User talk:MishaPan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, MishaPan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi!

Thanks for the interest and help on articles related to Byzantine Christianity! Have a profitable Great Lent! InfernoXV 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Church-of-the-Holy-Sepulchre18.jpg.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Your thoughts on the John Chrysostom article?

Hello, MishaPan. I was wondering what your thoughts are on the current state of the article on John Chrysostom. We have some discussion going on the article's talk page, Talk:John Chrysostom, about the best title to use for some of his sermons. If you are so inclined please take a glance at it and let us know what you think.

Also, thank you for your contributions to Byzantine Christianity articles -- I've been working on several myself. Cheers, Majoreditor 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crucession?

Misha, I've never heard the word 'crucession' used anywhere. It doesn't return a single hit on Google, and I've never seen it used in books of any tradition - is this a neologism? It seems the entire article can go under Processions. InfernoXV 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moleben

Good informative URL: http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/beginning/occasions.shtml

[edit] St. Porphyry of Gaza

I saw that you edited the Porphyry of Gaza article right after a bunch of reverts were done to my changes, and I thought your changes good. But I'm hoping to discuss the reverts in the talk page and would welcome your input.

Many thanks for your comments. With luck we can keep this article NPOV.Roger Pearse 08:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contact

Dear Hierodeacon - would it be possible to contact you off wikipedia? My email is edward.yong@gmail.com, and I have some questions about monastic usage I'd like to ask! InfernoXV 12:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Octoechos

You did some good work there on the subject of the liturgical book, and I thought it deserved its own article. So I split it off into Octoechos (liturgical text), hopefully capturing all of your latest edits. If we were go go into much detail on how the various modes were adapted by the chant systems of the local churches as the Church grew, it could become rather longer and drift away from the main topic of the original article, which itself needs quite a bit of work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I see your intent, but it's not really good Wikipedia style to place external links inline within an article. If they're just for illustrating a point from the article, it's better to collect them all into the "External links" section at the end. Even better would be to find freely licensed photos and upload them so they can be displayed in the article directly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

I notice that you most frequently use the "Notes" section for the kind of footnotes used to explicate some minor point related to the text it refers to. Their primary purpose is really to provide references. If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, for all the good work you've been doing the articles could be improved exponentially by Wikipedia standards if you happen to have sources at hand and can cite them. Citations can be expedited by using one of the citation templates or you can use whatever style you're accustomed to.

There are several articles I've worked on where I have to go back and do this. They were up to the standard at the time they were written, but that standard has become more rigorous since. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

It's been a real pleasure to suddenly have someone as knowledgeable and sensible as yourself contributing such a volume of quality writing to the Orthodox-related articles. I can't devote half the time I'd like, and we lost several valuable contributors over the past year. Thank you in return for all the work you've done. You will be in my prayers; please keep me in yours. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

Am I the only one who finds the sudden appearance of an article ex nihilo to be slightly dodgy? InfernoXV 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icon

Hi, I don't know if you've noticed the Icon talk page of late. The article has come under attack from rather unsophisticated members of the Orthodox project, unfairly I think, and another view, from someone with Othodox credibility, would be welcome. The article could do with improvement, but not really along the lines they suggest. There are currently two sections essentially on the Othrodox theology of images, and they could do (in my view) with being merged & made more concise, & then moved up the page. I have been moving stuff in from what was largely a duplicate article at Iconography, so this is partly my fault. I don't feel competent to do what needs to be done on the theology. Most of the article is pretty good I think, but some of the original editors seem to have moved on. Johnbod 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Nice addings to the List of Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow. --Damifb 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degrees of Orthodox Monasticism

Thank You! for the excellent editing and work you did on the article. God Bless. LoveMonkey 23:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cheirotonia

