Talk:Piarists

Name
Let's see. If you check the Britannica, [], the official Piarist father's website www.scolopi.org, and even a count check on google (calasanz gives 33,600, calasanza 1,040), you see that the official, accepted name is Calasanz. Now, there's also another point to be made. He was born in Peralta de la Sal, Calasanza is the name of a castle near where he was born. I think I make a good point as to why the name should be Calasanz. But I'm not into rv wars, and I prefer discussions. If I am wrong I'll accept my mistakes, but if there's no good reasoning other than the catholic encyclopedia, then i'm reverting to Calasanz. Cjrs 79 14:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Long-form name
The long-form name for this order didn't make linguistic sense to me, so I followed the link and changed the long-form name to what I found there. Accounting4Taste 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Child Sex Abuse Scandal?
There was an article about Child Sex Abuse Scandal...i dont know what was up with that, anyways i deleted it.Lynyrd skynyrd fan 05:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Might have been more sensible t have researched it in retrospect rather than simply delete. Likely to have referred to the Cherubini incident. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Self-Contradiction?
There's a flag of self-contradiction in the article. My guess is, it's about this: Early in the article we read that the order got papal approval in 1617; then just after that flag, we read that it got papal approval from Gregory XV in 1621. So what gives?

What gives is that there's precise wording. Joseph Calasanz "had it initially recognized as a religious congregation by the Holy See on 25 March 1617". And then "The congregation was made a religious order 18 November 1621". A "religious congregation" is not the same thing as a "religious order", and "initially" is not the same thing as finally.

Ironically, 1) There is a mistake. Paul VI was a 20th-century pope; indeed, Wikipedia ("List of Popes") tells me the two relevant popes should, for those dates, be Paul V and Gregory XV.  2) There is also a mistake in the flag. It says to see this page, but what I'm writing now is the first thing that's ever been on this page about this bogus claim of a self-contradiction.

I'm not fixing either of these; I'm curious to see whether the flagger ever comes back, sees this, and has a reply. I agree the wording as is is a stumbling block, and "appears" to contradict itself, but that could've been fixed easier than such a flag.

Joe Bernstein and I may not come back myself, but can be reached at joe@sfbooks.com 97.113.103.200 (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)