From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is a too brief and slightly skewed version of the Trappists. You should mention that they are a contemplative order, and while their abstinence of alcohol is one aspect of their ovservance, the most notable is their silence. In fact they rarely speak, and have an intricate sign language they have passed down for hundreds of years for communicating without the use of their voice. That being said, they are not forbidden to talk.

  • I recently visited the abbey in the Netherlands (Koningshoeven) and was told by one of the monks that they do use their voice to communicate and that the sign-language is no longer used. In fact, he himself had no knowledge of the signs mentioned.Vodyanoi 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit biased to only highlight the alcohol abstinence, then following it with the ironic statement that they make liquor and beer.

It's quite ok to think that monks are funny and once-in-a-while a bit schizophrenic.

  • Sounds like what I added August 1, so you must want more of the same. Not that I'm volunteering - I'm not Catholic or anything, and you know more about Trappists than I do. Art LaPella 16:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am unable to even confirm that the Trappists are required to abstain from alcohol. I looked in their constitutions (essentially rules of the order in addition to the Rule of St. Benedict) and while I could find a requirement to abstain from meat (unless ill) I could find nothing at all said about alcohol. I am going to do a bit more research, but I think this article essentially needs to be rewritten. -- Bill McHale 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The Trappists have not been required to abstain from alcohol since 1836, it's merely a choice (often determined by the abbott). Before this, the Trappist founder did impose abstinence, but no more. In an email exchange with the head monk of the Trappist monastery that brews Chimay beer (Scourmont), I asked this very question and got the following reply: Contrary to Islam and some other religions, that [sic] has never been any rule concerning total abstinence of alcoholic beverage in Christianity. At Scourmont, as in other monasteries of Belgium, at daily meals, monks drink either water or some very light beer (which is not even in the market), not the strong beer that is on the market. - Armand Veilleux. It doesn't get more authoritative than that! Also see some of the trappist brewery websites (linked off trappist beer). Riflemann 15:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but Trappists have no abstinence of alcohol. In most french monasteries, they drink wine (cider in Brittany and Normandy); in Belgium, they drink their own beers... The only abstinence: they don't eat meat (at least for healthy monks or nuns). If any doubt, see Benedict's Rule, chapters 38 and 40.--Martha e (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you sure the meals are usually taken in complete silence? I am pretty sure that one of the monks is appointed to

read aloud to the monks during the main meal... Which I believe is mandated in the Rule of St. Benedict. In any case, while I think we can add more to it, I think this article is alot better than it was a few weeks ago.Bill McHale 06:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • The trappists follow the Benedict's rule and Benedict wanted the monks to stay silent while listening to the reading of some book. See chapter 38 : Reading must not be wanting at the table of the brethren when they are eating. So I did the modification --Martha e (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup notice[edit]

It says "see...this article's talk page" for help, and you left us guessing. Grammar, spelling etc. are better than most Wikipedia pages. And if you agree with the objection at the top of this talk page there are more precise templates to use - and I don't use them, because the solution to a missing discussion is to go ahead and add it. Art LaPella 20:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


Ok, I have revised the article to more reflect the fact that the Trappists are a religious order dedicated to prayer, penance and work. It still mentions the fact that the Trappists produce beer (But not that they abstain from beer since I found no evidence of that and found at least one reference to them producing beer for the consumption of the momks) but I believe now it does not make them look like simply an excentric bunch of silent beer brewers. -- Bill McHale 00:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead ends[edit]

Don't know if it's a result of cleanups, but references 3,4 and 5 on this entry lead nowhere Grubstreet 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Connecting this article[edit]

This article should be connected to Trappista cheese article.

Leomcholwer (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Rule 48[edit]

The translation of the Rule of St Bendict that I have, (Litugical Press, trans. Leonard Doyle, 1935), makes Rule 48 sound rather different to the implied. It is titled 'On the daily manual labour', and is mostly concerned with the reason for, and extent of, manual labour. It is in the final paragraph that the quotation must have come from, which begins, "And if the circumstances of the place, or their poverty should require that they themselves do the work of gathering the harverst". This gives more of an implication of "if it's needed, that's good to do", rather than the implication of one _should_ do so.

It's entirely possible that the Trappists (or Cistercians generally) have a stricter interpretation than the translation I have, but if so it would be better to make that more explicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"obviously factyalk [sic]"[edit]

Excactly what is factual? And then you reverted me because it is over tagging? This requires an explanation.Curb Chain (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't tag every statement in a section, it's intrusive and makes the text very difficult for our readers. Instead of deleting obviously factual statements, you should spend a few minutes of your time, as valuable as it is, seeing if you can verify the informaion instead of deleting or tagging it. You may think you're improving the encyclopedia, but in fact your actions are destructive and disruptive, and if you keep it up, you're going to end up blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
You see, between my last post and this one I found cites for the three things you tagged in that section (which you tried to delete), which I never should have had to do because they're obviously true to anyone of reasonable intelligence. That's what overtagging means, putting tags on every sentence of a paragraph that any intelligent adult would recognize as being true.

