Talk:The Calendar of the Church Year

Oremus

An editor claims that www.oremus.org is a spam site. There isn't any evidence of this; first he claimed it was RC (it's not; it's Anglican), and now that it's spam. I ask the editor to substantiate the claim before reverting again. Tb (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I direct you to the Wikipedia policy on external link spamming, specifically: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Also, the article is specific to the Episcopal Church in the United States of America; the Oremus site states that its calendar "is derived largely from calendars in use in various provinces of the Anglican Communion." In addition, the site describes itself as following "the Catholic tradition of the Church." For these reasons, I question the applicability of the link to this article, and have removed it yet again. Please be aware of Wikipedia's "three revert rule." TechBear (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, what makes you think the link was added "to promote" the website? It is clearly relevant. Moreover, by "Catholic", it refers to the broad non-RC sense of the term, the sense in which Anglo-Catholics have traditionally used the term. You said "spam site" which is not the same thing as a "spam link"; it would be helpful if you would be more careful with terminology. I ask that you provide some evidence to support your claim that it's a spam link, for example, that the maintainers of oremus are the adders of the link, or that the link is being added to a great many pages without clear relevance. I can see no indication of either. I ask that you provide evidence for your assertions, and not mere unsubstantiated claims. Tb (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oremus.org is not spam. "Oremus" is Latin for "let us pray." It's a well-known not-for-profit website, relevant to the article, with excellent links within that site. It's Anglo-Catholic, not Roman Catholic, and is a great secondary source for additional information on Episcopal saints (and more generally, Anglican feasts and fasts). FYI, I have no financial interest in oremus.org, and am not a donor nor member of said organization; but I have cited that site in my own articles for my cathedral newsletter. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have made over 20,000 edits at WP, including the creation and editing of many articles related to Anglicanism. So I'm not a SPA. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the policy on linkspam. Financial interest has no bearing on whether something is or is not link spam. The only purpose of providing the external link to Oremus is to promote that site; that is what makes it spam. Also, this article is specific to the Episcopal Church of the United States of America. As such, a generic Anglican site is not relevant. The link is again removed; please stop adding it back in. TechBear (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if that were the purpose of the link, then it's pretty bad, because the link-to page doesn't provide convenient links to the rest of oremus. You make a lot of claims about what "the purpose" is; it's clear to me that the purpose is to show other Anglican calendars. It's a perfect example of related information which is not suitable for the page itself. Can you please confine yourself to the merits of the link, as well? I don't think it's assuming good faith to tell people what their motives are, especially when they've got lots of wikipedia experience and have already indicated what their motives are. Tb (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines for spam links make reference to the purpose of adding the link; we are clear about the motives of the person who added it, which are essentially the same as mine. Because our motive is not "to generate traffic", but to provide a pointer to a relevant and useful resource, it is not true that this falls under the spam link guidelines. Moreover, your change to the page, removing the link, has now met with opposition from two people, and you showed no interest in discussion until I brought it up here. That's not right. Please, if you want to remove the link--knowing now that there is opposition--don't just continually revert it, but try to reach consensus. (By the way, the policy on linkspam makes explicit reference to conflicts of interest and financial interest. Don't tell us to "please read the policy" and then go misstating that policy.) Tb (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The policy on links to be avoided WP:ELNO says "links mainly intended to promote a website." It seems that regardless of your assumptions about the motives of other people, the purpose of the link is not "mainly intended" to "promote a website." First, even if that were a partial intention--which it is not--it clearly isn't the main one; the main one is to provide a pointer to a relevant resource, just as the bottom of the page also contains links to other Anglican and non-Anglican calendars. Second, merely suggesting the use of a resource is not the same thing as promotion of a website (or all external links would be spam); rather this link amplifies the content in the ways that are appropriate--for example, by providing the bios, which are probably do not meet wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. Tb (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the essays on assume good faith, heedless points, and Wikipedia:How many legs does a horse have?. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one adding material and claiming it is relevant to the article. I am not playing policies against one another, selectively cherry-picking parts from policies or trying to establish a false consensus. I am not being argumentative or making outrageous claims.

What I am doing is disagreeing with how the Oremus link is relevant to the article. I have yet to see any of the users trying to add it explain why A) a generic Anglican site is applicable to an article very specific to the Episcopal Church, and B) what actual value the link provides to the article. It is my contention that a full listing of the readings and collects is directly applicable, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Even then, any external link should point to a site that provides authorized information specific to the Episcopal Church.