Wee question about only bishops being able to perform cheirotonia - I recall an Archimadrite is permitted to tonsure one of his subjects to Reader/Chanter. InfernoXV 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As I was taught, the term "cheirotonia" is used only to describe the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops. Readers and subdeacons are ordained but do not receive cierotonia. Archimandrites may, with the bishop's permission, ordain to these lower ranks, but may not perform the Mystery of Cheirotonia, which is reserved exclusively to bishops. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, Platina, CA, 1984) says, "Distinct from the Mystery of Cheirotonia is ordination by prayer to the lower ranks of the clergy (reader, subdeacon); this is called cheirotesia (from a Greek word that has a purely Christian ecclesiastical meaning and came into use relatively late)." MishaPan 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes! you're right. I'd confused myself there. There is, on the other hand, evidence that in the West, at various points, sometimes Abbots who were not bishops did perform priestly ordination, which is quite shocking. InfernoXV 08:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horologion

Are you sure that image is a Horologion? It has stichera on one page and a set of katavasia on the other; I'd expect it to be more like a menaion of some kind. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, actualy...no. I'm not sure. I'm just going by the title of the image: "Horologe1.jpg" The image is from Wikimedia Commons, and I'm trusting that the one who posted it used a filename that matches the item pictured. Sorry. MishaPan 07:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the photo is not in focus. I can barely make out on the right-hand page that it has (I think) katabasiae for the Nativity of the Lord, but I can't make out what's on the left-hand page. MishaPan 07:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the right-side page does seem to be titled for the Nativity. I can't make out the text on the left either, but the rubrics look like "Pe [On] 8", "Pe 6", "Pe 4", followed by "Mărire- Si acum-" [Glory... Both now...; the 2 other stichera from the menaion is assumed, I guess] just as you'd see in a Menaion or Octoechos for a set of stichera. This must be a Festal Menaion or something similar. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Just shooting in the dark here, but if Pe mean "On" in Romanian (rather than "Tone", as I had presumed), would it be reasonable to assume that the text on the left is verses from the Praises or "Lord, I have cried"? I've got no axe to grind here, and if it seems that the image is not in fact an Horologion I will be happy to remove it. Whatever you think. MishaPan 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how Romanians might organize their books, to the extent it's different from how the Russians do it. Since the katavasia usually anticipate upcoming feasts, it's possible that we seem them here inserted at a convenient point prior to the actual Nativity celebration for use beforehand, and that the stichera on the left side are the verses on the Praises for some day before the Nativity. But that's just a guess. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

On 17 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muristan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thankyou personally. Nice article!!! Keep up the great work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

		The Eastern Christianity Barnstar
		Awarded to MishaPan for consistent hard work in Eastern Christianity oriented articles. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoudios

Hallo Misha, I think that you you did not understand the moving of the category. The article refers to the monastery, NOT the church. I am writing a serie of articles about the byzantine churches of Istanbul (I already wrote Little Hagia Sophia, Kalenderhane Mosque, Zeyrek Mosque, Fenari Isa Mosque, Eski Imaret Mosque, Bodrum Mosque). All these buildings are now mosques, but most of them have another name, which is the name that they had when they were churches. Because of that there is one redirect for each mosque (if the byzantine name is known). The name relates often with Constantinople because they were churches in Constantinople, NOT in Istanbul. By the way, this is the standard naming in the scientific literature about the subject (Krautheimer, Mathews, etc.). If you check in Wikipedia, you will see that the modern churches in Istanbul like S. Antonio di Padova are named after Istanbul, NOT Constantinople. Now, back to St. John the Baptist of Stoudios, this church is in my pipeline, so I wrote the redirect, which will become the article about the church when it will be finished. I hope that now the reason of the move and the idea behind this categories is clear. Ciao, Kind Regards, Alex2006 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Stoudios

Hallo Misha, thanks for your kind answer! No, actually all the churches - the old and the new, the destroyed and those still existant - now are in the category "Churches in Istanbul", and I must confess that the categorising of these buildings is not always an easy task (and sometimes not only due to purely architectural reasons ;-)). The church of Saint Mary at the Blachernae, if I remember well, was never converted into a mosque, but burned accidentally, and was replaced with a chapel. There each year takes place an ecumenical gathering, with christians, jews and muslims which go to the holy spring. I never went there, but I am want to visit the blachernae in the next time (I travel to the Polis ;-) about every second month) The next churches in my pipeline are St. John Baptist at Stoudios, Vefa Kilise Camii (Hagios Theodoros? But the dedication is far from certain), and Gül Camii (Aghia Theodosia, also not certain). There is still some work to be done down in Istanbul... ;-) Cheers, Alex2006 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deposition

