Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Collaboration of the Month

A number of other WikiProjects have the feature of having a collaboration of the month, essentially a call to enlist many editors to work on improving an article together for a month, drawing attention to that article. (See, for instance, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism/COTM.) Let's begin a process of nomination and voting to begin our own COTM for August at this subpage. —Preost talk contribs 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

What we definetely need to do is to go around and rate all of the articles in their style and appearance. Have a look at the Trains wikiproject which I am part of and consider application of the similar templates they devised. --Kuban Cossack 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a fine idea. I suppose it would be incorporated into Template:Orthodoxyproject. How are the ratings usually determined? —Preost talk contribs 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Its actually remarkably straightforward -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment. I would never think that it be too difficult to distinguish a stub from an FA.--Kuban Cossack 09:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Catholicism seems to have a similar, but less complicated system of ratings. I'm not sure that I'm up to the coding, though this could very well be useful. What do you think? —Preost talk contribs 17:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

template

I made this. I think its about ready to go live, but if anyone wants to edit it or make comments, feel free. All we need to do next is move the code from the subpage to the main template space, and move the inclusion tag on each individual article to the top of the page.--Andrew c 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can add a photocollage of some of the more famous churches. Say one from Greece, one from Georgia, one from Middle East, one from Russia and one from Balkan area... or something like that.? --Kuban Cossack 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Browse through Category:Religion navigational boxes to get some ideas of the format generally used across wikipedia for these sort of boxes. I think one image is the norm. That said, if you'd rather have an image of a eastern Church, instead of a Byzantine depiction of Jesus, go right ahead and change the image, or suggest a few and perhaps we could vote? There are at least 5 images of buldings in the Eastern Orthodox Church article.--Andrew c 16:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


Well we do not need an image gallery, only the most famous and significant should be present. IMO Athos in Greece, Basil in Moscow, Svetitskhoveli in Georgia, Nevsky in Sofia or maybe Nativity in Jerusalem or Savva in Belgrade... Really it has to offer a welcome hand to a reader who has no idea on Orthodoxy, so I suggest if we use famous buildings that are seen already in many western publcations on Orthodoxy then there can be familiar appeal to readers. Hey Taj-Mahal is what draws people to India after all. --Kuban Cossack 22:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just trying to figure out what exactly it is y'all are talking about. What are you talking about using these images for? —Preost talk contribs 23:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)



Ah, okay. I think the image on the Eastern Christianity template should remain as it is, because Eastern Christianity comprises so much more than one church. Of course, I'm of the opinion that the template should be moved back to being a link to the Eastern Christianity Portal. There's just too much variation in Eastern Christianity to make a "series" template that can really do it justice. Perhaps one for just the Eastern Orthodox Church might be better. —Preost talk contribs 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
In any event, I think perhaps this discussion would be best moved elsewhere, as it's not directly related to coordination work for the WikiProject. —Preost talk contribs 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Ok I need help. I have moved the new template to the main article space. What needs to be done is someone needs to go into every article that includes the template and move it to the top. However, if there is already a template or image at the top, then a table needs to be used in order to avoid bad code that results from stacking multiple floated items. So this is what you do. Go here. Pick any page. Go and edit the code. Move the {{Eastern Christianity}} from the bottom to the top. If there is an image or template already at the top, please insert the following code:

{|style="float: right;"   
|-       
|(A)
|- 
|{{Eastern Christianity}}
|}

Where (A) is equal to the template or image already included at the top of the article. If you need an example, look at the code of Monophysitism or Coptic Christianity. So any editor that has any spare time to move this code would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time and consideration!--Andrew c 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I commented on the template's talk page. I'm concerned that this template's choices in links are really imbalanced. At this point, it mainly seems to be a link to a few overview articles in the midst of what seems almost like a random list of other things (e.g., one Ecumenical Patriarch, one Coptic Pope, one Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and one sainted Serbian king?). I think it could use some significant trimming and focusing. —Preost talk contribs 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Archbishops of Crete

Although I won't be joining this project, I couldn't help noticing that at recent deaths, the report of the death of the Archbishop of Crete has been noted as unreferenced, and the list of Archbishops of Crete is in rather bad condition. Michael Hardy 14:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)



Articles on churches

  • General comment: I ported over the article on the Estonian Orthodox Church a few months back from OrthodoxWiki, and I was surprised to see that not all churches in the Eastern tradition had pages yet. It would seem to me like it is a priority to create articles on these autonomous churches. For that matter, some of the autocephalous churches are a little disappointing, too (i.e. Albania.) I don't exactly have a nomination from all this, but it's something to bear in mind. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous comment was moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy/COTM by Preost. 02:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I've been jumping around editing all sorts of pages, and looking for links to pages I've been editing, and things they can link to.

