Talk:Secular Franciscan Order

message: Whoever wrote this article seems to know their subject well but as the tag indicates, it really does need citations.--Wi2g 02:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought about going through and fixing, putting in the references but I keep getting sidetracked by the numerous Marian AfDs that keep getting put up.  Also as a Franciscan myself it is a little hard to figure out what are obvious things that don't need cited and which need cited since most of it is "obvious" to me.  As you have said, I have read through it and can't find anything obviously wrong.Marauder40 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I now know where they got the first two paragraphs of the development of the Order.  They are directly copied out of the Catholic Encyclopedia for Third Orders. There isn't a copyright issue since the copyright has expired but it is almost word for word.Marauder40 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article, but original research?

message: The whole article reads like it is through rose colored glasses promoting the order. Its hard to confirm anything as there is very little in the way of citations available, etc. If someone could take the time to find citations and remove information that does not come with a clear citation I'm sure the wikipedia community would greatly appreciate it. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 04:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to read the article on Wikihounding.  If you notice the article already had a cite needed tag at the top and it isn't that big of deal. Pax et bonum Marauder40 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This article about popes seems to suggest that a number were members (given the OFS after their name).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list of historically important members would be a useful addition 

message: Pol098 tagged the following section as needing clarification "Because the Order belongs to the spiritual family of the Franciscan movements, the Holy See has entrusted her pastoral care and spiritual assistance to the Franciscan First Order (Order of Friars Minor) and Franciscan Third Order Regular (TOR)."  Not sure how a clarification can be made without going into tons of detail.  The exact phrasing of this from the Rule is "The Holy See has entrusted the pastoral care and spiritual assistance of the Secular Franciscan Order (SFO), because it belongs to the same spiritual family, to the Franciscan First Order and Third Order Regular (TOR).  These are the "Institutes" who are responsible for the altius moderamen, referred to by Canon 303 of the Code of Canon Law."  I can give backstory here, not sure how much it will help.  The SFO is made up of secular people, both non-religious lay people and secular clergy (ie. diocesan priests and deacons.)  When it was founded all three Orders were distinct but over time the First and Third Order Franciscans started to run the SFO as if was a lesser branch.  In the 70s this was turned around back to what the original purpose was where the 1st and 3rd Order regulars are there to provide spiritual assistance and guidance where needed but not to run the Order. In theory all the Orders work together for the common good, the SFO reminds the religious of their calling to help the lay and what life is like as a lay person, the 1st and 3rd Order religious help remind the SFO of their Franciscan callings.  This is one of those things I am not sure how to improve since the original statement is obvious to me as a member, not sure how to clarify for those outside.  This is distinct from other Catholic third Orders because SFO is the only Catholic third Order that has it's own command structure that doesn't answer to the 1st or 2nd Order.  It has its own place on the Franciscan councils and at the Vatican. Marauder40 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pastoral Care 

message: I performed a relatively thorough copyedit of the page and removed that tag. I also removed the advertising tag - I don't really see this so much as an ad, but rather a rather redundant and often poorly cited article.  The sections below the "missionary heading are in need of citation, otherwise they all are largely redundant or could be incorporated into earlier sections of the discussion (RobertNOLA December 9, 2018)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertnola (talk • contribs) 22:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did a copyedit - needs citations 

message: Please see Talk:Third Order of Saint Francis. PPEMES (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Third Order of Saint Francis]]? 

message: Sixteen tags for clarification in five sentences is absurd. The hatnote for the order before 1978 makes no sense at all. They were around for hundreds of years before then; that was only a more descriptive name and an adjustment in government to take them out from under the First order. Manannan67 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles including not the least lead sections have need improvements for years. Now could be an excellent chance to make an improvement. Thanks for your contributions! PPEMES (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification? 

message: I have reverted the mass-tagging of the article, which had an overload of inline tags and no active discussion to support them. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - I misread the diffs. I agree with the removal of the mass-tags that was already done, and have reverted myself. Elizium23 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: NP. Good call. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, what if the article is in need of significant improvements as illustrated? PPEMES (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked through the "what" tags, it looks like a malicious drive by. Absolutely absurd number of tags on what is a fairly readable article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

text: We think that you should take some time to outline the improvements you think it needs, here on the talk page, so that we can get a clear picture of it and build a consensus for changing it. Tags without an active discussion are apt to be removed at any time. Elizium23 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry. It's a mess I am not the right person to look into, more than to mark things as seemingly incorrect. If you insist my remarks are wrong and that things stated are i order, feel free, though. PPEMES (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry. I seem to have missed that it had been improved since the last time I came around. Thanks for the contributions! PPEMES (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging reverted 

message: It's a religious order; the "Order" is in its name. It is a Third Order related to the First (Franciscan friars) and Second (nuns and sisters). Yes, it is canonically erected as a "public association of the faithful" but that does not prevent it from being considered a Catholic Religious Order (also known as Institute). Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, I googled around a bit and found this explanation, so I concede that the SFO does not consider itself, strictly speaking, a "Religious Order" in the same way as the First or Second Order does. Public association of the faithful, yes indeed. Elizium23 (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a religious order