text:
User talk:Randywombat

Recent talk
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hello, and welcome! I notice that you've been signing your name as "Toby" in talk pages and so on. Of course, this is perfectly logical if that's your name, but I thought I'd better let you know that there is a Wikipedian of long standing and great reputation by the name of Toby Bartels, who has the accounts User:Toby~enwiki and User:Toby Bartels, and who most people think of when the name "Toby" is mentioned round here. This doesn't mean that you have to change your signature, of course, but I just thought I'd better forewarn you, so that you know what's going on if people start talking to you as if you are someone else... :) -- Oliver P. 09:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi. Thanks! I'll use Toby W in future. Toby 11:55, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Older talk
Randy, I left a note for you at Talk:Musical notation. - Rlvaughn 22:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) --

Re: International law.

The reason I took this out is that it is manifestly not true in the case of the United States. There are numerous cases in the Supreme Court which has ruled that in the United States, American domestic law (particularly the U.S. Constitution) overrides international law. Of course where possible, U.S. domestic law should be interpreted in harmony with international law, but the Court has made it clear that Congress has the power to pass U.S. law which contradicts international law, and if there is an manifest contradiction, U.S. law wins. Normally this isn't a problem since a treaty is considered part of the corpus of American law, but it could come up in cases where the treaty contradicts the United States Constitution or more importantly in cases of customary international law where the assent of the nation isn't formally necessary for it to be valid.

I can find the case citations if you want. One thing that is pretty clear is that Americans have a completely different notion of the relationship between international and domestic law than Europeans do.

Roadrunner 17:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm#t33

Roadrunner 17:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Conducting
Regarding entrance/entries, maybe it is a US/UK thing, since I can't recall hearing "entries" myself... TrbleClef 17:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello! I saw your name in wikipedians by field of interest - philosophy - and i wonder if you can give a help. I'm trying to address comments in Featured article candidates/1755 Lisbon earthquake, but the objections are mostly due with things that i, as a geoscientist, hardly understand. Could you give a look? Thanks, muriel@pt 19:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

European Constitution
Hello. You may have noticed I've been doing some work on the European Constitution article recently, including splitting off the history and detailed ratification stuff into another page. It's occurred to me that if, with a whole year to go until the British referendum, the article is currently getting several edits by several different people per day, by the time the real campaigning gets underway and people are looking for information or looking to insert their point of view, it will get a huge amount of traffic (we are already in sixth place on Google for "European Constitution") and a huge amount of editing. I think it's a good idea then for there to be a few people who can keep an eye on the article and have broadly similar ideas about how it should be structured, what should be included, etc. As you appear to have been the most active on the talk page in recent months I thought I'd come to you first.

I split the history section off firstly because the page was getting long, but also because I think it's important to make the distinction between "European Constitution the news story" and "European Constitution the encyclopedia article". Because it's in the news, there's a tendency to overdo talk of how ratification is progressing, when really (in my humble opinion) the article should focus on the Constitution itself, what's in it, what it will mean for Europe, etc, and leave most of the current affairs talk to the history article. Of course, it makes sense to tell the reader about ratification, so I left in references to the various referendums, the fact that Spain have just said yes etc, but clearly someone didn't think this was enough and has added a big table (I think the map did the job very well), including links to articles like Cypriot Ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe for all of the parliamentary ratifications, none of which are really worthy of articles or likely to have one written. I wonder how much detail you think we should go into in the main article?

There's also the problem of people adding strange things to the bit about what's in the Constitution, or what's controversial about it. I wonder how much space we should give to simple description of its provisions and how much to discussing allegations that have been thrown at it. As time passes Wikipedia will probably end up with quite a lot of useful material on this subject spanning more than just this one article, but I think we need to have an idea of what each page should be about and what belongs in it. Some of what people will add will be of dubious relevance or factual accuracy, and of course it's always important to cite sources. If you can think of any other users who know what they're talking about when it comes to this topic it would be good to get them more involved. It would be great to see this as a featured article one day. In the meantime I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Cheers.