It struck me that one thing that makes such things easier is the categories we use, and I think we could profitably discuss this. I've started a couple of new categories, to which I've linked some of the Orthodox articles I've been editing. One of them is "Christianity in Africa". I invite you to look at it, and see if there are any other Orthodox articles that need to be added to this category.

I see there is a category "Christian theology", and I would like to suggest a sub-category of that, "Eastern Orthodox theology". While it might be useful to have an article on Eastern Orthodox theology generally, it might be even more important to provide something to link smaller articles that might get written on aspects of Orthodox theology.

I would welcome thoughts on this -- most of our categories so far seem to relate to churches, and not theology. SteveH 10:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another comment: is there a category for Orthodox saints, where we can see Seraphim of Sarov and Moses the Black in the same list? SteveH 14:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

DYKs

We need a subsection on that, there is so many unique fact on so many Othodox churches, that they need to be enlightened to the public. For instance here is a new one St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery. Quite an interesting one IMO. --Kuban Cossack 17:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Eastern Christianity Portal is in need of a DYK subsection. —dima /sb.tk/ 18:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a related project and could certainly use such a section. Perhaps someone may wish to suggest it over at Portal talk:Eastern Christianity? —Preost talk contribs 03:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Identification needed

Hi folks. I need your help to identify four saints depicted on the Harbaville Triptych, a famous Byzantine ivory triptych representing a deisis. I can work out the letters but it doesn't seem to help… You can find the pictures on Commons :

Thanks in advance for your help. Jastrow 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First image, left to right: Theodore the Recruit/Soldier/Tyro; Theodore the General/Stratelates.
Second image, top row, left to right: Can't make it out, but it looks like it begins "Nerkou..."; Thomas (not sure which one). Bottom row, left to right: Evstratios; Areth[as].
Iconography often uses abbreviations, so it can be difficult to figure out if one doesn't know all of them. These are my best guesses, though. —Preost talk contribs 19:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Jastrow 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Second image, top left is Mercurius, one of the soldier saints. I've been needlessly nosey and gone and identified the saints in the roundels too. InfernoXV 14:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Apportioning Eastern Orthodox Church

After proposing the idea on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church a few days ago and getting no objections (or any other comments, for that matter), I've started apportioning off sections of the main article into sub-articles, replacing the section in the main article with a summary. So far, I've done Eastern Orthodox theology. Please feel free to join in, addressing specifics on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church. —Preost talk contribs 14:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings my friend! Do we presently have an article devoted solely to the church after the fall of Constandinople to Mehmet the Conquerer, and the immediate period thereafter, i. e. the death of the Patriarch in the Battle, the appointing of a new one afterwards, and all those events? I have not found one, (other than those topics being dealt with as part and parcel of the fall of the city and end of the Bzyantine Empire, etc. I wanted to first check and see if there was such an article, and then, if there was not, see if you thought such an article would be beneficial. I obviously think it would be! I would offer the thought that a detailed article on the Church through the Ottoman Centuries, separate and alone from existing articles, just as the article on the rebuilding of the Church in the chaotic aftermath of the fall of the city, would be beneficial. Your input is humbly sought, first to let me know whether I have missed an article on these precise subjects, and secondly, if I have not, and none exists, whether writing them would be a positive addition to the project. Thanks! old windy bear 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If one exists, I haven't seen it. That sounds like an excellent idea. —Preost talk contribs 16:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! I will do two separate articles, the first being what occurred to the church after the fall of Constandinople to Mehmet the Conquerer, and the immediate period thereafter, i. e. the death of the Patriarch in the Battle, the appointing of a new one afterwards, and all the events that occurred in the following decades, as the Church adapted to life under the Sultan. I will work on that one first. Then, after you have approved that one, I would start on a general article on the history of the Church in the Ottoman Empire. Thanks for the prompt response, and I would like you to review the draft on the first article when it is completed, prior to my posting it, so that I can get input on it and correct any obvious deficiencies prior to posting. I will go to work on the first article today.old windy bear 17:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It would probably also be good to make a separate History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article, turning the relevant section the main Eastern Orthodox Church into a summary. —Preost talk contribs 17:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Done! I will format it that way, and if you don't mind, will email you the draft, so you can edit and review it, prior to posting a new article. It should take me about 2-3 weeks to get the first History of the Eastern Orthodox Church article draft done, (with citing and appropriate linking and sourcing), and ready for your review, with the relevant section of the main Eastern Orthodox Church as a summary. Thanks for the guidance! old windy bear 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No need to send it to me only. Perhaps you can create it as a subpage to your userpage, e.g., User:Oldwindybear/History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That way, everyone can see it and comment. Once done, you can cut and paste it to the new article. —Preost talk contribs 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Will do, and I will post here when it is up and ready for examination by everyone. I believe more pre-posting editing would lead to less arguments later. old windy bear 12:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RCC vs. CC

