Talk:Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)

Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 13, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 30, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 5, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 19, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Lutheran liturgical calendar* includes several biblical personages as “Saint” though it is commonly believed that Lutherans “do not have saints”?*
Current status: Good article

Christianity: Saints / Lutheranism Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Low-importance).

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass A couple of weird spots that break the flow, but overall very good.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail Not enough sources. Throughout the article, there are examples used to prove a point. All of these examples need a footnote. I would suggest using the books under "reference" or google. The area especially in need of attention is the "Differences from other calendars" section

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Excellent job.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Excellent work.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass However, I am in doubt over the Lutheran pastor picture, as it has two tags: One stating that is is licenced under fair use, and the other that states it is licenced under GNU I would consider looking into this, though I do not think it is necessary.

Overall, it is an excellent article that just needs sources. That is why I am putting this article on hold. If this is fixed, then I will be more then happy to pass it. Just notify me on my talk page when you want me to re-review the article. Good luck!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

— Z1720 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that many new sources were added to the article, and that is fantastic. But I still do not feel that it is enough. However, I went through the article and added the {{{fact}}} tag to statements I believe are in immediate attention of sources. However, rather then build off the sources you already have, you might want to find other sources on the Internet from reliable sites or look in other books. One site I would recommend is http://www.elca.org/worship/ELW/content/index.html as they seem to have many peices of info there and it is the official site. (Also, the reference to this site in the "References" section is a broken link. I would suggest taking out the source all together if you decide to use this site as a footnote source. It is so close to being a GA, all it needs are a couple more sources.

Please note that I am a human being and I was probably not able to spot every place that needed a ref. So if you think another section needs a ref, then add it in. It is always better to have too many refs then not enough. Also, if you find new info in your travels, feel free to add it in. It is the only way to improve the article :) Z1720 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the number of citations that are being required is absurd. Adding in all the citations that have been requested since GA review began, I will more than have tripled the number of citations. As a college professor, I don't understand the absolute obsession many within the Wikipedia community have for requiring a reference for almost every single sentence (I have been told, previously, that for an article to be a GA, it does require every single sentence to be cited). I'm not saying that I will not do as requested because I've worked too hard on this article (and its previous incarnation) to see them not promoted, but I still don't think what is being asked for is required by the GA guidelines or is even particularly necessary. Just my two cents. -- jackturner3 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't get the image licensing issues on Image:Elevation1.jpg cleared up, you may want to use Image:Pastordavid.jpg - a picture of a strikingly handsome young pastor preparing for worship, with the GNU license. ;) Pastordavid 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this late reply. I was busy the last few days. As for your comments, according to Wikipedia is built on citations. Unfortunatly, there are many vandals on Wikipedia who will put in any information they want that will simply not be true. That is why this encyclopedia is built on citations.

According to WP:CITE "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." If I felt a place needed a citation because of the above reason, I added a citation tag.

If you do not agree with my review, I ask that you have the article reviewed on the Good Article Review page. That way you can get many more opinions on the rating of the article. Z1720 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I didn't say I wouldn't comply. What I said is that I feel the number of citations requested at this level is excessive. While I understand that Wikipedia is built upon accurate information which theoretically requires citations, I guess I simply do not read the requirement to cite "all material that is challanged or likely to be challanged" means that there should be nearly forty footnotes for a single, reletively short article. While the concern about placing material simply invented whole cloth is understandable, it is equally possible that a particularly creative individual might invent thier own citations, too. But, then again, GAs are only reviewed for for conformity to Wikipedia standars and not for content. It is also possibly a disbenifit to be a specialist in an area because what the specialist sees as commonly accepted a layman could see as questionable. Regardless, as stated, I will compy...I just think that what is being asked (and would likely be demanded by another reviewer) in terms of the sheer number of footnotes is excessive. -- jackturner3 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Status: Promoted

For adding citations to the article, I hereby grant this article GA status. Congratulations! (See talk above for more details on the process of this article.) Z1720 03:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatte?

