Talk:Order of Friars Minor Capuchin

Citation Broken

Citation #6 has a broken link . 207.55.106.139 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the quote at the end of the section about the Crypt came from? If you Google the quote, this page is the only hit you'll get.Varlet16 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a direct translation of an inscription that is found there.Kievia 12:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term "heathen" in the Expansion section seems a little ridiculous. QuinnHK 07:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

- I changed "heathen" to "non-Catholic". I also added a mention of the Capuchin's role in the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre and added a link to the wiki article to balance out the self-congratulating "We've been martyred so many times". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.4.92.125 (talk) 11:10, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

I find the 'Visitors to the ....' line extremely biased. Either it should be deleted, or rewritten. Eggertm (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cappuccino

An IP editor keeps trying to add that that the Capuchins "gave their name to cappaccino". First off this statement doesn't belong in the lead. In the scheme of things it is a very minor thing about the Capuchins. Second none of the sources say that Capuchins gave their name to cappaccino. They say the name derives itself from the color assoicated with the Cappaccino habit. Saying the Capuchins gave their name to cappaccino is incorrect and OR. If you fix it to reflect the actual source, place it in the body of the article instead of the lead and trim down your 5 sources to one it may be allowed to stay.Marauder40 (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also please note the following sentence already appears in the article, you are trying to add duplicate information. "The popular name of their order originates from this feature of their religious habit, and after this the Capuchin monkey and the cappuccino coffee are named by visual analogy." Marauder40 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Renaming needed?

The official name used here [1] is "Order of Capuchin Friars Minor", slightly different from the one we use today. Shall we rename the article?--Jordiferrer (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2011 (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) 22:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Logo

I have removed the logo in the info box. This logo was placed there by IP 81.67.57.190. on 28 February 2017 at 09:39. The only place I could find this logo was on eBay on 'certificates of authenticity' to go along with what the seller claims are authentic relics of Padre Pio and other saints. The seller and his accounts have since been suspended by eBay. This is probably not the first time Wikipedia is being used to legitimize a commercial claim. The only logo I see on any Capuchin website including their sites in Italy, Canada, Ireland, and France, do not show this logo at all. These sites, when they do show a logo, shows a monk with outstretched arms standing in a circle. If anyone finds the deleted logo on a legitimate Capuchin site, then please revert my edit. Thank you. Bodding (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Bodding: Doesn't this satisfy? Jzsj (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Are there different orders within the Friars Minor Capuchin that generate these various logos? If so, what group is this article about? Where's the RS to show it? Bodding (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bodding: Isn't the infobox on their category page a reliable source, as referenced above? Do you have any reason to question the wider use of this logo? Jzsj (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's on their category page based on a reliable source? Also, please answer my question if you can, are there different orders of Capuchins all with their own individual logos? Bodding (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bodding: I cannot find any other logo the Capuchins use, so I see no reason to object if they are willing to see this one used. I have answered your original objection by producing this source, so on this basis I am reverting your edit. Jzsj (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Try this: [2] And this is just one example. I've found multiple Capuchin orders who use this or a variation of the monk with outstretched arms. That is why I asked the question, which you still have not answered, are there different orders of Capuchins all with their own individual logos? Also, as I've noted before it appears eBay sellers often craft fraudulent signatures and logos and post them to their sales. I've found them here on Wikipedia without sources. The source you are referencing is from 1905. This facebook page of the Midwestern Capuchin group appears new. I think the newer one with the monk, whom I presume to be St. Francis of Assisi, is the one that should be used. See also the Irish Capuchins here: [3] I would like to ask someone in one of these Orders to allow us to use that logo. For now, I think the one you've reposted is misleading. That may have been their logo at one time, but they've moved on from that it seems. Thanks. Bodding (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bodding: I encourage you to obtain a better logo, but this doesn't seem easy. Good luck! Jzsj (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jzsi: You still have not answered my questions. This so-called logo does not seem to exist except in this book. I don't see anywhere that any Capuchin order is using this and the source you claim is from 1905. Therefore I am removing it from the article. My original reason for removal is the same. There is no reliable source available. Bodding (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Now you've really got me confused. What does all this mean on my personal talk page?

As there was a discussion about this on the talk page it would be best for you to bring this edit to the talk page prior to posting. You seem determined to use these two crossed arms/hands without giving any source or explanation. The logo I showed on the talk page is most common to several of the Capuchin groups. Why are you not willing to be collegial about this? Bodding (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Where did you show a logo? Did you mean: "The logo, I showed on the talk page, is ..."? Or where is this logo you showed? And what does being "collegial" mean here. I fulfilled your suggestion of finding a better logo, connected with one branch of this group, giving the source, also in the infobox. Why not accept it? Jzsj (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not inclusive of all the many groups of Capuchins. This logo you've chosen is similar to the other one you insisted on earlier. Neither of those reflect the other branches of the Capuchins. Apparently, the Capuchins do have different branches and there are several logos. But the one thing their logos all have in common is that they feature a standing St. Francis with his arms outstretched. Only the Aussie group shows the crossed hands. I don't think the Capuchins are properly represented with that version, or any version really. I think it's best to leave off the logo from the info box. Since the logo you put on the article represents only one group in Australia, I'm going to remove it. It would be fine to create a gallery of the various logos within the article with the names of each group that uses it. But it's not inclusive to have the version of the only group that uses it in the info box. Bodding (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As indicated above, it's not just the "one group in Australia". I disagree with your conclusion: one logo, properly captioned, is better than none. This one should cause no embarrassment to any of them. Jzsj (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Much better. Bodding (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

English variant

Since this topic has no WP:TIES to a particular flavor of English, I propose that we standardise on the English variant that was present in the earliest revisions of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)