  • Talk:Roman Catholic Church - should the article's name be changed to simply "Catholic Church". This debate has been going on for months now, and a vote/comment is underway. There are policy/guideline issues, and disambiguity and POV issues on both sides. Please, if you have the time, take a few minutes to review the past discussions and weigh in. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Conversion of Project Page to standard box layout

I have converted the main Project page to the standard box layout that is also being used for the Portal. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 19:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleaner display of participants

Following other Project pages, the listing of participants on the Project page looks much nicer if it's kept brief: just names linked to User pages. I'm re-formatting our participant listing accordingly - the long jurisdiction/etc. descriptions really clutter up the page (and aren't necessary, since participants can indicate this information on their user pages). For those who like to see records, here's the participants listing as it was just before the conversion. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. Alexander Radev, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, practising, Joined July 16, 2006. (Project Founder)
  2. User:Maxim662, United Kingdom, Ecumenical Patriarchate: Agreed. 22nd July, 2006.
  3. Todor Bozhinov, Bulgaria, Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Joined 24 July 2006.
  4. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC). As a Westerner, I'm not sure how much expertise I have in Orthodox history or faith, but I'd be happy to help.
  5. oldwindybear, I am a Catholic, and love the Orthodox Church as our Brothers and Sisters, believe we are all one faith, (but aware of the theological issues!), and will help in any way I can. This is an excellent organizational project for the entire field.
  6. Joseph from Georgia, member of the Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church, student in Virginia, is proud to be a member of this project. Joined July 25, 2006.Sosomk 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Kober from Georgia, Georgian Orthodox Church.
  8. Kuban Cossack. Kuban Cossack from Russia, Russian Orthodox Church. Particular interest falls into the Orthodox schisms and Catholic/Uniate aggression towards our brethen in Ukraine and Belarus.
  9. carl.bunderson, United States, Catholic catechumen. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to help, but I'll contribute all I can. Joined 25 July 2006.
  10. adriatikus, Romania, Romanian Orthodox Church, July 26th, 2006.
  11. Wesley, United States, Orthodox Church in America, July 26, 2006. I'll do what I can as I'm able.
  12. Csernica, United States, Orthodox Church in America.
  13. Pistevo, member at 28 July 2006; Australia, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia; sysop of OrthodoxWiki.
  14. --Leonardo Alves 17:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC) United States, Italian Protestant. Focus on Latin Orthodoxy and Western Orthodoxy. Also interests in Eastern Heterodoxies.
  15. --fathermaximos 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC) United States Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem ( in America ). I am the secretary to the Epitropos of the Holy Sepulcher in America
  16. abakharev, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, Victoria (Australia)
  17. IvanP/(болтай), currently Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America though several other jurisdictions in the past; Harford County, Maryland; 00:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  18. LoveMonkey You'll never get it outta me copper, but I am Russian Orthodox :)
  19. Steve Hayes, Tshwane, Archdiocese of Johannesburg and Pretoria, Orthodox Church of Alexandria
  20. dima, Chicagoland area
  21. Ktsquare
  22. Calak, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  23. Dorotheus, Greek Orthodox by birth, OCA in the States, Antioch and EP in the UK. Joined 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC).
  24. Akarige, Brittany
  25. Antonios Aigyptos
  26. buddhagazelle, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Gainesville, Florida. Joined September 6 2006.