— Trilobite (Talk) 22:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Great, thanks for the response. I've put my comments on Talk:Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe so that all this talk is kept in one piece. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:59, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Codecsion procedure
Thank you for the rewrite of the Codecision procedure. I think it is very helpful to have this summary, it was not very good organized and some details were not put together, and it was really neccesary to have a simple and easy description in the codecision article. In addition I think that the details on the steps should be kept alife and I think it would have been best if these details would have been put into a separate article which then only cares about these details like many other articles like the Article on the EU and on Countries do. I created such page for the codecision procedure now and I'd like it if the detail information there stays accessible in this detailed form there, outside of the main codecision article. Thanks. --NoSoftwarePatents 09:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed, thanks in turn for your work on this. The detailed article looks pretty good too. Wombat

Directive rejected
Please cite your sources about the rejection by the Parliament of the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. The information is pretty useless if not confirmed. --Edcolins July 6, 2005 10:48 (UTC)

 * Thanks Ed. My source was the vote itself (I was there) but I can't see it in the media yet. Will add a reference as soon as it appears! Wombat 6 July 2005 11:54 (UTC)

 * It is updated now, and I reverted my reversion. You were ahead of everybody. See (Forbes) and Current events. Cheers. --Edcolins July 6, 2005 11:58 (UTC)

 * I do my best! :o) I was lucky enough to be able to update the wiki from Parliament as the vote went through. After the dust settles, I guess the article will need some heavy revision: perhaps a new section discussing the historical/constitutional significance of the debate and the outcome should push the detailed 'history' into second place? But not just yet - it's too current. Wombat 6 July 2005 12:19 (UTC)

New European Union collaboration
Hi Randywombat, this is just a note telling you that I have created the European Union collaboration (the first collaboration is Eurobarometer). I'm looking forward to your contributions! Talrias (t | e | c) 12:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Exchange with User:Mortypsmith
Me: Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions so far.

You'll see that some editors (including myself) have made changes to some of the content you've contributed so far. In general, this is something to get used to on Wikipedia - everything you submit moves into the public domain and others can, and will, edit and improve it.

You'll also see that some of your contributions have been reverted (that means the pages you've edited have been returned to their previous state, before you edited them). Please don't worry or be offended - this is quite common, especially for new users who are still just finding their feet.

You can get more of an idea about why this has happened here:
 * Writing your first article

For instance, you added a passage to several EU-related pages which discusses the European Commission's policy towards elements of the draft EU constitution. This is a valuable contribution, but unfortunately it's not usable in its current state. This is because:
 * You make controversial claims - claims which other users, including myself, would dispute - but you don't cite your sources for those factual claims. In Wikipedia, always cite your sources if you can. Wikipedians also strive to present a balanced argument: if one editor adds information that is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), you can expect that other editors will quickly make changes.
 * You added links on lots of pages where those links don't belong. Specifically, you added links to one heavily eurosceptic website on many different pages about the European Union. But Wikipedia is not a links repository. If this link belongs anywhere, it belongs in one place: on the article about Euroscepticism. It should not be added indiscriminately to any page about Europe. (If you review the history of these pages, you'll see that an anonymous user has already tried to add this link many times to many pages, and it has been quickly removed by other users.)

So some editors, including myself, have temporarily removed the content you added, and/or moved it to the talk pages of the articles in question. The talk pages are an area where users can discuss the content of an article before making changes. I'm sure that much useable material will be salvaged from your first contributions; indeed, you may well want to re-read what you've written and have another go yourself!

Anyway, once again, welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for your contributions so far, and please do continue to get stuck in! Wombat 14:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Mortypsmith: Thanks for your welcome message and explanation of why some the material I contributed to Wikipedia has been removed. I see from your personal page that the European Union is one of your areas of interest, and indeed part of your job.