About your recent additions [1] to Deposition: Even if you intend to write an article for Deposition (relics) (I've got nothing against that), it's generally not a good idea to add redlinks to disambiguation pages as they are magnets for masses of redlinked dictionary definitions (unfortunately, I must add, as most wikipedians are not aware of MOS:DAB). If you aren't able to complete an article for Deposition (relics) within the next week or so, could you remove the redlink from the disambiguation page in the meantime? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Chalice

Hi MishaPan! I'm just writing to you about your comments on this article. I feel perhaps that you hadn't read the article very carefully when you made them. You obviously have a strong interest in contributing to articles about Christianity so I hope my comments are useful.

There are a few ongoing problems with any articles dealing with matters of Faith.

[edit] Terminology

There are a number of terms applied in a fairly indiscriminate way. Christianity, Christian tradition, Christian mythology, Catholicism, Roman Catholic Church etc

[edit] Examples of appropriate use:

• Christianity believes that Christ, on the night before he died, blessed the bread and wine and said "This is my body and blood that was given for you. Do this in remebrance of me."
• Christian tradition continues to celebrate this act in the Eucharist.
• Roman Catholic tradition says that the cup used at the Eucharist survived. (NOTE: Anglican and Protestant tradition doen't say this)
• Christian mythology claims the existence of the Holy Grail which holds the blood of Christ collected at the cross.
• The Roman Catholic Church states that the wine at the Eucharist become the very blood of Christ. (Transubstantiation).

Within the article, and any other article on religious subjects that I have had to do with, these terms are used very specifically, as above.

However, a very large number of editors, both non-Christian and Christian, do not undestand the difference. eg.

• The Holy Grail article began "Christianity states...." No it doesn't! This is Christian Mythology.
• The Holy Chalice article began "According to Christian tradition, Jesus ..."( relates Last Supper). No, this it is not "Christian tradition" that says these things. In this case, it is Christianity that says it.

So care needs to be used in defining precisely which body of believers owns the belief, and correcting such errors where they have occurred.

[edit] More about terminolgy

There are three ways of indicating that the material in an article may not meet Wikipedia's standards. You can state that it is POV, that it is OR (original research) or needs support, (citation need).

In the case of the Holy Chalice article, it was not POV, because every statement made it clear that these were beliefs held by a body of people, and stated whether that body was Christianity or Roman Catholic Church. In the case of the Grail, it is Christian Mythology.

If there is a different body with a traditional or ideological view on the matter, then it can be stated. It's pointless to state the view of sceptics, simply because the subject is already indicated as a tradition belonging to a particular body, ie "not everyone believes this". Unless, of course, some solid reference to recent research was cited ie. "Scientists at the University of Barcelona have discovered that the red porphory of the cup is carved from a fragment of Uluru."

The point here, which I seem to have lost, is that every editor needs to be clear what POV and OR mean, and that ^{[citation needed]} is generally a better way to go, unless the material presented is very clearly POV or OR.

I haven't mentioned Orthodox beliefs here because I do not know about them, and am reliant upon others to provide information which can be incorporated when appropriate.

--Amandajm 03:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

Hi MishPan! thank you very much for your message! I'm glad this stuff was useful.

I have just written Romanesque architecture (which is mainly about churches) and I'm writing an extension to it.

Some time ago, I wrote an article called Cathedral architecture of Western Europe. But unfortunately, I'm not qualified to write Cathedral architecture of Eastern Europe. Do you know anything about this subject? Do you think that if I started the article and wrote about one of the churches with which I am familiar, eg Hagia Sophia, other people might rush to my aid? No-one is in a hurry to take this problem off my hands, but they keep asking why Eastern Europe is ignored.

