Talk:Nun

message: I changed the paragraph about submitting the consitutions to Rome for approval to reflect and site the current law, as laid out by JP2 in Pastor BonusDaveTroy 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonical Reference 

message: I wanted to add a link to the article about Assumption College for Sisters, which is the last "nun college" in the United States, but...I had no idea where to put it.  Are there enough sisters' colleges left outside of the U.S. that we could make a list of some sort?  It seems like it would be a good thing to include, but at the same time, just listing one is pretty pointless and doesn't show importance. Beginning 22:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sisters' colleges 

message: Somehow I have bouncing around my head a silly stereotype of nuns as holding rulers in their hands and rapping people's knuckles with them. Where'd that come from, and how did it come to be so widespread? 204.52.215.107 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that has to do with pre-Vatican II sisterhood.  Before Vatican II was passed, women who wanted to become nuns didn't necessarily have a free choice of what kind of vocation or order they joined.  They might want to join a contemplative order but instead were told by the prevailing bishop they had to do missionary work.  One consequence of this was that a LOT of women who had no aptitude for or wish to do teaching were forced to join the faculties of Catholic schools.  You can imagine how frustrated and bitter such women might become and many of them took it out, unfortunately, on their pupils.  It was also a much more authoritarian age in general, especially in schools (and not just parochial schools).
As to how it became so widespread--well, there are a lot of former Catholics in the world!
It's the evil influence of the media and the even more eveil influence of observation of reality:-) --Simon Speed 02:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stereotype of nuns

message: Does this add anything to the article?  Especially since it is limited to one medium; nuns have appeared in all sorts of art.  Goldfritha 00:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it could list here , I already have created a page The Nun , and listed some movies , I think it could be redirect here , and then movies be listed here. Ali CraLazyEative 14:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, a redirect would make more sense, and allow a distinction between movies about historical persons and fictional persons.DaveTroy 11:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of movies

message: I googled for the "Daughters of Mary", who are described for this photo as "Roman Catholic nuns". They actually belong to the "Society of St. Pius V", that is not only not in Communion with the Pope, but is also sedevacantist (they are saying that there is no real Pope now). The description "Roman Catholic nuns" is thus misleading. I propose that the description of the picture should be altered or (better) the pic should be replaced by another one from a real Catholic community that wears the unmodified habit (Benedictines, Poor Clares etc.). The only problem now is copyright... Lumendelumine 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand your perspective, perhaps it is only fair to consider that from their perspective the are Roman Catholic nuns. Perhaps removing the photo is a little too radical; what may be in order is simply adding to the caption to clarify that they are nuns of SSPV. MishaPan 14:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph "Roman Catholic Nuns singing Gregorian Chant"

message: I'd be willing to bet any changes I make would be quickly squashed by the gender police but I do take exception to the opening lines that insist a nun is a woman which is insulting to not only those who are clearly not women but also transgender and intersex nuns and monks who don't ascribe to the binary either/or world of male or female. I can live with the wording a "nun is usually female" and "a monk is usually male" as I feel that that is accurate. As the world's population grows and medical science expands we're understanding more and more that ambiguous genitals can be left as is rather than the traditional approach of doctors choosing which gender a baby should be.Benjiboi 21:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you feel is accurate is not a valid source in Wikipedia.  Goldfritha 23:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a page even to discuss nuns in general.  It is certainly not a page to discuss physical sexual abnormalities.  Goldfritha 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you shouldn't have gone off on a tangent.  Goldfritha 17:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, nuns are women. end of conversation. This isn't a mater of bias; it's a matter of fact.  Take a look at the published corpus on the matter. Yours is a fringe opinion.  Majoreditor 20:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is a bit silly. The terms monk and nun - also monastery and convent, are anglisized terms used alternatly for men and women and their religious dwellings. In fact, traditionally and in ancient usage a more correct term would be monastic or ascetic or anchorite or hesychast, and their dwelling a monastery. These terms apply to men and women. See above - in the Orthodox Church the terms are the same. The arguments about transgendered, etc are valid, but even more so, there are a number of famous "monks" (St Theodora the Great, St Evgenia, Etc.) who lived their entire monastic lives in monasteries among men, pretending to be men. The fact they were female was not discovered until they died. --Phiddipus 05:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  a Nun is not always a woman, a Monk is not always a man 