 * As you might have guessed, the anonymous user who tried to add the Democracy in Europe site in the past was me before I became a registered Wikipedia user. I note you say that other users removed it - is this in fact the case, or was it removed by editors such as yourself?

 * Now, about my recent additions. To deal with your first point - you say that I make controversial claims which I don't substantiate. Presumably these would be the claims 1) that many things which only the Constitution would have given a legal basis to are being introduced anyway, and 2) that the Commission is seeking to introduce a directive which would, in effect, discriminate against eurosceptic parties by giving a huge financial advantage to federalist parties. Well both of these things I know from MEP Daniel Hannan, who recently (along with others) went to the European Court to protest that this directive goes against the EU's stated aims of democracy and pluralism (the case was, of course, thrown out on a technicality). If I were to include links to the relevant parts Hannan's site, would that be substantiation enough?

 * Secondly, the more general point about links. Obviously it makes sense for the Democracy in Europe site to be in the links section on the Euroscepticism page - it is an example of what the page is talking about. But I can't agree that it has no place on, for example, the European Commission page, when there is a link to their own site. The Democracy site is extremely relevant as it has a lot to say about the Commission, so I can't help feeling it has been excluded purely because its point of view doesn't coincide with the party line. Are we to allow only the view the Commission would like to present of itself, without dissenting voices?

 * Similarly, in the section on the British press on the Euroscepticism page, why allow the allegation that the Eurosceptic press is motivated by xenophobia (rather than, say, a belief in democracy) but not the fairly obvious fact that the British press at both ends of the market is divided more or less half and half on Europe? After all, the xenophobia allegation is not in any way substantiated - the link is just to Wikipedia's page on xenophobia, not to any proof (or even the source of the allegation) that it is what motivates the Eurosceptic press.

 * If as you say you "would dispute" the claims I make about the European Commission then please do so, but this doesn't give you the right to prevent anything but the party line being heard in the first place.

Kind regards - Mortypsmith

Me: Thanks for your message.

In reply to your queries:

(1) I'm not sure what you mean by editors "such as myself", so I don't know how to answer your question directly, but the added links were removed by a variety of editors. I removed it from some pages that I watch (e.g. the constitution and Parliament pages); others removed it from other EU-related pages. By the way, you can find out who has edited what when, if this interests you, by clicking on the "history" tab at the top of any page.

(2) Please do re-add your edits, with a link to the relevant parts of Dan Hannan's site as reference - I think I also saw something on the BBC about this too, which would also be a good source. I suggest that you might want to tone down the wording a little (something like "Some commentators have argued that..." or "Concerns have been voiced by some that..."), though that's up to you; if you choose not to adopt NPOV wording, I'm sure other editors will modify it accordingly anyway (yes, including myself!). That's the nature and the great strength of Wikipedia.

(3) As I indicated before, I think it would be fine - in fact, a good idea - to link to the Democracy in Europe site from a page such as 'Euroscepticism'. I'm sure you'll agree that adding it indiscriminately to a large number of pages related to the EU is unnecessary (and contravenes Wikipedia policy - did you have a look through the links I added in my welcome note?). But you have a valid point that there may be a place for it on selected other pages too, if the information on the site is relevant.

This is a matter for general discussion on Wikipedia - as is everything, really - so I'm certainly not claiming to be authoritative. But my judgement is that it would probably be most useful to link to the Democracy in Europe site as a reference from those parts of EU-related pages where specific eurosceptic claims are made which the D-i-E site substantiates. Another option would be to create a subsection of links on (e.g.) the Commission page headed "Criticism" - if there isn't one already, there should be - and include the link there. Just my 2p's worth; what do you think?

(For what it's worth, I don't think that a link to the European COmmission's site from the European Commission article is enough reason in itself to require 'balancing' links from eurosceptic sites. But that's a separate discussion.)

(4) I have no intention of preventing "anything but the party line" being heard! IN fact, if you survey my past edits you'll find I've done a great deal of toning down of _pro-EU_ arguments in the past, in order to make them more balanced towards scepticism.