If you wish to cherry pick policies and guidelines, you might at least want to try referencing the external link guidelines. If you wish to have a dialog and discuss the matter, I am certainly agreeable to that. Until this is hashed out, though, the new material should not be added. TechBear (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, the guidelines *have* been referenced, and you diligently ignore all requests to substantiate your claims. You've made multiple incorrect claims about the link, first that it's RC, second that it's spam. Are you going to simply continue to raise objections, no matter how off target? You have thus far refused to actually engage what has been said. You have misstated the guidelines, attributed bad faith to User:Bearian, misread the site the link is to, and now it seems like you are in the position of having made a mistake, and won't back down because that would be admitting the original mistake. (Remember, your first claim was that this was not an Anglican site at all!) I hope for consensus, but it requires you to perhaps do more than just continue to ignore the points that I or Bearian have brought up. Tb (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one attempting to change the article. The burden of justification falls on those who are. That means you. I never said that Oremus was an RC site: I quoted the site itself about it following "the Catholic tradition of the Church." Also, I never claimed it was not an Anglican site; I have pointed out that it is not specific to the Episcopal Church which makes linking the site to the article questionable. As for it being spam, I have indicated Wikipedia's policy regarding external link spamming; your repeated insistence on adding this particular link is at odds with your claim that you are not linking it solely in order to promote it. Being on target is the whole POINT of my objection to including the link: it is not relevant to the article.

Consider: If Oremus was relevant, then all of the official collects, readings and other related material can and should be included in the article itself. Such a move, however, would expand the article far beyond its stated topic and become the calendar and lectionary of the Episcopal Church in the United States. If including this material is not relevant to the article, then links to such material are not appropriate.

I do not believe I have made any bad faith attributions; if I have, I offer my apologies.

You wish to add the link to the article. Ok. Because you are changing the article, the burden of justification falls on you. I have made two requests for information, which you have so far not answered. To repeat them again: In what manner is a generic Anglican site applicable to an article that is very specific to the Episcopal Church? What actual value does the link provides to the article in expanding upon the article's content in an relevant way? Until we can come to an agreement on this, please desist in adding the link, either as an external link or as a pointless reference to a useless addition to the article. TechBear (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just above you said you had no doubt that the collects, etc., were relevant! Can you make up your mind? However, it is perfectly clear that there are relevant materials which are not appropriate for inclusion directly in an article. This is, after all, exactly what one of the guidelines says. You have become focused on "winning" some kind of contest, I think: you seem to think that relevant explanatory material should now be deleted! Please, take a step back, think, don't just react.

And, look for compromise. I added a paragraph which I thought was an excellent compromise. Can you please do the same? Or is it your position that you are not willing to accept any compromise whatsoever?

You seem to have adopted the view that you are the sole arbiter of the question. Perhaps you might invite others to review your judgment? So far, it looks as if you have misunderstood the situation twice, assumed bad faith, and now deleted text unconnected to the question, all in your zeal. I'm going to request that you consider, perhaps, just maybe, deferring to people who are experts in this area and have a history with this particular article.

Or, perhaps, include others. An excellent example, of what I complain about is your assertion that because of recent edits, you doubt whether the information is accurate. Wow, a reference is added to oremus, and that's enough to tell you that it's fundamentally questionable?! You are reacting to something you don't like. Fine. Now, articulate what you think might be a reasonable compromise. I've tried that, and you shot it down, with further assumptions of bad faith. Tb (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add: you, Tb, yourself pointed out below that this article is specifically about the Episcopal calendar and not about a generic Anglican calendar, which -- again, as you state -- does not even exist. And yet, the Oremus site states that it is an amalgamation of commemoriations from different provinces; in effect, a generic Anglican calendar. If changes to the article with regards to "generic Anglican" commemorations is not relevant, how can a site which presents a generic Anglican calendar be relevant? TechBear (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Many things are relevant as external links which are not relevant in the article itself. The guidelines explicitly mention this as a reason for external links. Regardless, there is no value in beating my head against the wall you have built. Please propose a compromise position, or desist. Tb (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Conformance of this calendar with the Book of Common Prayer

Over the next few days, I will be working to make sure that this article conforms with the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and the 2006 edition of Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Recent edits have led me to doubt that this calendar is still in accord with the use of the Episcopal Church. I think the lede should also clarify that the included calendar represents all officially listed observances and not just those that appear in the BoCP. TechBear (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just did that a few weeks ago. Tb (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you envision any changes in formatting or style, I would appreciate it if we could discuss them in advance. Tb (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How many archangels are celebrated on 29 September is an example of differences between (English) Anglicanism and Episcopal Church USA usage. I would note both. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the Episcopal Calendar, not the generic Anglican calendar. There is no generic Anglican calendar. The CofE calendar page has the CofE feasts, this has the Episcopal feasts. What does make sense is the cross links that already exist. Tb (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

--- Additions were approved by the General Convention, July 2009 LAWinans (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding to those Commemorated by the Calendar of Saints

I've added a reference to the commemoration of Soren Kierkegaard in the Calendar of Saints of the Episcopal Church USA which is found at satucket.com/lectionary/Calendar.htm While some calendars don't reference Kierkegaard this is due to additions approved at the ECUSA General Convention this year (Standing Commission on Liturgy & Music Report to the 76th GeneralConvention, 2009 --- online) LAWinans (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles I, Martyr

The on-line calendars of the ECUSA, including the one linked to in this article, do not have Charles I, Martyr, for Jan. 30. Does someone have a source that indicates more authoritatively than that, that he is there? --174.116.106.248 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2015 General Convention of The Episcopal Church officially placed the Royal Martyr back on the calendar via this resolution. Jonathunder (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Resolution 2015-A057 did not officially place Charles or anyone else on the calendar. The resolution instructed the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to review a large number of persons for possible future inclusion. Most of the people listed, including Charles, were not added.

