Talk:Sisters of St. Joseph

Christianity: Catholicism 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To T?

On the second paragraph: the Sisters of St. Joseph presented themselves to t, a widow, could sign her name and only two brought any kind of financial dowry. What does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.74.250 (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low importance?

The Sisters of St Joseph are rated low importance? Generations of parochial school kids wish they knew that ahead of time. :) MarkinBoston 18:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

different communities of Sisters of St. Joseph aren't like phylogenies - they are actually different lineages - you cannot just merge them!Sfterry (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've upped the importance to mid ;) Dsp13 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

I wonder if it might be better to arrange the different orders in the chronological order they were founded, instead of alphabetical, to provide a better historical reading flow? -- Mecandes (talk) 13:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient disambigation

Between the Australian order and this one - please note that due to the immanent change in Mary McKillop's status - a head note is being added for that reason Satu Suro 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticized by the Vatican?

I heard that the Sisters had been criticized by the Vatican. I came to this page looking for info on that subject. Instead, all I found was a gigantic list of various branch organizations. Where can I even find recent info about the sisterhood as a whole? Sonicsuns (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sisters of St. Joseph. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]