In general, one of the great strengths of Wikipedia is that it's populated by a large number of editors with a very wide variety of different views on virtually every subject. But another great strength is its NPOV policy, which is zealously maintained by thousands of contributors. Every viewpoint is welcome - but every viewpoint must also be flagged as exactly that, a viewpoint. Factual claims must be referenced with factual sources; divergent opinions can (indeed, must) be expressed, but flagged as such and balanced by both sides of the argument, without any judgement being inferred in the text. Edits are often added which contravene this policy, but they are equally quickly toned down by others - in every area.

If in doubt, why not post something on the relevant talk page first? There are dozens of other users of every political persuasion who will be more than happy to discuss what's best and the agreed edit can then be transferred to the main article.

Anyway - thanks for the e-mail. I hope you don't mind if I put this exchange on my talk page! And I would be interested to hear your further thoughts, and read your future contributions. Best wishes, Wombat 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Mortypsmith: Thank you, good points well made. However I remain convinced that the DiE site should be available as a link from the Commission article. Of course it should also be available from the Euroscepticism article, but generally there is little point in preaching to the choir - the important thing is that people searching for information about the Commission should be able to find not just the Commission's rosy view of itself, but also the concerns others have about it.

 * I would also stress that the "neutral point of view" is of course a hugely subjective notion in itself, as indeed is the question of when something is a viewpoint and when a simple fact. We all think that someone describes a situation neutrally when they describe in the way we would ourselves. With this in mind, consider the fact that the Commission voted itself a budget of 9 million euros for pro-Constitution propaganda in 2005 alone. This of course is just part of its pro-federalist "hearts and minds" campaign which, as I said in my original post, includes classroom materials targeted at children who are likely to absorb what they being told uncritically.

 * This being the case, it's not hard to see how the pro-Commission and pro-federalist point of view could come to be seen as "neutral", since it's likely to be what most people believe, and anyone who opposes it seen as a crank. Surely the very point of something as democratic as Wikipedia is to counteract the huge advantages that institutions like the Commission have in pushing their own agenda, and present the truth without fear or favour.

 * Anyway, I disgress. I will take your advice and re-add my edits with links to Hannan, and establish a "criticism" section of links on the Commission page. Brgrds, Mortypsmith

Me: No worries. Having looked around the DiE site a bit more, I now agree with you that a link from the Commission page is appropriate. While I don't agree with many of the statements on that site, it is all valid criticism, often heard, and a genuinely NPOV encyclopedic article would be incomplete without it.

More philosophically... yes, I agree that the boundary between fact and opinion is indeed fuzzy. But in terms of Wikipedia at least, there is a settled decision on these matters. Something is regarded as a point of view, rather than a fact, whenever it is disputed by others. This is a very wide definition - perhaps, in my opinion, too wide - but nonetheless, it has followed from a great deal of discussion among Wikipedians and there it is. So a statement about (say) the Commission is only regarded as a fact in Wikipedia terms if all sides would agree on it. For instance, eurosceptics and pro-Europeans would generally agree that there are 25 Commissioners, they have the right of initiative but not of disposition, their headquarters are in Brussels and so on. But the statement that the EU is undemocratic, for instance, is disputed by at least some people, as is the statement that it contributes to the prosperity of the continent - so these are points of view, and must be flagged as such in Wikipedia.

You'll find that even in those subjects where there is a broad majority in favour of one particular view (such as that humans evolved from apes, or that aliens have never visited Earth), Wikipedia still strives to get both sides of the argument heard. So the question of whether the other side of the argument is perceived as being put across by "cranks" is neither here nor there; all that's required is that there IS another side of the argument.