You need to closely examine your behavior here, because it appears to me that you are, in fact, damaging the encyclopedia by your overly zealous application of the "rules" without regard to the actual substance of the information involved. Perhaps you should begin a new regime: don't delete, edit or tag anything which you don't understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And keeping up these candid insults can get you blocked.Curb Chain (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Only if you stop showing them to be true by your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
What exactly? That I am not intelligent? I do not have reasonable intelligence? Answer the questions so we can take for record that you are personally attacking me. And lastly, That I don't understand? And answer this question so that we can record that you are harassing me.Curb Chain (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. "The Trappists have received particular attention in recent years because of the popularity of the writings of Thomas Merton, a member of the order" using "About Thomas Merton":
    Source does not indicate that the writings of Thomas Merton have resulted in extra attention to the Trappists or that the writings of Thomas Merton
  2. "More recently, the critically acclaimed film Of Gods and Men" using "Between Heaven and Earth"
    Source does not indicate or say that that the film is critically acclaimed
  3. " and the popularity of Trappist beers (such as Chimay, Westmalle, and a few others) have brought additional publicity to the order." using "Trappist beers"
    Source like 1. does not indicate or mention that these beers are popular, or brought additional publicity to the order; they merely show that the beers exist. (this is what I call falsification of the source)
For these reasons, I am removing the section.Curb Chain (talk) 08:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
And I shall restore it, as it is properly sourced. I am not responsible for your lack of understanding of the sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Discuss it rather than edit warring.Curb Chain (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
What's to discuss? You deleted sourced information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You're both edit-warring, so nobody has the moral high ground on that score. Curb Chain, two things: you don't just get to decide "well, the other guy is wrong, so the discussion is over and I can re-revert". If you can't get BMK to agree, dispute resolution venues like DRN or 3O are thataway. Also, you appear to be blanking the entire section for reasons I can't quite make out; some of your complaints are perhaps well-founded, but only apply to parts of the sections you're removing. If you have problems with a phrase in the sentence, like "critically-acclaimed", then remove that phrase, but you don't need to also remove the rest of the sentence. Writ Keeper 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. It looks like synthesis, using published material to advance a position not explicitly stated in the sources. We can't "read between the lines" and write whatever we wish were supportable. We can report what the sources explicitly say, and that's it. "What's to discuss" is whether the sources support the text or not. Text that is not actually supported by the sources cited is not actually "sourced information". I wouldn't think that would be too hard to understand. Yworo (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure. What I was objecting to was the appearance that CC removed all the content because of concerns that only concern some of it. Specifically, removing the entire mention of the movie Of Gods and Men because the source didn't say it was "critically acclaimed". Removing the "critically acclaimed" phrase would have been fine for that reason, but that's not a reason to remove the entire sentence that talks about the movie. If he had gone on to say that "also, according to the source, the movie hasn't brought any additional attention to the Trappist order", then that would be a legit reason for removing the entire sentence as you say. But I don't think that's the case, and even if it is, that's not the argument Curb Chain made. that's what I was addressing. Writ Keeper 21:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The whole paragraph leads up to the end of the sentence "have brought additional publicity to the order" but the sources don't seem to support this claim. But without that reason, why should the paragraph exist and what would it say? Seems this is actually more of a list of "In popular culture" than thinks which "have brought additional publicity to the order", which would require an entirely different presentation. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Yworo has the idea. The paragraph was not even sourced until BMK personally attacked me and then brought in false sources. If I removed only the sources, I would only have a whole paragraph that could completely have been made up. Oh, and don't accuse me of not trying to write something to replace it. Give me rather something you could replace it with. Considering how much experience BMK has, he should have known this.Curb Chain (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to say I'm about, have familiarised myself with the situation and am happy to lend a hand in an admin capacity if needed. Obviously, no more edit warring and much more discussion would be good. Writ Keeper's advice on getting more eyes on the situation was good and if you can't come to some sort of local consensus. But you've all been around long enough to know that. WormTT(talk) 10:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, my reasons have been stated with more detail than BMK's. He needs to address THOSE concerns if rather than edit war.Curb Chain (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw no evidence of a personal attack by BMK. On the other hand, Curb Chain does have a long-history of bad faith content deletion without tagging or discussion. As evidenced by his comment three above this one, he is still unrepentant. I think the fault for the reversion war rests squarely on Curb Chain's shoulders given his consistent combative attitude. I'll try to find some sources that will do a bit better. Oreo Priest talk 19:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If the information is false, I will immediately remove it as this improves the project by removing false information. And by the way, this is standard procedure thus it baffles me that you would make such a comment only at me.Curb Chain (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
If you think the information is false, correct and courteous procedure is to tag it and/or discuss it first, and come back later to delete it if nobody objects or fixes it. I know you mean well, but being as combative as you are will get you in many more avoidable conflicts with other editors. Oreo Priest talk 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncited source[edit]

I have concern about the following (The following citations have the wiki markup paraphrased.):

Trappist beers contain residual sugars and living yeast, and, as bottle-conditioned beers do,[1] will improve with age. These have become quite famous and are considered by many beer critics to be amongst the finest in the world,[2]

In [3]:

... contain residual sugars and living yeast and -- unlike conventional beers -- will improve with age.

The difference is the replacement of "...unlike conventional beers..." with " bottle-conditioned beers do...". In addition, [4] is a dead link, and "These have become quite famous and are considered by many beer critics to be amongst the finest in the world,..." is not cited by the source. Is there objection to the removal of the deadlink, unsourced material, and replacing " bottle-conditioned beers do..." with "...unlike conventional beers..."?Curb Chain (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, although your reading of the article to delete the 'finest in the world' claim was excessively stringent. Oreo Priest talk 19:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Where is this sourced? Which article are you talking about?Curb Chain (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)