message: How about moving the article to Women's monasticism or Female monasticism per WP:DICDEF? Voting is welcomed. --Brand спойт 13:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most users who are looking for the information contained in this article would search under the word "nun." "Women's monasticism" seems to me a rather long-winded way of saying what the word "nun" says precisely. "Nun" is not slang, jargon, or an idiomatic phrase, so it does not violate any principle of WP:DICDEF. On an Internet search, "women's monasticism" brought up several academic papers, but "nun" brought up encyclopedic entries, such as Encyclopedia Britannica. MishaPan 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. MishaPan 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name 

message: Removed vandalism as follows:
Nun Cleaving  refers to an ancient and noble hobby whereby one encounters two sisters of the habit walking in the oposite direction, apparently joined by their flowing robes and one successfully seperates them simply by walking through the middle. Contrary to popular misunderstandings, one does not need to be a nun and one certainly doesn't need to either possess or use a cleaver to engage in this once-popular pastime.  There is no historical evidence whatsoever that His Holiness Pope Gregory IX gave his approval to Nun Cleaving on the 18th March 1237 although the church has never issued a formal condemnation of the practice.
''
--202.81.18.30 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The section on Catholic nuns is too long compared to the the other sections (the section on Eastern Orthodox nuns is also too long).  I propose copying the text to separate articles and leaving a shorter summary behind.  Any suggestions on what the titles of the new articles should be?  Catholic Nuns and Sisters redirects here but I'm not convinced that is the best article title. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sections are too long; start separate article? 

message: The present first picture of a nun on the page shows a nun who is active and liberated: active in her Christian actions and liberated from the contsraints of the expected life of a woman. She is a creature of the 21st Century but was not created then. Nuns have long been on the cutting edge of affirmative action in many walks of life. The "Bells of St Mary's Bing Crosby"  image should be put to one side. Unfortunately, people - especially non-practising Christians - want ot maintain a cosy image of what a nun is. 
Let's start again: two nuns walk into a bar ... one is dressed in a habit, the other is wearing everyday clothing. One Wikipedia editor says to another - "OK, they're both nuns, ... but that one is a REAL nun." It's got to stop. Most nuns wear a "habit-lite" or regular everyday clothes. Most are active in the community, working, not just in hospitals and schools, but in human rights groups, political think-tanks, and working with the disadvantaged. Stop thinking just about women with gaunt faces dressed in black. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 17:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid representing a Disneyfication of nuns 

message: *The entire "Sexual Abuse" section is biased, slanted, misleading and libelous. 
"Nuns have been implicated in many cases of sexual abuse and pedophilia."
Will someone show me an occupation or vocation where "many" of the members were NOT "implicated" in murder, rape, incest, sexual abuse, jaywalking etc. There is much talk on here about "stereotyping". It is the grossest and perniciously bigoted exaggeration reinforcing the heinous belief that nuns and priests have predilections towards sexual deviancy (due, I guess, to the natural corruption of the Roman Catholic Church). 
I see no study linked which shows nuns are more likely than Code Pink members to abuse anyone. It's defamatory and prejudicial to include a line like that. You wouldn't have something pernicious like that up about any other religious group, but Catholics seem to be fair game.
"Rabbis have been implicated in many cases of sexual abuse and pedophilia." 
"Baptist ministers have been implicated in many cases of sexual abuse and pedophilia."
then it's a short jump to:
"Blacks have been implicated in many cases of sexual abuse and pedophilia."
The article ends with the factoid that more nuns have been implicated than priests, getting a 2 for one smear, as if priests OR nuns were more likely than the general public to commit these acts. "Wow, priests are perverts, I know, but nuns are even BIGGER perverts!!"
Invalid, untrue, prejudicial, irrelevant, biased, unencyclopedic.
173.78.13.123 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the above is a bit of a 'rant', I do totally agree. The entire sexual abuse section was added recently by an anonymous editor, without any edit summary or rationale. This article is about Nuns in general - across all world religions and traditions - it is NOT the appropriate place for this type of material, which is exclusively about one denomination of one religion. Furthermore, the sweeping and prejudicial comments were not appropriate to Wikipedia at all. If this sexual abuse section belongs on Wikipedia at all (which I doubt, at least in its present form) then it is at an article about Roman Catholic nuns, NOT here. I have therefore re-deleted the section. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual abuse

message: I was supposed to read these but I fell asleep after 3 pages and left the class.
* Cheng, Wei-Yi. Buddhist nuns in Taiwan and Sri Lanka: a critique of the feminist perspective. Routledge. 2007.
* Huang, C. Julia. Charisma and compassion: Cheng-Yen and the Buddhist * * Tzu Chi movement. Harvard University Press. 2009.
* DeVido, Elise Anne. Taiwan’s Buddhist nuns. State University of New York Press. 2010.
About laywomen:
* Reed, Barbara. "Women and Chinese religion in contemporary Taiwan." Today’s woman in world religions. Edited by Arvind Sharma.
111.243.150.82 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddhist nuns in Taiwan