Adding Project sections to your watchlist

To other Project members: since the new Project layout is a portal-style box format, each of the boxes is actually it's own page (you can see the page outside its box by clicking the 'Edit' link on any box, which takes you to the Edit page for its contents). Because of this, I'm not sure if updates to individual box page contents will show up on editors' Watchlists, if you've only got the main Project page watched.

In order to keep up to date with all updates to the Project pages, I'd recommend adding each subpage to your Watchlists. These are:

If you add all of the above pages to your Watchlist, you should be informed whenever any part of the WikiProject Eastern Christianity is edited/updated. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 08:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Proposal to resolve the Catholic/Roman Catholic debate

So far as I can determine, there are at least six archived pages of talk relating to the proper name of the page for the Catholic Church headed by the Pope. It is hard to imagine that this so-far endless discussion has not resulted in bad feelings on all sides. Regretably, no final resolution seems to be likely anytime soon if the same tactics are taken.

I would like to make a proposal which I believe might finally solve the core dispute which has led to this argument. I also note that I myself am in no way qualified to seek to "impose" this possibility on anyone, and am thus requesting that the majority of the rest of you involved in this discussion at least consider lending your support to this way of very likely resolving the current discussion.

As most of you will know, there is currently an election to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees ongoing. My proposal is that, come the end of this election, a special referendum regarding the name debate be held. Any and all editors who have taken part in the election, but only those individuals, would be eligible to vote to determine how this matter would be decided, including all those who claim no allegiance to any of the opposing sides. The decision reached would not be "final" in any real sense, but would resolve the question which has led to the current debate until some development which alters the current status quo takes place. Exactly how to determine what such developments would qualify could also be one of the issues involved in the vote.

I ask each of you to thoughtfully and, according to your own inclinations, prayerfully consider this proposal, and, if it is one agreeable to you, to help me in finding out exactly how to go about making this happen. (Hey, I'm kinda new here, OK?) Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt this would resolve anything. That article has already gone through the normal consensus-determining process several times and has emerged with its current title each time. The problem is that there are those who don't like it and so periodically agitate for it to be changed. (Not that it's necessarily the same people each time.) After a voluminous argument and an enormous waste of time, the status quo remains intact. Even the process you suggest (were it even possible to get it adopted, which would itself occasion significant debate) wouldn't change that.
But if you want to give it a try, WP:VPR is probably the place to begin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Orthodoxy" alone is ambiguous