God Bless! --Amandajm 14:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the tip. I'll check out what he has been doing. --Amandajm 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aër removed from WP:FASHION

Per your comments, I looked at the article and removed the fashion project box from the talk page. User:Warlordjohncarter seems to have made that call; perhaps you should take it up with him since AFAIK he isn't one of the fashion project members. He might have just seen "veil" in the article and included it ... I don't know. Daniel Case 19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Ross, Orthodox Semiotics

Would like to confer with you on the significance of several artifacts photographed at Fort Ross, a restored Russian America Company outpost on California's north coast. Please reply or contact oblagon[at]gmail.

[edit] I.E. vs. E.G.

Hi Misha, Translated, “e.g. – exempli gratia” is translated “for example” while “i.e. – id est” is “that is to say”. While it may seem at first that Greek and Russian Orthodox are examples of two of the churches belonging to the all-inclusive Eastern Orthodox title, such a concept implies that there are multiple different entities belonging to another entity. This is not the case. What is being given here is a clarification that Eastern Orthodox is sometimes referred to as Greek, Russian, or otherwise Orthodox but that they are all the same thing.

Here are two examples of correct useage:

The Protestant churches (e.g. Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, etc) – these are examples of protestant churches.

The Church of Latter Day Saints (i.e. the Mormons, the followers of Joseph Smith) – clarifications, other names for the same thing.

Here are explanations of the difference online:

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ie-eg-oh-my.aspx

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f/ievseg.htm

http:// hubpages.com/hub/Grammar_Mishaps__ie_ve_eg

--Phiddipus 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

thanks for your recent work on American civil religion. I hope this is a page you will come back to again in the future! Travb (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Dali Lama and Biship Tutu photo

Hi MishaPan! I am glad you like this photo (so dod I - it's one of my very favourite photos, which is why I originally asked Carey to share it with everyone on the Wikipedia). Sorry I have taken so long to write but I wrote to Carey Linde who took the photo of H.H. the Dalai Lama and Bishop Tutu and he just replied today Oct. 16th saying: "The info on this photo is that there was a conference in Vancouver in 2004 with noble peace prize winners around the Dalai Lama’s theme for education the heart. I took the picture at a round table event." Nope that is of some interest. Best wishes, John Hill 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine of Kiev

I saw your question regarding "Blessed Constantine, Metropolitan of Kiev (+ 1159)." The only information I have been able to find online was at the Prologue of Ohrid site, giving the story. I added a page for him at OrthodoxWiki; if you find out any more, please feel free to contribute to it. The reason he wasn't on the "Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow" page was that he served earlier than the scope of that list. —Magda 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Battle of Agincourt

Thanks for linking the article to V-sign. However, as far as I can see the Two-fingers salute is repectful, and probably wasn't what you meant, so I changed that back. Hope that's OK. --Old Moonraker 18:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basil of Caesarea article improvement drive

Hi, MishaPan. I'm working on and article improvement drive for Basil of Caesarea and was wondering if you want to contribute. For example, the section on the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil could be expanded. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent contributions. What I've read so far is wonderful. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 28 December 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polyeleos, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Maxim_(talk) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theotokos Iverskaya

Hi! Could I trouble you to take a look at Theotokos Iverskaya, which only has a Russian website source & see if you can work out what the article is actually about. I have raised some questions on the talk page - it may be about the Panagia Portaitissa there, but who can tell. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive! Thanks. I do think it should be moved to the Greek name, which is the most common in English also. Perhaps just Portaitissa, or Panagia Portaitissa, or with Iveron? The other would stay as a redirect of course. What do you think? Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; but I think whatever we change it to needs to be in English, not Russian or Greek. There is a plethora of pages with Russian names which are not only cumbersome to someone who does not speak that language but also makes it impossible for anyone searching for the subject under its English name to find it. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Terms such as Panagia and Bogoroditza are perfectly fine in the body of the article--and are important theologically--but it seems to me should not be used in the title, especially when a perfectly good English equivalent is found in English-language Orthodox publications. MishaPan (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? - let's continue at the article talk page. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bible version

Perhaps, although it is against my own instinct, you're right. If the editor chooses the version, the editor must, however, make sure that the words in the article do correspond to those in the version he or she points to. I think that holds even for the spelling. Perhaps even to archaic spelling. So is it OK to point to KJV for "veil", when KJV spells the word "vail"?