Thanks for the constructive discussion! Wombat 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles
To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Almeda University
Thanks again for finding that. Would you mind e-mailing me the word document itself? Just send it to william (at symbol) scissor (dot) com. I'd like to look at the metadata and the other stuff that Word hides away. Thanks! William Pietri 18:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job
Excellent work on rooting out the paid POV editing. I especially like the part in the letter about the writer they wanted needing multiple IPs (expecting the writer to be blocked or halted by the 3RR ruled). Kevin_b_er 07:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Papier-mâché Tiara
You managed to make the corrections before I got a chance! I really liked how you fixed the sentence that had the present-tense reference to Pope Gregory XIII's tiara so, good job & thanks for catching the errors. SailorAlphaCentauri 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Project European Union
Hello, you are member of the project European Union. I try to create a new project page for the project. You can see it at here Because this should be the project page for all it´s members, please tell me, what you think about it. Please leave your comments on the talkpage of the project.--Thw1309 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric Maschwitz
I've been looking at the above article and see that you started the ball rolling. It's all VG but can you pse indicate where you got the material in the first place? If it came from one source we could add a section for Notes and Sources. I have added a couple of citations and have access to the entry in the Oxford DOB and also the obituary in the Times. However, it's hard to patch in in-line citations without altering the existing text and I don't want to do that because it's fine. Mikeo1938 (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

interview request
Hello, My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University, Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.

Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com MulgaEscu (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy Birthday (2012)
'''Wishing Randywombat a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Corbett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shipley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Expressive loan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Expressive loan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Expressive loan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to review Eat Just page
I work for Eat Just, Inc., a sustainable food company. In compliance with WP:COI, I proposed a draft re-write of the page here that trims promotion, updates the page, etc.

I saw that you participated in the Sustainable food system page and thought I'd see if you were interested in chipping in on Eat Just page. Since I work for the company itself, I am required to rely on more impartial editors to approve any large changes.

Thank you in advance if you do take the time to participate. Anoyes202 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I only just saw this message! I don’t have much expertise in sustainable food but I welcome your improvements to the Eat Just page. Randywombat (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protestant church music during and after the Reformation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warrant. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Randywombat


text:
User talk:Techieman

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus test on university topics
You previously commented on the RFC on the notability of residences at colleges and universities. A consensus test has been posted to evaluate what, if any consensus, has been reached on the issue. Please go and comment at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Techieman


text:
User talk:Darkwind

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux  Talk 00:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Darkwind


text:
Divine Liturgy

Divine Liturgy (Θεία Λειτουργία) or Holy Liturgy is the usual name used in most Eastern Christian rites for the Eucharistic service.

The Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches see the Divine Liturgy as transcending time and the world. All believers are seen as united in worship in the Kingdom of God along with the departed saints and the angels of heaven. Everything in the liturgy is seen as symbolic, but not merely so, for it makes present the unseen reality. According to Eastern tradition and belief, the liturgy's roots go back to the adaptation of Jewish liturgy by Early Christians. The first part, termed the "Liturgy of the Catechumens", includes like a synagogue service the reading of scriptures and, in some places, perhaps a sermon/homily. The second half is based on the Last Supper and the first Eucharistic celebrations by Early Christians and it is called "Liturgy of the Faithful". Eastern Christians believe that the Eucharist is the central part of the service in which they participate, as they believe the bread and wine truly become the real Body and Blood of Christ, and that by partaking of it they jointly become the Body of Christ (that is, the Church). Each Liturgy has its differences from others, but most are very similar to each other with adaptations based on tradition, purpose, culture and theology.

Byzantine Rite
Three Divine Liturgies are in common use in the Byzantine Rite:
 * The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (5th century), used on most days of the year and as a vesperal liturgy on the Annunciation.
 * The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great (4th century), used on the five Sundays of Great Lent and on Saint Basil's feast day (January 1). On the eves of the Nativity and Theophany and on Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday, it is celebrated as a vesperal liturgy. In some traditions, Saint Basil's Liturgy is also celebrated on the Exaltation of the Life-giving Cross on September 14. In all, this liturgy is used 10 times during the liturgical year.
 * The Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts (6th century) is used during Great Lent on Wednesdays, Fridays, and a handful of other occasions, and also on the first three days of Holy Week. Nowadays it is always celebrated as a vesperal liturgy; the Liturgy of the Faithful has no Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer), the Holy Gifts having been consecrated and reserved ("presanctified") at a previous Divine Liturgy. It is traditionally attributed to St. Gregory the Dialogist, although some scholars believe it originated with Patriarch Severus of Antioch.