Hello: This message deals with a number of issues stemming from the unclear use of the word "Orthodox" and "Orthodoxy." In the past Wikipedia has tried to avoid confusion between the names of Orthodox Judaism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity by not using the word "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" alone in titles when other qualifying words, such as "Church" or "Christian" (in the case of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy) or words such as "Synagogue" or "Jewish" (in the case of Orthodox Judaism, would help to qualify the usage of the name "Orthodox" or "Orthodoxy" so that any reader or editor on Wikipedia should not be confused by a title and should know from an article's or category's name whether that subject deals with either Orthodox Judaism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity (also called Orthodox Christianity). In the past there has been no objection to inserting either "church" or "Christian/ity" where the Eastern Orthodox Church articles or categories are concerned and I have tried to move in this direction. It is for this reason that I have made the nominations to rename the ambiguous categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14#Orthodox Christian categories. Yet it seems that some editors are not aware of this and I am bringing this to your attention. I will cross-post this message to Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for further discussion. The implications for Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy is that it too should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Church or Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodox Christianity to avoid any confusion with Wikipedia:WikiProject Orthodox Judaism. Sincerely, IZAK 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I take the points here on board, but it does seem like this is taking a wish for systematic clarity too far. In common and academic parlance, "Eastern Orthodoxy" doesn't refer to Judaism, nor would most (if any) Orthodox Jews describe themselves this way in English (though there is one group that does in Hebrew; but when it's translated into English, it's not called "Eastern Orthodox"). This is a title that is essentially universally recognized as meaning the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church, and it doesn't seem to me that it is Wikipedia's place to try to re-clarify something that for many, many decades has been quite clear, standard and accepted in the worldwide and academic communities. —Antonios Aigyptostalk 10:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Antonios: Thank you for your feedback. In answer to what you say: Yet, why is it that the WikiPortal for this subject can quite happily, and correctly in my view, call itself Portal:Eastern Christianity on this same subject? If it is possible, and correct, as well as honorable to have the words "Church" or "Christianity" in a title then why not? I think it detracts from the honor of your Church and your religion that the words "Church" and "Christianity" are dropped from it. I hope it does not indicate a drop in your level of faith or pride in your religion? You know, there is a Jewish group that calls itself Humanistic Judaism that does not even believe in God, they want to have it "both ways" - be human and cling to a "Judaism" that does not mention God. In my view this is not a path to follow, but to each his own. At any rate, relating to the discussion at hand, you make good points from the point of view of common English, but what we need to strive for is clarity in the headings of articles and categories, so that not all "Orthodoxies" could and would get confused with each other, a problem which we should try to avoid. IZAK 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Theologoumena?

I thought about writing an article explaining theologoumena, but I simply cannot figure out where to start. Those not familiar with the Orthodox tradition of belief very often stumble when they presume that Orthodox Christianity treats all doctrines with the extremist and narrow methods more common in Western forms of Christianity. That is, the presumption is that everything is either dogmatic or not a belief at all. Anyone want to take a try at an article for theologoumena? Dogface 15:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a hard one. There are furthermore beliefs that are neither dogma nor theologoumena but are held to be true anyway, such as the events surrounding the Dormition of the Theotokos. As I see it, the big stumbling block is the question, "What is it necessary to believe for salvation?" It's hard work to explain that this question is almost meaningless in Orthodoxy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, Bishop BASIL (Essey) was talking on preoccupation with conditions for salvation just today. 1) If you are just trying to avoid hell, you are nothing more than a slave avoiding the punishment of his master. 2) If you are preoccupied with how to get to heaven, with conditions of salvation, you are nothing more than a hired hand looking to receive his wage. 3) Our preoccupation is to be loving God, all else flowing from that, being sons of God. Salvation is a gift of God we cannot control. Obedience to God (and fulfilling the conditions of salvation) is a natural byproduct of loving God. Epte 22:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
That would be great to incorporate somewhere. Might it be written/published anywhere at the moment?Dogface 16:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This particular homily is not published, AFAIK. He doesn't homilize from notes. He was here for our patronal feast day (St. James) and that's what he talked about. There's probably some similar thing published elsewhere. Do you think it's worth emailing him for references, or perhaps a quote? Epte 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Religious leaders

The current organization there is abit muddled, and needs some discussing how to deal with. A general proposal for cleaning it up is posted at Category talk:Religious leaders#Organization proposal, and more input would be great. It doesn't address the issue of Religious leaders/religious workers/religious figures, but that is another issue that exists. Badbilltucker 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic bias in Liturgy_of_the_hours and renaming proposal