I think the choice provided by the template used to include NRSV, but this didn't show up when a short time ago, I thought of choosing (as a replacement for your KJV) that version as the closest to what I would prefer for the Wikipedia context, namely RSV, which is conservative in language, but more accurate than KJV, while also being clearly neutral (more so even than KJV) on the denominational plane.

Happy new year. Lima (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Rememberance of Father Nestor

I was hoping to write an article on Father Nestor do you have another source or further information on him?[2]. God Bless. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refec

Why remove refec but not the pther slang enteries like frater, frater house, fratery? They seem even more slang like?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I only added refec because that is what the refectory(dinning room) was called when I was at polytechnic. I'll leave it myself.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Oliver

I have removed the image of lostprophets you put on this page, because the Jamie Oliver in that band is not the Jamie Oliver in this article. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] warning vandals

Hi, I'm not sure what your usual practice is and whether I just warned them first, but if this is not already your practice, please consider warning the vandals whose edits you revert. See for more. :) Thanks Enigma ^msg! 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rubric

btw, since no one has objected, I will merge those two soon, if no one objects. Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nun

Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psalm 51

Hey, thanks for all your hard work on the Psalms. This is wondeful stuff, and I'm delighted to see it happening. I'm a little fretful about Psalm 51 though; I think it's a bad precedent to print the text of psalms in the pages unless there is a particular compelling reason, which there doesn't seem to be in this case. In addition, it is quite misleading to print an English translation and label it "Septuagint." Notice also what will happen if we decide to do this: we'll have a hundred and fifty articles, each with how many? ten? fifteen? translations of the psalm. I think that's clearly a disaster waiting to happen. I propose that instead of adding to the problem, we remove the translations in all these articles unless there is a particular compelling reason to have them. Tb (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of God Grant Many Years (Polychronia)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on God Grant Many Years (Polychronia), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because God Grant Many Years (Polychronia) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting God Grant Many Years (Polychronia), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Location of church

Where is this church?

If I understand correctly, tou made and uploaded the image at right. I was wondering if you could tell me where this church is located? I would like to add that information to its caption in the article Iconostasis. Thank you very much. MishaPan (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is St Mary and St Mercurius Coptic Orthodox Church in Wales.--Ghaly (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] warning vandals

Um, yes IP's have a talk page where you can warn them. BTW, I saw your comment on enigmaman's talk page. Kimu 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pentecost

You are absolutely correct. I don't know what I was thinking when I said that Pentecost was the birth of the Church. The Church is the body of Christ which has always existed.--Phiddipus (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Iconography

This is drifting back to being a duplicate of Icon. Unfortunately no one has yet actually added much on Iconography in the primary English sense that this article is supposed to cover. The by religion sections should be called "Iconography of ..." rather than "Icons in ....". There is actually very little on EO iconography in that sense, just a load of stuff on icons, duplicating that article, not to mention Russian icons. Some of these EO bits are now rather better than the equivalent passages in Icon, and I would suggest you concentrate on merging the best stuff there. I don't know if Love Monkey is still around; it was his frankly unhelpful attitude that kept some of the stuff on non-Christian religions out of "Icon" & drove it here. But that is not where it belongs. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more about this, and wonder if the best thing might be to move much of the present iconography content (and maybe some of the non-EO Icon content) to a new article called ? "Images in religious art" , "Religious images" or something, then adding new stuff to iconography specifically on the first sense, with lots of links to things like Christ Pantocrator, Life of the Virgin for the Christian sections, and so on. I think "iconography" should be about the first meaning given in the lead, with "icon" the main article for the second. But we need a general article about images in religious art - cult image is too specific. Does this sound sensible? Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the Byzantine Empire article

