Talk:Passionist nuns

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 16 November 2022[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passionist nuns → Passionist Nuns – Proper noun referring to a specific order (or family of orders) and not simply a collection of related nuns. See https://www.passionistnuns.org/ Elizium23 (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, makes sense. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We might cap "Passionist" but it does not ipso facto follow that we cap monks or nuns when preceded by Passionist since both are category nouns. The link by the nom is to the "Passionist Nuns of St Joseph Monastery". This is a very particular institution and it would be appropriate to cap accordingly. However, the article is more general than this. The case by the nom has not been made. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is only a single religious congregation founded in Corneto in 1775, and with two houses in the United States (Clarks Summit [1] and Whitesville [2]). The Annuario Pontificio lists them as "Passioniste di S. Paolo della Croce (Suore)", but in English they are commonly known as the "Passionist Nuns". This is not like the term "Dominican nuns" or "Dominican sisters", terms which can include members of a number of separate religious congregations. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While proper nouns have a specific referent, specificity or uniqueness is not a defining property of a proper noun/name since this can also be done with a common noun phrase. The distinction that would be made by Mcferran is not established or supported by the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on several counts. The distinction that would be made by Mcferran is supported by the article from its very first words The Passionist nuns are an order of nuns... (my emphasis). The question is not whether uniqueness is or is not a defining property. The question is simply, given the uniqueness of this referent, is capitalisation a normal part of English usage? And it is. It's the normal way of marking such uniqueness. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether uniqueness is or is not a defining property. The question is simply, given the uniqueness of this referent, is capitalisation a normal part of English usage? These two statements are an unresolved juxtaposition. If uniqueness or specificity of referent is not a defining property of a proper name, then we cannot use uniqueness or specificity of referent to assert that a name is a proper name that should be capitalised. A defining property of a true proper name is that it is an arbitrary label and not descriptive. Consequently, one cannot argue from first principles that this is a proper name and should be capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article does describe a particular order, and the name of that order is the Passionist Nuns and it is correct to mark it as such with capitalisation. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That it "describes", would clearly indicate that the term is a common noun that should not be capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I said was This article describes... and that is not the same statement as This title describes.... The concept of a common noun is poorly understood, in my experience at Wikipedia. It's not quite what we were taught in primary school! Andrewa (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are now not accurately quoting either yourself or myself. What one is taught in primary schools is simplified for a primary school mind. If a noun phrase is descriptive, it is not a true proper noun. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as the cited Catholic Encyclopedia uses "Passionist nuns" without the extra capitaization. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, on this page the Catholic Encyclopedia uses the term "Passionist Nuns" (with Nuns capitalized) for the title of the article section [3]. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Titles are another matter. Many publications use title case for titles. Wikipedia uses sentence case for article titles, so it is generally best to look within the body text of sources for Wikipedia capitalization guidance purposes rather than to look at their titles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as BarrelProof says, we look to usage in sentences. I see four times "Passionist nuns" in the cited articles, and caps only in their title-case title. It appears that the order's proper name is "Passionists", and we woud cap that as well as the proper-name-related adjective "Passionist". But not nuns. Dicklyon (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which are you going to rely on, the 100+ year old tertiary source, or the Passionist Nuns' own websites? Elizium23 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, a more independent source is better than a promotional website produced by the subject of an article, so perhaps the former (if we need to choose between the two). Pluralization is rather unusual for a proper name, and self-published sources tend to overcapitalize as a way of trying to assert importance. Moreover, Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not say to just pick the source(s) we prefer – they say that if the sources are mixed, we should use lowercase.—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's not consistent capitalization even in their own websites. Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not consistently capitalised in running prose, including in the New Catholic Encyclopedia mentioned above, and other sources such as [4][5]. Remember, the bar for considering this a proper name for MOS:CAPS purposes is that it should be "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" and that bar is clearly not met here. — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cooperatrix[edit]

I admit I did not turn up a dictionary definition for "cooperatrix" in two traditional Catholic sources, but uh, do we really need to define a word like this? Amelia Earhart is an aviatrix and who had trouble understanding what that is? A cooperatrix is a female cooperator; now a cooperator may have a deeper canonical definition and I would welcome someone finding it, but I mostly object to the badge-of-shame that {{clarify}} insults the intelligence of our dear readers. Elizium23 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah seems like someone was being a touch too clever. It was a dated term a century ago and creates an unnecessarily stilted and potentially confusing sentence. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought also was to rephrase the sentence to remove the word (which is not found in non-Catholic dictionaries either), but I thought it might have some special in-universe meaning, like the way "religious" was also being used in the article as a noun. Even without the -trix suffix, the term seemed strange. The context of the term also seemed difficult to understand, even when inferring the apparent meaning: "Paul had as cooperatrix in the foundation of the Passionist nuns a religious, known as Mother Mary Crucified, ..." The tag was not intended as a "badge-of-shame", but rather as a request for improvement. This article had a lot of unexplained phrasing that isn't understandable to people who are not well versed in Roman Catholic organizational terminology. This is not the Catholic Wikipedia – articles should be written to be understandable to general readership, as much as possible. I suspect that much of the discussion wouldn't even be understood by many (layperson) Roman Catholics. (I also checked to see whether the Amelia Earhart article calls her an aviatrix; it doesn't – and it shouldn't.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]