Please see Talk:Liturgy_of_the_hours#Requested_move for details. --Espoo 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Espoo has been trying to impose his own opinion of what that article should contain and how the title should be capitalized. Objections that the Eastern Orthodox do not call these services the "Liturgy of the Hours" (capitalized that way or not) have fallen on deaf ears. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You have presented no support for your view that contradicts what Britannica says on this topic. --Espoo 14:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You may have failed to notice that this is not the Britannica, and does not employ the same editorial or stylistic standards. And I have had neither the time nor the mental energy to reply to your latest excursion in logorrheic, typographical excess. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
According to basic Wikipedia policies, we can only write things that are supported by reputable sources. If you don't like Britannica, find another reputable, non-denominational source that supports your claim. Your view is only supported by references to the hopelessly outdated Catholic Encyclopedia and the Brazilian National Conference of Bishops, which are not enough because WP is not a religious tract and not a Catholic encyclopedia.--Espoo 15:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to consult a "non-denominational" (by which I'm sure you mean "secular") source. We can report information either according to scholarly standards or by the standards of the communities that actually use the terms and coined them in the first place. I favor the latter, since it reflects a much broader usage. Also, your Britannica reference simply does not establish that the Orthodox use this term at all. If did, it would be in error. It is misleading at best to describe Orthodox practice in an article so titled. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to only consult secular sources, and therefore "non-denominational" is exactly the correct term. A non-denominational or even ecumenical source would take care to not be parochial and rude in its use of terms and their spelling. The whole problem with blindly following usage within a religious community is that they may be using a general term of the English language such as "liturgy of the hours" in a special sense and with special spelling conventions, and it would be incorrect to impose that sense and spelling on other religious communities and the entire English-speaking population of the world. Just because some other religion does not call its liturgy of the hours by that name does not mean that we cannot also call it a liturgy of the hours. There is already a discussion contribution by an Anglican priest that supports my view, and i will try to contact some theologians and representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church and other religions tomorrow. --Espoo 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

By this reasoning it would be impossible to include an article about any of the "special senses" of a phrase. That's what the article in question was supposed to be about. The general cases are handled in canonical hours, and I don't understand why you can't acknowledge that.
And I am a representative of the Eastern Orthodox Church. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Didn't you see my proposal, supported by the Anglican priest, to move the article to "liturgy of the hours (Roman Catholic)"? That would cover the special sense well without claiming that this term is used only for the RC service. What's wrong with that proposal, and why are the support voters simply ignoring that compromise? Why are they also ignoring the concern about the bias i pointed out and that was seconded by the Anglican priest about the redirect of "divine office" to "liturgy of the hours"?
And is it really true that the Eastern Orthodox Church in the UK or USA and Eastern Orthodox theologians use "Horologion" or "Orologion" (as inconsistently claimed in canonical hours and liturgy of the hours) and never "liturgy of the hours" or any other English term when talking about this service in English? That would definitely ensure that the service and its church remain foreign and abstruse.--Espoo 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
These are two different styles of translateration, one classical which represents the initial breath mark as an "H" and the other reflecting modern pronunciation which ignores the breath mark. Both are in use, and little work has been done on canonical hours recently so I'm not surprised that no standard has been agreed on. It's the name of the book in which these services are contained. There's no need to worry about abstruseness here because the book is rarely found outside a church kleros and there's little reason for a layman to own one unless he's a choir director or has some similar ecclesiastical function. Collectively the services themselves are referred to simply as "the Hours".
The issue is that we already have one article on the general (canonical hours) and the other on the specific (Liturgy of the Hours as originally capitalized) and there doesn't appear to be a compelling reason to rearrange them. Most sources I have seen trace common usage of the latter, regardless of whether it had earlier been used by a minority or in scholarship, to Vatican II, and it therefore seems reasonable that the most common use of this phrase is the Catholic one. I did see Fishhead's post. He's quite right IMO that divine office ought not redirect to an article on the specific Catholic practice, but he's also clear that "liturgy of the hours" is very uncommon Anglican usage. I am virtually certain that as a commonly used name for these services in the aggregate that it originated with the Catholics and that other uses of it are generally derived from them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