Text says:

"The previous North American calendar of the ELCA was different from its European counterparts in that it does not give equal weight (and sometimes gives no mention) to persons who may be commemorated in Scandinavian regions. One example would be the absence of St. Lucia on 13 December, although she enjoys particular popularity in Sweden.[54] But" ... etc.

What kind of idea is this? There is no specific church reverence of St. Lucia in the Swedish Church. And I don't believe there is (or at least was) any St. Lucia celebration in Denmark or Norway at all. This is originally a non-religious celebration which originally didn't involve St. Lucia at all, but was some kind of celebration of the midwinter, which in the Julian calendar was about the 13:th of December. Another thing is that the celebration was successively modified and St. Lucia and a woman representing her was replacing the original Lucepär/Lucifer and his male representative, thereby making the ceremonials acceptable by religiously minded persons. Also, when the ceremony was so controlled and polished by the surrounding society, the start or the end of the ceremonies (don't know which) now were allowed to the church in the same way that the school pupils' vacation start was marked by a ceremony in the church. This has nothing to do with saints calendars, or year of lithurgy. I can't find any saints in my (Common Swedish Protestant – many denominations) book of psalms here at all, to my annoyment, because saints are acceptable as revered examples. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify myself: the midwinter was the time when the day was the shortest, and all evil forces was loose, f.ex. Satan himself, called Lucifer by the almost universal misunderstanding from the Bible. This Lucifer was to be controlled by putting lights on his head, and being surrounded by lightbearers. Priests and other religiously minded, were furious at these "celebrations", so the celebrations were evolutionary successively modified to something else. Said: Rursus ☻ 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the reference for further details. Additionally, I will say that from a theoretical point of view that I find the "history of religions" theory, such as the one you're providing above, concerning the development of various Christian festivals to frequently be without merit; in short, The Golden Bough was flawed and those of us working in the academic study of religion have known that for decades. As to the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at or even how you think the sentence in question is otherwise faulty. In any case, since this is a reference to the the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden rather than to Protestantism in Sweden more generally, it makes sense why you might not find reference to her commemoration in a common psalter. In fact, it would suprise me more if you did! -- jackturner3 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits by User:Happ

In reviewing the recent edits made by User:Happ, I have decided it best to revert to the last prior edit, dated 13 April 2009. My reasons are as follows:

1. Most of the edits are superfluous or otherwise unnecessary. For example, it is felt unnecessary to add "Feasts" to "Festivals," particularly when both Evangelical Lutheran Worship and Lutheran Worship and their predecessors use "Festival" as a designated title. Thus, for English speaking Lutherans, "Festival" is proper, and not "Feast." Furthermore, it is felt unnecessary to specify "Blessed Virgin Mary" at every instance, in some cases adding the Virgin where she was not found in the earlier revisions. While piety may dictate mention and commemoration of the Virgin first before the other saints, it is hardly essential that she receive first mention in every instance ahead of the company of Apostles OR be identified with her honorary epitaphs. If there is a good reason to make this so, I'm willing to hear it, but I can think of none thus far. I am also unclear as to why minor items such as "individuals" must be changed to "saints."

2. Several of the edits changed the sense of the text to something else entirely. In some instances, these edits not only change the article as written, but change the content of the cited source. One example would be where

"However, popular devotions such as the blessing of palms or the imposition of ashes were suppressed in most church orders..."

was changed to

"However, popular devotions such as the blessing of palms or the imposition of ashes were suppressed in some church orders..."

the latter of which clearly changes the meaning of the former text. It is especially egregious since the original line was supported with a reference, thus the edits change not only the article but the supposed statement of the reference as well.

If the author of these edits would like to discuss why his edits are essential and an objective improvement on the article, contributing to its readability and factuality, then I will be quite happy to see them reinstated, but as they are now, there is little reason for them and in some instances these edits falsify the article, so they have been reverted. -- jackturner3 (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liturgical calendar (Lutheran). 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) 01:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]