As well as these, there are two others that are used locally and rarely, the Liturgy of St. James and the Liturgy of Saint Mark.

The Hierarchical Liturgy
As numbers in a diocese increased dramatically, the bishop who presides over the Eucharistic assembly appointed presbyters to act as celebrants in the local communities (the parishes). Still, the Church is understood in Eastern Orthodoxy in terms not of the presbyter, but the diocesan bishop. When the latter celebrates the liturgy personally, the service is more complex and festive. To demonstrate unity with the greater Orthodox community, the hierarch commemorates the hierarch he is subordinate to or, if he is head of an autocephalous church, he commemorates all his peers, whose names he reads from a diptych.

Typical structure

 * Note: Psalms are numbered according to the Greek Septuagint. For the Hebrew Masoretic numbering that is more familiar in the West, usually add '1'. (See the main Psalms article for an exact correspondence table.)

The format of Divine Liturgy is fixed, although the specific readings and hymns vary with season and feast.

The Divine Liturgy consists of three interrelated parts; when not in conjunction with vespers, the liturgies of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great are structured thus:

 * the Liturgy of Preparation, which includes the entry and vesting prayers of the priests and deacons and the Prothesis;
 * the Liturgy of the Catechumens, so called because traditionally this is the only part they may attend;
 * the Liturgy of the Faithful, so called because in ancient times only baptized members in good standing were allowed to participate. In modern times, this restriction applies only to Holy Communion – reception of the sacrament of holy communion.

A typical celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy consists of:

Liturgy of Preparation
''This part of the Liturgy is private, performed only by the priest and deacon. It symbolizes the hidden years of Christ's earthly life.''
 * Entrance and vesting prayers, the sacred servers (priests and deacons) enter the church, venerate the icons and put on their vestments.
 * Liturgy of Preparation – the priest and deacon prepare the bread and wine for the Eucharist (see prosphora) at the Table of Oblation (Prothesis), concluding with the "great censing" when the deacon(s) cense the entire church.
 * Kairos – a preliminary dialog takes place between the priest and the deacon.

Liturgy of the Catechumens
This is the public part of the Liturgy, in which both catechumens and baptized faithful would be in the nave:
 * Opening blessing
 * The deacon exclaims, "Bless, Master!"
 * The priest, raising the Gospel Book and making the sign of the cross with it over the Altar, proclaims: "Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages", to which the response is "Amen."

When the liturgy is at the usual time (following matins or the sixth hour), this order is followed:

 * Great Litany, beginning with the deacon proclaiming, "In peace, let us pray to the Lord", to which the response is "Lord, have mercy."
 * First Antiphon (often Psalm 102, unless there are Festal antiphons, in which case the refrain is "Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Saviour, save us.")
 * Little Litany
 * Second Antiphon (often Psalm 145, unless there are Festal antiphons, in which case the refrain is typically "O Son of God who...[characteristic phrase from the Introit]...save us who sing to Thee: Alleluia!")
 * "Only-Begotten Son"
 * Little Litany
 * Third Antiphon (often the Beatitudes with Troparia from either the Octoechos or the Canon(s) sung at Matins, unless there are Festal antiphons, in which case the refrain is the troparion of the feast)
 * Small Entrance – procession with the Gospel Book
 * Entrance hymn (Introit), made up of two parts:
 * 1) "O come let us worship and fall down before Christ", or a Psalm verse on feasts.
 * 2) The refrain of the second antiphon, sung as "who art risen from the dead" on Sunday and "who art wondrous in Thy saints" on weekdays with no feast.
 * Troparia and Kontakia
 * Hymns commemorating specific saints or feasts, as appropriate to the liturgical calendar and local custom