(Yes, i know about aspiration differences between modern and ancient Greek, but that info should be added to those articles.) Since the Eastern Orthodox service/s is/are apparently called "the Hours" (or perhaps also "the hours"), i'm sure it's completely correct to speak about the "liturgy of the Hours" (and perhaps even "liturgy of the hours") of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the same way that one can speak about the liturgy of any other service too. This shows that "liturgy of the hours" is a general English expression that is not restricted to Roman Catholic use, even though it is also the official name of a RC service. In addition your interpretation but he's also clear that "liturgy of the hours" is very uncommon Anglican usage sounds almost like the opposite of what the Anglican priest said: "Liturgy of the hours" is rarely used, but it is not unheard of, and accurately defines the phenomenon.
As shown by the Britannica entry, "divine office" and "canonical hours" and "liturgy of the hours" and "liturgical hours" are more or less synonyms for a very similar kind of service in different religions, and there does not seem to be any evidence for choosing "canonical hours" as the common term. In fact, there are probably very good reasons why Britannica chose "divine office" as the main term. At the very least, the "canonical hours" article should list those synonyms at the beginning and the current article title "liturgy of the hours" should receive the addition "(Roman Catholic)".
A completely different problem is that no evidence has yet been presented why WP should follow internal Roman Catholic capitalisation practices when these contradict reputable scholarly and secular sources speaking about both the official Roman Catholic service and the more general meaning of "liturgy of the hours".
The old habit of capitalising the sacraments and many other religious terms like "sermon", "homily", "mass", etc. is completely out of place in a modern secular encyclopedia like WP, and the only reason it is so widespread is because there are so few theologians and interested critical laypeople working on these articles who are not members of the religious group being discussed. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if even the New Catholic Encyclopedia didn't capitalise "liturgy of the hours" or "mass". The spelling habits in most religious articles on WP reflect their content, which is usually a mixture of religious tract and official pronouncements, often mixed with naive praise, and most of these articles do not fulfill basic requirements of serious editing in any commercially published secular encyclopedia or most theological journals. Most WP articles on religious topics look and sound like naive ads for the religion(s) being described.--Espoo 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You would not be incorrect to call the Hours the "liturgy of the Hours" in the same sense as we say "the liturgy" of any other service. That's because we never use the phrase that way either way. You can use it that way, but it would be highly unusual. You have presented no compelling reason to standardize on unusual rather than normative usage.
I still don't see why you have such a problem with an article on Roman Catholic practice being called after their name for it when we already have a perfectly good article name for the general class of services. Granted, the article itself could use a great deal of work, but so does the Roman Catholic article if you want it to talk about everyone's services instead of the more limited context that was originally intended (in distinction from "canonical hours".)
And I am again not concerned in the least with what Britannica is doing.
We capitalize proper nouns, i.e. nouns that refer to a specific thing as a name, as a matter of convention, not reverence. So the service of the third hour is called "The Third Hour"; the Eucharistic service is called "The Divine Liturgy", and so forth. "Eucharistic" was capitalized there because it refers to a specific prayer of thanksgiving, not a eucharist in general. But you are plainly not to be trusted on standard English usage in this area. You don't even capitalize the first person singular pronoun, which I assure you is still very good style. You have been presented with a great many other sources that do show capitalization used in the way to which you are objecting. The most you can say is that we should be free to form our own consensus. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite shocked that a representative of the Eastern Orthodox Church would again start harping on my personal preference for the (in personal communication, where it occurs most) very widespread and more modern and more polite lower case spelling of "I". I've explained in the other discussion that i do not use this in my professional work or in editing Wikipedia and that i on the contrary vigorously support and defend all capitalisation used in other general reference works. (Dictionaries will start recording use of "i" fairly soon, and then i will use that spelling not only on talk pages and in other personal correspondence.) Considering my prior explanation, this sort of childish and ad hominem attack is quite unbelievable and an indication that you realise that you're fighting a losing battle against more modern capitalisation habits that exclude many terms formerly capitalised.