Please support me when I claim that the article must also have in its infobox the map of its extent under Basil II. I tried to add the second map many times but it was always changed and I was also blocked. I have many arguments to expose about this subject. Dimboukas (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the Byzantine Empire article

Please support me when I claim that the article must also have in its infobox the map of its extent under Basil II. I tried to add the second map many times but it was always changed and I was also blocked. I have many arguments to expose about this subject. Dimboukas (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution of Christians

Coped from my talk Page. Nwe (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I noticed you removed an image from Persecution of Christians, with the comment, "that's related to the persecution of an ethnic minority which is different, we also have context in a case like that, we also have none here &the image is misleading terms whole article". I was wondering if you could expain this--I'm not really an expert on Spanish history. Which ethnic minority is being persecuted in the photo? And how is the desecration of a statue of Jesus by anti-clericalists to be parsed from persecution of Christians? A lot of religious persecution has ethnic persecution at its root. Thanks for your help. MishaPan (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you misunderstood my edit summary, I was responding to your parallel with Nazi persecution of the Jews, pointing out that I felt this was an inappropriate parallel, since that's ethnic persecution. It's not a big point I want to pursue, I just feel that it's a false analogy. My main objections, I think, to the use of this image is:

1. It's disputable whether vandalism of this kind counts as religous persecution, from my point of view religious persecution should consist of attacks on people or communities for their beliefs.

2. We have no evidence, or none that I've seen, that this image is anything more than a symbolic announcement of defiance against the Church, since while there was a large amount of church property in the Civil War, actual persecution of clergy was less common.

3. The Spanish Civil War is itself a bad illustration of persecution of Christians. It was more an attack on the institution of the Catholic Church in Spain for its political views, not on Christians for their religion so to speak. In fact there is at least one description I've heard of people burning churches and then the same people proceeding to attend religious services in its sinders a week later. Nwe (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for the courtesy of your discourse, its quite refreshing.Nwe (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC

Can you explain me why you don't answer? Dimboukas (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage of the Virgin

Am I right in thinking that the Orthodox view is that Mary and Joseph were not married? If so Theotokos ought to mention this, as the Western view is that they were. If this is correct, an authoritative reference would be much appreciated. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Of course, for Catholics and most older Protestant groups she is "ever-virgin" also, although the marriage is not a Catholic feast. The same scene in Orthodox art seems to regarded as a guardianship ceremony, from what I gather. Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Saturday (was incorrectly "Good Friday")

After finally reaching some agreement not to declare "what Christians believe" about a controversial point, why did you just revert the beginning of the article to make such a declaration? Can we please drop the POV declaration? Tb (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, of course I meant Holy Saturday. The discussion was (unfortunately) on user talk pages. If you look at the history of your edit, you can see the revert that you did. I would happily drop the whole thing; what is really missing is a clear reference to the Harrowing of Hell at the beginning--instead it's buried down in the Eastern Christianity discussion. I plan to go over all these articles for Holy Week and its days after the season moves on and they aren't subject to such frequent changes, and maybe then it can be improved. I agree that the verses are not inconsistent; at the same time, some think that the Harrowing of Hell is inconsistent with being in Paradise, and so they say Jesus did not "descend to the dead", on Holy Saturday or any other time. The problem as usual is the disagreement between the broad consensus of RC-Orthodox-Anglican-Lutheran views and the fundagelicals. Tb (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Friday (actually!)

In other news, what do you think about the proliferating languages in Good Friday? Do we really need every human language on the planet? Tb (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the different names here are doing something. But I was thinking of maybe having each name, in English translation, and either leaving it at that, or giving a few representative languages but not a complete list, which conventionally use that term. Tb (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Fast and the use of the word Holy

Hi Misha,

I know you have been working hard on Great Lent. I was hoping you read the following comment by me. I would very much like to know your opinion.

