of the biggest and most profound mistakes in spirituality can be found in the misquoting of this prayer in the last line. It is not in "dying" that we are born to eternal life...but rather it is in "dying to SELF" that we are born to eternal life. The first implies that in physically dying we just go to Heaven, get our harp, sit on a cloud, a live happily ever after. This is a very immature and ignorant perspective. On the other hand, the latter (which is the correct line) teaches what Jesus and Buddha spent a life time teaching: that it is when we finally destroy our own egos that we truly come alive. It is when we finally understand that we are all connected and pour ourselves into positively impacting other peoples lives - that is the moment where we expand beyond ourselves by connecting at such a deep level with another person that we no longer understand where we end and the other person begins. This is the definition of Love. This is what Jesus meant when he said "I am in my Father, my Father in me, and I in you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.188.164 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just listened to the recording of this prayer recited in unison at the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast, led by Mother Teresa, and the last line in that version did not say "dying to self." It's on YouTube, here. NCdave (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not a misquote. "Dying to self" is a wonderful thought, but the original French prayer concluded with "c'est en mourant qu'on ressuscite à l'éternelle vie", without any wording for "self". —Patrug (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Prayer text in the article

As of an edit earlier today, the article now includes five different versions of the prayer. I thought it was about two too many when it had four. Anyone want to be the judge of how many, and which ones should be kept? --mwalimu59 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation?

Right now, only french is available. considering the rest of the article is in english, is there any chance someone could come along and provide an english translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.84.210 (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of French version

I don't think I would have done it myself, but I support the IP's removal of the text, since this is en.*. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Original text alongside line-by-line translation

According to our WP:TRANSCRIPTION policy: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English is not considered original research." And there's no need to catalog all the minor variations that have been published; most are copyrighted anyway.

So, I updated the article to include the complete original text of the prayer (1912, in French, footnoted, copyright expired), alongside a line-by-line English translation that's reasonably consistent with previous versions but not infringing the copyright of any. This approach seems to work successfully for similar English Wikipedia articles about hymn texts that were originally Latin (O Sanctissima) and German (O du fröhliche), so I think it'll also work here for French. The most objective way to judge what "should" be in an English encyclopedia translation (e.g., "harmony" or not, "truth" or not, "divine" or not, "dying to self" or not) is to present the original text directly for side-by-side comparison. —Patrug (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

outside Catholicism

I just wanted to point out that the Prayer is well-known outside of the Catholic Church as well, though the article classified it as "Catholic". My Methodist church includes it in its prayer book and I heard it recited just this week.

The article didn't mention how the prayer got attached to St. Francis in the first place, if it was only known in the twentieth century. If it was a hoax it is a bizarre one, since the prayer is beautiful enough to survive in the liturgy in its own right. CharlesTheBold (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If its of any importance, the prayer is recited in Dream Theater's song The Shattered Fortress form their album Black Clouds and Silver Linings. —77.29.221.41, 11:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the prayer is really almost 1000 years old, then calling it "Catholic" would be incorrect, since there was no Catholic/Protestant distinction in the 11th Century. NCdave (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No. In the 11th century there were only Catholics and Orthodox. The Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years. But this point is moot anyway because the prayer is not 1000 years old, it was written by a strongly Catholic French group around 1900. —Qowieury (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

How/when was St Francis' name attached to Prayer?

The article didn't mention how the prayer got attached to St. Francis in the first place, if it was only known in the twentieth century. If it was a hoax it is a bizarre one, since the prayer is beautiful enough to survive in the liturgy in its own right. CharlesTheBold (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (reproduced from above)

Does anyone know when St. Francis' name was attached??. I am highlighting Charles' question, above, asked a year and a half ago, because I had the same question after reading the article. Surely someone must know... - please clue us in! Many thanks -- Health Researcher (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some information on that at the following two links. At one time this information was covered in the article; I'm not sure when it was removed or why:

• Who Really Wrote the Peace Prayer of St. Francis?
• Who Wrote the Peace Prayer of St. Francis?

mwalimu59 (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the fascinating info. Seems like it would be worthwhile to reintegrate that info into the article, especially the statement that "Around 1920, the prayer was printed by a French Franciscan priest on the back of an image of St. Francis with the title Priere pour la paix, “Prayer for Peace,” but without being attributed to the saint." And also the material about Spellman's dissemination in the US. Also interesting is the statement that something very similar was found in William the Conqueror's breviary (the current article gives the impression that the connection with William might have been entirely a mistake). I wish I read French and could understand Renoux's book. A final thing of interest is Renoux's statement in the linked material that the prayer "over the years has gained a worldwide popularity with people of all faiths." Perhaps a way could be found to bring that out more in the article too, to show the prayer's worldwide influence. Health Researcher (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks. These points are addressed in the current version of the article. —Patrug (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Origin & age of the prayer

The article says (without citation), "The prayer in its present form cannot be traced back further than 1912, when it was printed in Paris in French, in a small spiritual magazine called La Clochette (The Little Bell), published by La Ligue de la Sainte-Messe (The Holy Mass League)."