There's a logical problem with your response that begins "That's because" that i'm having trouble unraveling.

Since you know i'm a professional copyeditor, your explanation of the rule of proper noun capitalisation is quite amusing. The whole point is that since "liturgy of the hours" can be used in a general sense to refer to this kind of service not only in the RC but also in the Anglican and probably other churches means that its capitalisation is a special case that cannot be used alone and without context. In an article title its use requires at least the addition of "(Roman Catholic)".

Contrary to what you claim, you have not presented other reliable sources for your capitalisation preference that can compete with the sources i presented that do not capitalise "liturgy of the hours". Doesn't a representative of the Eastern Orthodox Church even have access to the (denominational, i.e. not sufficiently authoritative) New Catholic Encyclopedia? You are defending an old-fashioned habit that is no longer used in most secular works of reference and apparently not even by some or perhaps most religious scholars.

I still don't see why you have such a problem with an article on Roman Catholic practice being called after their name for it. - I still don't see why you have such a problem with adding the qualifier "(Roman Catholic)" to the title. The question of whether or not to capitalise the term in the article is of secondary importance, but it would not be NPOV to call the RC service The "liturgy of the hours" in the article title, which is what capitalisation and lack of the addition (RC) would mean, because the term can be understood to mean and is used even by religious scholars to refer to similar services in other churches. Due to my complaints at least the article has been rewritten a bit so that the other church traditions are no longer presented as subsets of the RC tradition.

It's typical for your line of reasoning that you avoid the cases i mentioned where capitalisation is no longer considered normal and instead list new ones where it is still used. Some of these are good examples where capitalisation will never stop as long as the general proper noun rule (hopefully) continues to exist, but your examples of "divine liturgy" and "Eucharist" are very weak. The former is normally not capitalised in well-edited secular reference works and the capitalisation of the latter is in fact unnecessary because the word is never used in any but the restricted sense in modern English. Unless you can present scholarly and general reference sources that support capitalisation of "liturgy of the hours", your disdain of Britannica is quite childish, especially since it tries to simultaneously ignore the other encyclopedias and reputable sources cited. --Espoo 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Religion

The group indicated above was recently revitalized for, among other things, the purpose of working on those articles whose content is such that the article does not fall within the scope of any particular denomination. To most effectively do this, however, we would benefit greatly if there were at least one member from this Project working on those articles. On that basis, I would encourage and welcome any member of this Project willing to work on those articles to join the Religion WikiProject. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Recognized content section of Project page

I note that many WikiProjects have a section of their project page dealing with content that has been recognized by the Wikipedia community. I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in doing so as well. Having such lists available gnerally helps portal managers a lot, as it gives them a quicker way to find and locate content for their portals. Badbilltucker 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus nominated for Article Improvement Drive

I recently found that our article on Jesus is the first page that appears when anyone does a Google search of the subject. It is currently, regrettably, only at GA status. On that basis, I would request any individuals who might be interested in helping to bring this article up to FA status to indicate their support for the article being chosen as the AID article at Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive#Jesus. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Oriental Orthodoxy project

There is now a new proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oriental Orthodoxy for a group which would focus on articles relating to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Any individuals interested in working with such a group should indicate as much there, to allow us to know if there is enough support to actually begin such a project. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

History of the Church of the East in Asia → ?

Please check contents of this article for accuracy. Also, the article's name is proposed to be changed; see Talk:History of the Church of the East in Asia#Requested move, and participate in discussions there.--Endroit 08:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maximus the Confessor

This article has recently undergone a major revision, and input from other editors would be very helpful at this point. I am especially in need of feedback from those with more of a background in Eastern Christianity. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 05:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem

Could I possibly persuade contributors to this page to take a peek at Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem? A poster to the article's talk page suggests a rename of the article to include the word "Greek". I'm not sure if/when the word "Greek" was added to the title and I'm a bit in two minds if it would be a good idea to change the title or not, in particular since this article also describes officeholders before the great schisms. Any input would be welcome. Valentinian T / C 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Cat: Eastern Orthodox churches

We need to disambiguate Category: Eastern Orthodox churches (which seems to deal mostly with the national churches (e.g. Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc.) by creating a separate Category: Eastern Orthodox church buildings or Category: Eastern Orthodox places of worship, into which we can put churches, monasteries, cathedrals, etc. Kevlar67 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ecumenical Patriarch?

Hi folks, Hectorian[[1]] has been renaming all the pages of Patriarchs of Constantinople to 'Ecumenical Patriarch so-and-so of Constantinople'. While, yes, 'Ecumenical' is part of the title, there isn't a need (to me anyhow) to make things more long-winded than necessary. Surely everyone knows Patriarchs of Constantinople are Ecumenical? I'd support naming them back to the simple 'Patriarch X of Constantinople'. Thoughts, anyone? InfernoXV 10:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A point of interest: has "Ecumenical" always been a part of the title of Patriarchs of Constantinople? How long back does the title go? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK, 'Oecumenical' goes back to Chalcedon in 451, but not before. Hectorian's tried changing all the references before 451 to 'Ecumenical Patriarch' too, as in the case of Nestorius. InfernoXV 13:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

An eastern Orthodox related topic, Maximus the Confessor is a current Featured Article Candidate. Comments may be made here. -- Pastordavid 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)