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100616160844/http://www.ssmbos.com:80/Pages/Whatwedo.html to http://www.ssmbos.com/Pages/whatwedo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Nun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226082911/http://www.thaibhikkhunis.org/eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=1&Itemid=3 to http://www.thaibhikkhunis.org/eng/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=1&Itemid=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927150743/http://www.dom.edu/export/sites/dominican/mcgreal/volumeone/DaHCHAP11.pdf to http://www.dom.edu/export/sites/dominican/mcgreal/volumeone/DaHCHAP11.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927150743/http://www.dom.edu/export/sites/dominican/mcgreal/volumeone/DaHCHAP11.pdf to http://www.dom.edu/export/sites/dominican/mcgreal/volumeone/DaHCHAP11.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616160844/http://www.ssmbos.com/Pages/whatwedo.html to http://www.ssmbos.com/Pages/whatwedo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120115054809/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Life to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Life
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since one might not know how to make a simple link to "sister" unless this was clarified here, I placed the info at the start of this section. Please let me know why you find this unacceptable. What is at stake here is that religious sisters today do not wish to be confused with monastic nuns, and yet are called nuns simply to reach this article. This clarifies how to reach this section of the article without the long subsection string. This information is not "unnecessary and useless", even for those who are editors of Wikipedia but don't notice the linking on the word in this section.  Jzsj (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that I find it unacceptable; it isn't Wikipedia practice. (The WP manual of style says: "Do not bait links, e.g. "Click here for more information"; let the browser's normal highlighting invite a click.") Links provide links. Commentary is unnecessary, especially when it's a direction to readers who have already managed to find this article. 32.218.40.132 (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the point about baiting links, but this seems very different to me. Even though editors may find their way here, they often don't know that "Religious sisters" is linked to this section, so that they continue to use the whole title of the subsection or they simply use "nun" and hope the reader will find this section. How are they to know "Religious sisters" links to this section when they are creating articles? Many have not known as is evident from the very many occurrences of "nun", when they mean "sister". Can you suggest a better way of lessening this mistake into the future?  Jzsj (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What you see as a problem does not occur because editors can't see the commentary you've added here; it's that they simply don't know that there is a difference between a sister and a nun. Given that they aren't likely to hit upon your obtuse commentary here, it's not likely to be the least bit helpful. Plus, as said before, it contravenes Wikipedia convention, which I know you don't give a crap about. 32.218.40.132 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much want to follow Wikipedia style, but what indicates this is different from the "convention" you quote is that in this case the statement would be meaningful even without the link, and it would forestall some of the need for me to keep going to articles on sisters and rerouting them to this section. Please try to find a statement on style that isn't talking about a different situation. Jzsj (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Where words are many, sin is not wanting; but those who restrain their lips do well." (Proverbs 10:19) 32.218.40.132 (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So will you allow me to restore the line with the link?... Without the link?  Jzsj (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to link "sisters"? 

message: While "nun" occurs 141 times in the article, "sister" does occur 52 times. Since there is no article on religious sisters in Wikipedia, shouldn't we remain this article "Nun and religious sister" (or do you vote for a separate article "Religious sister") ? Jzsj (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose The difference between a nun and a religious sister is outwardly absolutely zero. Both a member of the Poor Clares and a member of the Sisters of Mercy are here - Ireland - addressed as Sister. The differences in lifestyle do not warrant a name-change, not to mention a separate article. The Banner talk 23:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since as you say "sister" is the dominant title, and some are not nuns, and don't want to be called nuns, why should they be covered only under the article "Nun"? I know that the "nun" article tries to handle all religions together, but that may be the problem. Maybe the Catholic situation should be covered in an entirely separate article, and cross references be made back and forth where appropriate. They say that not even God knows how many congregations of sisters there are but we can try to get a handle on the modern situation of sisters, if only as a directory to articles on the various congregations? Jzsj (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Oppose: iMHO the better way would be to write an own article religious sister. Although both nuns and religious sisters are mostly addressed as „sister“ there are fundamental differences in lifestyle which found their way in canon law. Many of those who are called vernacular „a nun“ are in fact religious sisters.--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the rub! That Canon Law finds it difficult to dictate the living tradition, which here cannot be placed in the tight categories that lawyers might prefer. The most visible distinction now is that "nuns" remain praying and working in their monasteries while "sisters" see their apostolate as outside the monastery. Jzsj (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen real nuns work outside their (Dutch) monastery! So that division is also blurred... The Banner talk 02:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point, even many nuns are becoming more like sisters and most don't mind being called sisters. So why not simply rename this article "Religious sister and nun", understanding that this will range beyond Catholicism? Again, many sisters don't want to be called nuns and they shouldn't have to see themselves described in Wikipedia as a topic under nuns. Jzsj (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Or sisters become less different from nuns... The Banner talk 18:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