But this source says:

According to St. Anthony Messenger's columnist Albert Haase, O.F.M., in the January 1999 issue, St. Francis had nothing to do with writing the prayer. The earliest version has been found in the breviary of England's William the Conqueror, king from 1066 to 1087. That's nearly 200 years before Francis of Assisi.

According to Haase, Cardinal Francis Spellman attached the name of St. Francis, his patron saint, to the prayer. In visiting Assisi to celebrate his appointment to the College of Cardinals, he found the prayer under the title of "A Simple Prayer" with a picture of St. Francis.

After the cardinal returned to the United States, he passed out copies under the title of "The Peace Prayer of St. Francis."

While Francis did not write the prayer, it is very much in his spirit.

Does anyone know which is correct? Both agree that St. Francis couldn't have written it, but they disagree about whether that is because it is too recent or too ancient to have been written by him. So, is this prayer 100 years old or almost 1000? NCdave (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have been written circulated by an organization that was dedicated to the memory of William the Conqueror in the early 20th century. Hence that erroneous attribution. Qowieury (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Youtube

Qowieury, articles have to be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Youtube is typically considered a questionable source of information. There is no fact checking on Youtube. See WP:QUESTIONABLE for a longer explanation about this. Articles that use reliable sources of information are better articles. If you have the time, read some articles that wikipedia has identified as 'good' or 'featured' articles; you won't find blogs or youtube videos referenced in those articles.

Questionable sources have a poor reputation for checking the facts, have with no editorial oversight, self-published, acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. I am not saying the youtube videos you reference are any of these things, I'm saying that youtube references in generally are not reliable. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as personal blogs, Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

For example, if a video were available from a congressional website showing the same thing as the youtube video shows, then that would be a much better reference.

See WP:RS for descriptions of reliable sources.

If the Prayer of St. Francis already existed with dozens of secondary sources consisting of references to published and reviewed books, journals, text books, magazines then adding a few youtube videos as references wouldn't probably do any harm. But half the article can't be based upon youtube.

You seem to be doing such a great job at editing! I see that you are 'sort of' starting out and providing great content. Wikipedia is getting better because of your contributions. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  12:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that youtube is ipso facto disallowed as a reference. When the point in question is merely that a person said something, as it is here, and the video is of the person saying the thing, it is the best possible reference. There is no disallowed interpretation of a primary source here, but merely the fact that is shown in the video. These videos are not mine, nor do I particularly care about the facts they reference, but I do care about a proper respect for good references. Perhaps you should look at WP:VIDEOREF for more, but WP:NORULES actually is, I believe, the most important in this situation. Is your removal of these references really making wikipedia better? I cannot imagine how. Qowieury (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Plus, you are not even removing the unreferenced sentences! So you are saying that youtube video of the event taking place is an insufficient reference, but you leave the text, because of course you know it happened since there is video of the event taking place. This is like the worst possible attitude toward references, that the quality of the reference is not about the truth of the statement, but rather about following a rule. The thing that is most in question by having the youtube video rather than a secondary source, is the notability of the events. I would agree with that for this list. I have no idea who some of those people are, so a secondary source confirming their notability would be good. But the prime minister of England and the speaker of the US House are generally considered notable people. Qowieury (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Friend, I first of all, love the article. I love the topic, it is notable. I support what you are doing. I could have removed the unreferenced sentences but didn't hoping that you, me or someone else would find a better reference. I don't want to see the article torn apart, I want to see it improved but this usually happens little by little.

• Primary references, it's like quoting yourself as proof = not so great; There is no editorial oversight or outside verifibility process involved;
• Secondary references, better since it is another source, subject to editorial review not originating with the subject of the statement.
• Tertiary references, better still, subject to even more editorial oversight, perhaps even peer-review.

I have found a better reference for Nancy Pelosi and have inserted it.

A video is not the best possible reference for all sorts of reasons. If the videos were yours, then the reference would be considered 'original research, another type of bad reference. I do care about the facts that videos reference. If an editor routinely uses Youtube as a reference, other editors will undoubtedly question them about it.

Do I think that WP:NORULES applies here? Sure! But conversely, it applies for me, too! I don't accept the 'rules' that Youtube is an okay reference. I've seen articles get deleted because they cite Youtube, twitter and facebook and nothing else. Could they have been NOT deleted, sure.

Instead of just chopping up the article, I will help out a bit so you can see what I mean. You and I want the same thing - a good article about this topic.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You think a better source of something happening than a video of it happening is an article saying that it happened? 1. Clearly not. The video is the indisputable citation. 2. This is less useful. Though someone may want to read commentary on the event, they would most probably like to watch the event. 3. Where is this no youtube rule? I already directed you to WP:VIDEOREF which by no means says what you say. Qowieury (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For the love of the peace that we both pray for via this topic, keep your edits! LOL! I'll do a total rewrite and then request a merge if this is really a problem that needs to be solved. You crack me up.

  Bfpage |leave a message  17:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Most statements remain unreferenced....

Please continue to improve this lovely article with references.   Bfpage |leave a message  22:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gradually added dozens more citations, and now I think the full article is decently referenced. Thanks for the encouragement. —Patrug (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)