Talk:Anglican religious order

Question
Overall, a very clear and helpful article. One question, though; the article states that "Religious communities are divided into orders proper, in which members take solemn vows and congregations, whose members take simple vows." Where is this distinction made? The Episcopal Church in the USA makes a rather different distinction, as the article suggests; I'm not aware that canon law in the British Isles makes any such definition either. It's in the US and UK that most of these orders have their origin. Is the simple/solemn vows idea, which is certainly in Roman Catholic canon law, also part of current Anglican tradition? 86.135.163.182 14:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed Canada from the line "In the United States and Canada, the founding of Anglican religious orders began in 1842" since Canada did not exist as a country at that time. Also, there is no discussion of the first order founded in Canada, so there is no reason to discuss the US and Canada collectively here. 156.34.38.167 (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Episcopal Carmel of Saint Teresa has been repeatedly added and taken out because it is not a canonically recognized religious order. Recognition has a number of requirements in the Episcopal Church, including at least 6 life professed members. I have created a separate section for orders that are not recognized, although it still needs significant development since there are very many orders in this category. Lack of recognition does not imply any judgment upon those communities, but the orders listed in the main listing are those that meet the criteria for entry in the Anglican Relgious Communities Yearbook and regional organizations such as CAROA (The Council of Anglican Religious Orders in the Americas).Febronia (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: CAROA is not an official organization of the Episcopal Church. Membership is voluntary. Episcopal Carmel of Saint Teresa was founded at the request of members of the House of Bishops Standing Committee overseeing the Religious Life in the Episcopal Church. ECST's Bishop Visitor attends meetings of Episcopal Visitors and the Prioress has been required to files Annual Reports to the Standing Committee. All the requirements of Canon 30 have been complied with with the exception of having 6 professed (the Canon doesn't require life profession)members. In a sense the community was unofficially "recognized" before it was founded. At this time there are 4 Professed members with another Profession anticipated this spring. There are two Aspirants, one Postulant and one Novice. (Sister Teresa Irene OCD, Prioress) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.78.78 (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am unconvinced as to the reason for Febronia's continued deletion of ECST and then the artificial creation of an unexplained sub section. Prehaps somthing more helpfull and less potentialy biased solution may be reached? Friarjohn00 (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Considering the information fgiven by the Prioress of the ECST, and the lack of responce by Febronia on the topic, I can only assume that we may safely reorganize the page, removing the specious divisions currently there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarjohn00 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Images
We have eight pictures in the gallery as I write this, and they are all of female orders. It would be nice to have a couple pictures from male orders, if anyone has any. QVanillaQ (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Sisterhoods (Modern Anglican) be merged into Anglican religious order. Certainly qualifies under 'overlap' and probably 'duplicate' (see WP:Merge).  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The merger was executed on 29 November 2012.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  20:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Article title
Why is the title in the singular (Anglican religious order) when it discusses a number of Anglican religious orders? Shouldn't the article be WP:moved to Anglican religious orders ie plural? Wayne Jayes (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will answer your question to further explain the decision below. The reason to use the singular title in this case hinges on Wikipedia's usage of "class" of subjects, which is described here.  In the article on the horse, for example, a number of horse breeds/species are discussed; however, this does not fall into Wikipedia's own definition and usage of the term "class", so the article is not titled "Horses".  I will be glad to answer any other questions you have on this.  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   21:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2016

 * 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: Not moved per WP:NCPLURAL – see above. (closed by a page mover) Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   21:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Anglican religious order → Anglican religious orders – The present title is in the singular; the article, however, discusses multiple Anglican religious orders, so the artilce should be retitled in the plural Wayne Jayes (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Typically, titles should be in the singular per WP:SINGULAR except for "the names of classes of objects". However, this article treats the Anglican religious order as a singular phenomenon, i.e. it is not merely a list or explication of orders that happen to be Anglican (although this is covered in the latter part of the article).  Cf. Catholic religious order which resembles this article but former religious orders in the Anglican Communion which is more of a list of orders in that class.  —  AjaxSmack   02:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. The current title refers to an entity or phenomenon, namely the Anglican Religious Order. There is no need for any change.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  00:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Further explaination in support of the move: My concern is that the title is just not idiomatic English, when I hear the phrase "Anglcian religious order" it sounds to me like some entitity that disciplines or regulates the Anglican religion, such an entity does not exist. Furthermore, there no single Anglcian religious order, there are many; the Benedictines, Augustinians, Carmelites etc. The article is definiately talking about a class or group of entities, which is why the article should be renamed Anglican religious orders. Wayne Jayes (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support due to the fact that this article talks about more than just one order. See the comment by AjaxSmack.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:53, 4 July 2016 (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.

Renaming "Nun" article
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Nun whether to rename this article "Nun and religious sister", since religious sisters have no article of their own and may not want to be called nuns. Religious sisters are already a major topic in the article. Jzsj (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Restarting plea for plural OrderS title
I can see no good reason for the failure to follow normal English usage. There is a Wikipedia article entitled Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion. It would be good to have some consistency?ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The current title already follows "normal English usage". It also follows standard Wikipedia policy (see WP:SINGULAR). To change it would be incorrect and ungrammatical. The "former" article which you mention, is differently named because it is in the expanded list format, and therefore takes the plural form. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 17:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)