I would like to address a concern of mine that has cropped up occasionally concerning language. If one studies the history of the Church one finds that terminology can be a crucial issue theologically. The use of the wrong word can ultimately lead to misunderstanding somewhere down the line, perhaps even hundreds of years later. I have always proposed that Orthodox writers must be exceedingly careful in their terminology when writing in English. Words must have the correct “Meaning” behind them to preserve the theology. Unfortunately, sometimes this comes across as nit-picking. The difficulty often lies in translating from different source languages (Russian as opposed to Greek) and the fact that both can claim strong traditions going back centuries. Never-the-less I think we should always examine the ramifications of the English text we use rather than simply translate from one language to another, otherwise we will end up as the protestants who often base their theological differences on the English texts of scripture while disregarding the Greek texts entirely.

That having been said, I would specifically like to address the usage of the term “Holy” when referring to chronology. In English we often use the terms: Holy Week, Holy Monday, Holy Tuesday, etc. or, as a combination such as “Holy and Great etc.”. But correctly there is nothing “Holy” about the days themselves. Originally these days are called “Great” to signify their high importance. Yes, I know that the Russians use the term “Holy” and that it has become common in English as well. Never-the-less I think we have the opportunity to correct what may ultimately lead to an error of theology. I propose referring to them as “Great” and nothing more. Also, we might consider referring to “Lent” as “The Great Fast” since lent is a Germanic word meaning Spring or Long.--Phiddipus (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A comment I would like to add to the end of the last part of the previous message: The word "Lent" which, as I said above, means spring or Long oddly enough does not mean to "Fast". To give an example of why the wrong word leads to theological problems, well, look at the Roman Catholics today...the do "Lent" which to them doesn’t seem to have anything at all with fasting anymore, which they almost don't do anymore. In other words, change the meaning away from fasting and eventually people will forget to fast. This is why I prefer the term "The Great Fast". Of course that is traditionally what it is called, but perhaps if we added even more meaning to it we could call it "The Great Preparation"!--Phiddipus (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Misha,

What do we mean when we say “Holy” and what can be “Holy”. We have, for instance, Holy Water which has been sanctified by God or rather, has been restored to its original properties before the fall of mankind. Crosses and Icons can be Holy, People can be Holy, in other words “Things” can be holy. God works through material means – water, oil, wine, bread, in order to touch us physically in a manner we can relate to because we are material ourselves. “Days”, on the other hand are not things, per se, but rather are abstract concepts with no reality in and of themselves. Tuesday comes and goes, it comes and goes differently for where you are than for where I am. In fact, Tuesday and the other days are mere perceptions, abstract concepts having nothing to do with reality itself. So, how can they be holy? Thus we might celebrate significant events on a particular day…which makes the day very important or Great, but holy, no. Besides, we celebrate significant events in the Church on Every day of the year, we celebrate the lives of millions of saints on every day. I guess it’s a matter of precision. It would be like imagining one color to be more Holy than another, once again colors are abstract concepts, actually even more substantial than “days” and yet to imagine a color being called holy would be silly. This is the basis for what I said. Perhaps Wikipedia is not the venue where we should be concerned for such things, but I am always careful, very careful. We might not see right away what theological errors may crop up in the future because of our choice of words but remember, many heresies centered around one word – theandric, filioque, etc, and such words took hundreds of years to do their damage. --Phiddipus (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, Misha, your argument is compelling, perhaps I am too careful.--Phiddipus (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic...

By any chance, have you heard of this site...

http://christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosewater Alchemist (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pisanie

Hello. Do you happen to know what a pisanie is called in English? In Romanian, it refers to a plaque above a church door giving a short history of the church. I gather the term comes from the Slavic for "writing". Here are a few examples: [3], [4], [5]. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot. My own suspicion is that the English term derives from the Greek, so I'll ask a Greek speaker for the Greek term, and maybe that will help find the technical name. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The best I can come up with is plaque or πινακίδα in Greek. I hope that helps. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)