Talk:Bernard of Clairvaux

Content copied from Catholic Encyclopedia

Hello all-- I tagged the article with {{copypaste}} after noticing that it appeared to have been copied in great part from the Bernard articleon the Catholic Encyclopedia site. I e-mailed the person who maintains the site to see if there are restrictions on the material and am waiting to hear back. -Eric ^talk 15:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.newadvent.org hosts text from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which is public domain. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure what to do. Do you know if there's a general consensus as to whether we should lean towards or away from copying public domain material directly? -Eric ^talk 17:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The article needs a template, because there is still copy/pasted text from Catholic Encyclopedia in there, e.g. "The last years of Bernard's life were saddened by the failure of the Second Crusade he had preached, the entire responsibility for which was thrown upon him" is copied from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/St._Bernard_of_Clairvaux. Isn't there now a template for this which can be put at the top of an article? Adpete (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Speaking of ″apparent incorrect″ (revert as of 03:12, 17 August 2016):

My changes were based on

1. page 170 of the cited book (chapter heading),
2. Template:Cite book (authorlink, formatting),
3. English grammar (its -> it's).

The disparaging remarks by Eric are apparently incorrect. Je suis Nigérian (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disparaging remarks?? I don't think so. You might want to grow a thicker skin if you're going to edit here. Follow the Google Books link and search for the string "I belief" before you do any more reverting. Eric ^talk 13:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of ″incorrect changes″ (edit as of 13:02, 18 August 2016):

1. Template:Cite book & Authors has a parameter for ″authorlink″.
2. Template:Cite book & Title has a parameter for ″chapter headings″.
3. Template:Cite book & Title does not have a parameter for ″page headers″.

With many thanks for disparaging my thin skin. Je suis Nigérian (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no trouble at all. Good to see you fixed the quote. Eric ^talk 23:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Your reply gives me wings. Je suis Nigérian (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernard of Clairvaux. 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/20070930020043/http://www.waysideaudio.com/audio/bernard/bernard.html to http://www.waysideaudio.com/audio/bernard/bernard.html

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) 14:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Cistercian 'Order'

One of the problems with understanding the Cistercian reform is that the concept of an 'Order' is problematic. Although the Carthusians (who aren't Benedictines) are credited with the invention of the concept, the idea of joining an 'order' and not a 'monastery' is problematic given the Benedictine emphasis on Stability. Cluny theoretically operated as a single monastery, which the Cistercians explicitly rejected.

The specific point at issue is the tendency of this article to refer to the Cistercian order in a way that is not coherent. I've made some changes in detail; I hope they will be acceptable in the light of the above comments. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Children's book a valid source for Wikipedia?

The section on "Temptations and intercessions" is taken from a children's book used to prepare kids for First Communion. That is not appropriate source material. I will delete the section in a few days; if in the meantime someone can find a better source, please do. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes today. Still a lot of improvement necessary here. Melchior2006 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is “Bernard of Clairvaux” being pushed over “Saint Bernard”, “St Bernard”?

Why is the Clairvaux bit being pushed these days. One cannot even get to his WIKI page by way of googling “Saint Bernard” nor “St Bernard”. 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:CC51:BCEA:6940:F505 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Click on those links & see why! Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Pls remove: Papal audience for Canons Regular of Great Saint Bernard .... wrong Bernard

@Johnbod: A recent edit inserts several lines about a papal audience on November 11, 2024, on the occasion of Bernard's (supposed) canonization. A group of Canons Regular of Great Saint Bernard and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Aosta was present. The only problem is.... it's the wrong Bernard. Saint Bernard of Menthon is not Bernard of Clairvaux. Our Bernard was canonized on January 18, 1174. Is that WP:UNDUE or is that just.... wrong? -- Melchior2006 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)