Talk:Abbey

Pics

There are lots more illustrations yet, which I'll be adding in the next few days. Some are not small. I'm going to split the page up into Abbey, Abbey (2), Abbey (3) etc. so we don't have a megabyte sized page. Unless anyone has a better idea for the nomenclature of the subdivided pages? Malcolm Farmer

Seems like the natural split is to split it into individual articles about each abbey, at the existing subheads (Clairveaux, Kirkstall, etc.) --LDC

..OK, seems reasonable.. Malcolm Farmer

You might want to build a reorganization around a disambig page that would also reference Abbey Theatre, Abbey Road, etc. GreatWhiteNortherner 11:12, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

"Monastery" is redirecting here. That should be changed, since "monastery" is applicable to several religions, whereas "abbey" is not. (see for instance Monasticism) for a broader definition). Maybe "Monasticism" and "Monastery" should be merged into a single article, or "Monastery" should become a disambiguation page. olivier 03:56 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Nunnery

I had heard that the term "nunnery" in Shakespeare's era was commonly slang for brothel. That Hamlet's dismissal of Ophelia, "Get thee to a nunnery" would have been a widely understood double entendre.

However, it's only hearsay for me, I'd prefer to find some scholarly substantiation before editing the main article with this. Anyone? JimD 21:24, 2004 May 3 (UTC)

I've just come across this today. I was always of exactly the same view. But again, hearsay. JackofOz 10:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there no article yet on Anticlericalism? --Wetman 19:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Organizing

A look at "What links here" shows how huge this article is capable of becoming. Perhaps each Order should have a brief paragraph here, with a note Main article at... Bulleted under it, perhaps a linked list of individual abbeys, with a sentence of founding, location, historical importance. Should the abbeys be grouped by general location, within each order? Perhaps later: an easy job. Similarly condensed abstracts of further articles should follow the layout of the Orders. I can think of Abbey (architecture) and Abbey (scriptorium), for examples. --Wetman 19:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'd like to re-organize and clean up this article - if there are no other candidates for the task. Please notify me, anybody, if you have already started to do so.Chingon86 21:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• And while I'm having a go at that, I intend to eliminate the 1911 Encyclopedia part. Does anybody mind?Chingon86 01:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Neat

I had a project on abbeys and this was very useful!! --H~DS 02:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Restored lost text

I've restored the text that was recently deleted. Perhaps a joke? --Wetman 08:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blanking text

The following is copied here from User talk:Wetman (Wetman 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for restoring all of the text I deleted from "Abbey" -- including all of the material about priories which is factually completely ubtrue, all of the material about friaries and other monasteries which are not abbeys at all, and all of the minutiae about a handful of abbeys picked out for mention above the 1,000s of other abbeys for no discernible reason. You ahve done a great service to making Wikipedia more useful.HarvardOxon 22:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The better sort of Wikipedia editor is at least as careful about what one deletes as what one adds. Deleting is not editing. Blanking sections of text is a form of vandalism. Quibbles about monasteries that are not abbeys but friaries etc. need to be addressed in the text— by someone who is competent to do so. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 text needs thoughtful revising, not trashing. These posts are being copied at Talk:Abbey. --Wetman 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If to you it is a "quibble" whether or not a "monastery" is an abbey or a friary, you have absolutely no "qualification" to be reverting edits. This is not the 1911 text of the Britannica, this is a lot of stufff added after. Blanking sections is not a "form of vandalism" when that section is wrong...factually in error. leaving it in is a form of intellectual vandalism. In short, your high-handed reverts were made by someone who doesn't know what the hel he's talking about.HarvardOxon 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Archabbeys

The link Archabbey redirects here. So. What exactly is an archabbey? It is not addressed anywhere in the article. Rwflammang 20:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is how I arrived here today as well. Varlaam (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This still needs to be addressed in the article. Tom (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Originality

Is this original ? Most of this sounds like overblown text lifted from a rather sycophantic single source. 86.160.77.50 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Limited Definition and Confusing Details

This article refers only to buildings within a Christian religious context, where as the term "abbey" may also refer to certain Buddhist monastery-like centers and to certain English estates (now popularized by the "Downton Abbey" television series). In addition, it seems to include a substantial detail about specific buildings like the Great Lavra and St. Gall, which could be stand-alone articles.Roxielobo (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Buddhist centres? Who cares. Let them have their own article, since such an institution would have a proper name within their traditions, without piggybacking on this article.

And if a post-Dissolution of the Monasteries abbey becomes an estate, what of it? You can't travel through the Spanish-speaking world without tripping over "ex-convents" everywhere you go. The hit TV show, Downton Ex-Abbey.

Varlaam (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"the chapterhouse, the refecrefectory, the kitchen-court"

Quite possibly the world's only surviving "refecrefectory".
Does each person receive two helpings? Varlaam (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Abbey vs monastery

This article should describe the differences between an abbey and a monastery. Also, it seems to be covering a lot of the generic concepts also defined in Monastery. I believe the two articles should be reviewed and simplified in parallel.--Codrin.B (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Anglican

This article fails to be broadly inclusive of the historical accuracy of faiths, beyond narrowly Catholic, which have long utilized abby and monatery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.119.165.126 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Originality: part 2

The majority of the article is copy pasted from Encyclopedia Britannica 1911; whereas, due to its public domain status, it is legal, however, that does not lend itself to a smooth, modern, concise, accurate article (IMHO). I am going to start rewriting it in the coming days. speednat (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abbey. 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 {{dead link}} tag to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Encyclop
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140504193337/http://www.yorkhistory.org.uk/node/117 to http://www.yorkhistory.org.uk/node/117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051018065821/http://www.sacred-destinations.com:80/sacred-sites/christian-monasteries.htm to http://www.sacred-destinations.com/sacred-sites/christian-monasteries.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)