Charles has never been on any calendar, past or present, approved by The Episcopal Church, even for trial use. Spartacus007 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Commemorations and Links to online "Book of Common Prayer"; "Holy Men, Holy Women"; and "A Great Cloud of Witnesses"

I'm in the process of adding links to the particular prayers and collects chosen for the celebration of particular saints' lives. These links lead to either the online Book of Common Prayer; Holy Men, Holy Women; and A Great Cloud of Witnesses. I feel that these links are appropriate for this article because they indicate how the calendar has been formed by the Episcopal Church and how it is to be used. Any reader who reads this article will be able to follow these links-- in conjuction with the links to the main Wikipedia article about the saints -- in order to understand how and why a particular saint is to be celebrated.

As a user of this page to find biographical information about the saints commemorated, I'm adding the pieces of information that I'm also searching for when I come to this page and am anticipating that this would also be of use to others who come to this page.

Dwsmith84 (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That might be a wonderful liturgical resource somewhere else, but not here. What you made was a linkfarm, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Jonathunder (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I am finding divergent calendar information between the main list and the information found in Holy Women, Holy Men. I understand the differences when major feast days occur, but not other cases where names do not match. Any help is appreciated 71.232.135.106 (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Holy Women, Holy Men was authorized for trial use from 2009 to 2015 but was never given final approval. The current TEC-approved list is Lesser Feasts and Fasts 2022.

(That doesn't mean Holy Women, Holy Men can't be used for private devotion! It's just not an official church calendar) Spartacus007 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Categorizing people as saints

I've just removed Category:Anglican saints from Roger Williams because it's not clear to me that inclusion on the calendar = sainthood. The category description says "This category designates persons who are celebrated by the Anglican Communion as having lived a life of piety that were not canonized, as well as canonized saints with a practice similar to the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church." Now that I look at the category, I see a number of people for whom their inclusion on this list is non-defining and a sideline to their notability, essentially a case of overcategorization by award recipients. So, is there any meaningful distinction to draw between "canonized saint" and "pious but not canonized", such that we can remove the latter group? And if there is no meaningful distinction, do we need the category at all? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This is better discussed at the category rather than here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Category talk pages are lower-traffic, so I'll leave this here, but add a link there. Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

"feasts"

Should Ash Wednesday and Good Friday be removed from the category of 'feasts'? First, because they are fast days and listed below as such (the word "feast" might be confusing) and second, the wiki article on (Anglican) feasts says that feastdays are 'obligatory'. These days are not obligatory anywhere else in the liturgical world, and I doubt they are such in Anglicanism --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I reworded the section title to "observances" to address your first point. I'm not sure about the second question. Do you have a link? Jonathunder (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

December 17 needs fixing.

I ran across an error for that date. The entry says "Dorothy Sayers", but the link goes to William Garrison. I was unable to discover what the entry should be. Zgystardst (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zgystardst (talk) I have removed the link to William Lloyd Garrison + kept Dorothy Sayers, happy to be corrected. --Devokewater (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Change of name

The name of this wikipage should be changed to Calendar of Saints (Episcopal Church), i.e. with a capital "S" for Saints. --Devokewater (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Calendar

@Ann Teak: WP:NOTDIRECTORY is very clear: Wikipedia is not here to replace or make fancier (e.g. with hyperlinks) full, complete, long religious calendars. Veverve (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a list of saints by date and as such has listed the saints, as have similar articles, until one person decided to undo the work of everyone who has worked on this, which isn't helpful to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Teak (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ann Teak: WP:UNCHALLENGED is not a valid argument. And having more content is not always helpful. Wikipedia's policy is clearly against such lists. Veverve (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The community consensus at Talk:General Roman Calendar is to reject similar changes use @Veverve made on that page. Regardless of who is right, we should discuss these issues before making massive changes to articles.

I personally think that including the list in this article is entirely appropriate, according to the guidelines of Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA. The selection criteria is extremely unambiguous and clear. These are feasts that are officially approved and celebrated. The criteria is encyclopedia and topically relevant. Furthermore, every entry meets the notability criteria. Spartacus007 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am Spartacus. (Actually, I am not, but I agree with said Spartacus.) Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Title

The official title of the liturgical calendar, in both the Book of Common Prayer (1979) and the Lesser Feasts and Fasts (2006, 2018, 2022) is The Calendar of the Church Year. The article title has been updated to reflect this, with notes about previous names for the liturgical calendar, i.e., The Calendar in the Book of Common Prayer (1928), noted in the article. --TrulyShruti ^{talk • sign} 13:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks -- and for your other recent additions to the article Spartacus007 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)