Talk:Abbot

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Links

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abbot article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Abbot}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Layout

Somebody with more expertice could divide this article into paragraphs with headlines. --84.230.104.193 06:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Abbot article, and they have been placed in a handy list for your convenience. — 203.134.197.133 23:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender

Some women style themselves to look like idiots Bold text'abbot'. See, for example, Joan Halifax Roshi (Her website). --Shantavira 15:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Monastics"

User:HarvardOxon added the following to the Eastern Christian section:

the title "abbot" is not given in the Western Church to any but actual abbots of monasteries today, the title archimandrite is given to "monastics" (i.e., celibate) priests in the East, even when not attached to a monastery, as an honor for service, similar to the title of monsignor in the Western/Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.

I cannot speak for Eastern Rite Catholics, but the Orthodox Church does not normally have "celibate" clergy who are non-monastic (except for married priests whose wives have died, and they would be elevated to Archpriest or Protopresbyter, but not Abbot). While it is true that—at least in the Russian Church—the rank of Abbot (Hegumen) and Archimandrite may be bestowed as an honorary title to a monk who may not happen to be the superior of a community, it is always given only to monks (not to persons who are merely "celibate"). Unless someone has been tonsured a monk, he cannot be made an Abbot. I would recommend re-editing the sentence to make it more accurate, and less offensive. MishaPan 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you find "offensive" in this post. The definition of a "monastic" in Orthodox or Eastern Catholic churches is a tonsured monk, who is therefore committed to celibacy, even if he has not taken minor or major schema. Not all monastics live in monasteries, e.g. http://www.geocities.com/orthodoxchurchsg/clergy.html, the first google i saw of many on the subject. Some monastics are in fact parish clergy, not living inside of a monastery. Hence, as far as the public is concerned, there are celibate priests in the East, who may be given the purely honorific and non-functional title of archimandrite, and non-celibate clergy who are, as you said, raised to the rank of archpriest, etc. So, in fact, an archimdnarite may be functional as the head of a monastery or purely honorific...he may get the pure honorific if in a monastery or even if not in a monastery but working in a parish. What's there to take umbrage about? Who is being insulted?HarvardOxon 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian-centric view

Given that Zen Buddhist Centres (and probably many other traditions) also have Abbots, this article is FAR too christianity-centric. I like christianity and its history as much as the next guy, but all of these christian historical details belong elsewhere. In fact, the second sentence of the article clearly states that " This article is intended to present facts related to the role and history associated with abbots in Christianity." ----> This may imply completely ignoring additional (perhaps more relevant) non-Christian material.

Article is currently in a "worst of both worlds" state -- The lead sentence is, "The word abbot, meaning father, is a title given to the head of a monastery in various traditions, including Christianity," but article doesn't actually say anything about non-christian abbots. Let's either remove mention of non-Christian abbots or add some content about them. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to be a question of terminology, as is often the case when an article is perceived as "-centric" in some way. I don't understand why the "Christian historical details belong elsewhere;" this is a word that developed in a Christian context. Romance languages use variants of the same word. My guess is that the application of the term "abbot" to the head of a Buddhist monastery is a translation; that is, in Anglophone countries we call these figures "abbots" on analogy with the Christian, but that in China or Tibet or other countries with a longer history of Buddhism than the West, the word is surely something else — a word that more accurately reflects Buddhist history, Buddhist hierarchy, Buddhist views. In some cases, applying terminology cross-culturally can be inaccurate and misleading. For instance (and I'm totally making this up for hypothetical reasons), if the equivalent term in a Tibetan Buddhist setting didn't mean "Father," but "Highest One," the Christian term would be assuming a patriarchal structure that wouldn't necessarily be the point. The etymology section makes it clear that the word "abbot" has a very specific history particular to its Semitic and European origins. The article is about "abbot," not the head of monastic orders as any might happen to exist. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do hear what you are saying, but more than 5 years after you wrote your note, the fact remains that the word "abbot" is frequently used in English to refer to the administrative head of Buddhist monasteries. The fact that this word is a translation of a term from various other languages is irrelevant. There are plenty of Anglophone Buddhists these days, and plenty of Buddhist monasteries in Anglophone countries. This encyclopedia needs to reflect the fact that this word is used often outside of a Christian context. Invertzoo (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Solved the problem I think, by creating a new article Abbot (Buddhism). Invertzoo (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whence monasticism?

The article currently says that Egypt was "the first home of monasticism". This kind of claim requires substantiation. If none is added, the phrase should be removed. It doesn't add anything anyway. 66.117.50.141 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV-check

Hi. I searched this article for "buddhism" and didn't get any hits. My mistake if it's there. I think this article is written for a Christian audience although the first sentence says it applies to "various" traditions. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched again and didn't find it. At right is a caption, in contribution in case somebody fixes this someday. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this is a problem. I figure what we need to do is to start an article on Abbot (Buddhism) and then the current article can have a footnote directing people to that article if they are not primarily interested in the Christian context. Invertzoo (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE:::Solved the problem I think, by creating a new article Abbot (Buddhism). Invertzoo (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abbot. 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:

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) 08:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]