text: See above, we should intend to divide the article. Without splitting hairs, seeing a cloistered nun working outside the enclosure (which is occasionally possible but needs a dispense every single time) doesn't make her a religious sister nor is this characteristical for the way of life of nuns.--Turris Davidica (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Dividing is not easy and it would be a delicate job to rework the nun article not to include sisters. I'm still in favor of simply renaming the present article and tweaking it a bit. We need more input into this discussion. I wonder if any sisters edit Wikipedia; some would certainly feel strongly about this. Jzsj (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Dividing the article can be your ultimate nightmare. It means that you have to describe the differences between nuns and religious sisters, but also the way the different orders act upon their status. Including local variations due to the specific circumstances. And everything source by independent sources. Will that be worth the effort? The Banner talk 11:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid complications: to my opinion it can be difficult in the extreme to get a those articles correct and complete. The Banner talk 23:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

text: You may want to sign this yourself. And does the wider use of the term present a problem or should it just be mentioned somewhere in the article?  Jzsj (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "nursing sister" non-religious role should be mentioned. see The Nursing Sister: A Caring Tradition (2005) by  Peter Ardern  ISBN-13: 978-0709074151 Rjensen (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Male                             	Female
Priesthood in the Catholic Church	n/a
Monk                             	Nun
Brother (Christian)              	Lay Brother#Lay sisters
Lay brother                      	Lay Brother#Lay sisters
Friar                            	Lay Brother#Lay sisters
n/a                              	Catholic sisters and nuns in the United States
n/a                              	Catholic sisters and nuns in Canada
– Lionel(talk) 03:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article "Nun and religious sister" ? 

message: I question your revert of the following: 
 Consequently, as used today, religious sister is a generic term, used at times by nuns but always the proper designation for those who do not live a monastic life. For all nuns the term is used as a pre-nominal: rather than saying “Nun Jane Doe” one says “Sister Jane Doe”. And those nuns who live an active life, not centered on prayer within the monastery, may prefer the designation “sister”.
These are reliable sources. New Catholic is an excellent source. Note it is "tertiary" and falls under WP:RSPRIMARY. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. Canonlawmadeeasy is a blog, which is acceptable in this case since Ms. Caridi qualifies as an expert. See WP:UGC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions. 
I would make one improvement, and change "centered on" to "limited to". I suggest, then, that this is a helpful addition to the article, and would like to know what others think. Jzsj (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Try it again with independent sources. And make sure the text is readable. The Banner talk 11:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I await your reference in Wikipedia on why these sources fail the "independence" test. And please clarify what precisely you find "unreadable".  Jzsj (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Encyclopedia.com is a reliable source for basic facts. It has reasonable editorial oversight, and has reasonable academic quality. It can be used as a reliable tertiary source. As for the website Canon Law Made Easy, this appears to be a blog more than an academic source. It may be used carefully as a primary source, per WP:RSPRIMARY. Full independence is not required for secondary sources, but is a pro. See Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent and WP:RS.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 04:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 1983 Code of Canon Law is a WP:PRIMARY source, and "Canon Law Made Easy" is analysis of that Code, making it a secondary source. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an opinion on the revert, and what of the encyclopedia source? Jzsj (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsuitable. The Banner talk 22:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Yep, the discussion went into the wrong direction so it is ignored. The Banner talk 23:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious sister revert questioned 

message: A deletion discussion regarding a related page Religious sister (Catholic) is ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious sister (Catholic) –Zfish118⋉talk 15:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok 135.135.47.37 (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious sister (Catholic) 

message: It seems from both the lede and the use of the  template at the start of the Buddhism section that this article deals primarily with nuns in the Christian tradition and that those in the Buddhist tradition are dealt with in the separate Bhikkhunī. This makes more sense than making brief mention of bhikkhunī here and then directing a reader to another article for the main discussion of that topic. Indeed, I would say the fact that that article exists means that it shows this article deals with a different topic. Therefore, I propose splitting the article to remove discussion of bhikkhunī to that article and keeping here only discussion of Christian nuns. Ergo Sum  12:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps time to split the article