But when the liturgy is joined to vespers (on Christmas Eve, Theophany Eve, the feast of the Annunciation (except when these days fall on Saturday or Sunday (or, in the Annunciation's case, during Easter Week)), Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday) after the Old Testament readings the Little Litany is said and the liturgy continues from this point:

 * Trisagion, the "Thrice-Holy" hymn (or on certain days, another hymn):
 * On Christmas, Theophany, Lazarus Saturday, Holy Saturday, Easter and Pentecost (and certain days in their Afterfeasts), we sing "As many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. Alleluia!" (Galatians 3:26)
 * On Feasts of the Cross, we sing "We venerate Thy Cross, O Master, and we glorify Thy Resurrection."
 * Prokeimenon
 * Epistle Reading(s)
 * Alleluia, with verses
 * Gospel Reading(s)
 * A sermon may be given here.
 * Litany of Fervent Supplication – "Let us all say with our whole soul and with our whole mind…"
 * Litany for the Departed – this is not said on Sundays, Great Feasts or during the Paschal season
 * Litany of the Catechumens and Dismissal of the Catechumens

Liturgy of the Faithful
In the early Church, only baptized members who could receive Holy Communion were allowed to attend this portion of the Liturgy. In common contemporary practice, with very few local exceptions (e.g., Mount Athos), all may stay. However, in most places, catechumens are formally dismissed for further study.
 * First Litany of the Faithful
 * Second Litany of the Faithful
 * Cherubikon chanted as spiritual representatives (or icons) of the angels
 * Replaced on Maundy Thursday with "Of Thy Mystical Supper..."
 * Replaced on Holy Saturday with "Let all mortal flesh keep silence..."
 * Great Entrance – procession taking the chalice and diskos (paten) from the Table of Oblation to the altar
 * Litany of Completion – "Let us complete our prayer to the Lord"
 * The Kiss of Peace
 * Symbol of Faith (the Nicene Creed)
 * Anaphora (Eucharistic Prayer)
 * Exclamation by the deacon: "Let us stand upright..."
 * Blessing by the priest and Sursum Corda ("Let us lift up our hearts..." (Greek: "Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας")
 * The Epinikios Hymnos or Sanctus ("Holy, Holy, Holy…")
 * The Eucharistic Canon, containing the Anamnesis (memorial of Christ's Incarnation, death, and Resurrection, and the Words of Institution)
 * Epiklesis The calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the Holy Gifts (bread and wine) to change them into the Body and Blood of Christ
 * Commemoration of Saints, interrupted by
 * The Theotokion (hymn to the Theotokos), usually It is Truly Meet ([Ἄξιόν ἐστιν) unless it is the Liturgy of St. Basil, when "All of creation rejoices in thee..." is sung, or a feast, Maundy Thursday or Holy Saturday, when the Irmos of Ode IX from the Canon at Matins is sung.
 * Commemoration the dead in general, and of the living, concluding with of bishop and civil authorities – "Remember, O Lord…"
 * Litany of Supplication – "Having called to remembrance all the saints…"
 * Lord's Prayer
 * Bowing of Heads
 * "Holy Things are for the Holy"
 * Communion Hymn, during which:
 * Cutting the Lamb for the consumption by the clergy
 * Communion of the priests and deacons
 * Cutting the Lamb and putting the pieces into the chalice for the consumption by the congregation
 * Holy Communion of the faithful
 * "We have seen the true light" (occasionally replaced with the troparion of the feast)
 * "Let our mouths be filled with Thy praise, O Lord…" (occasionally replaced with the troparion of the feast)
 * Litany of Thanksgiving
 * Prayer behind the Ambon
 * Any special services (blessings, memorial services, etc.) are normally said here
 * "Blessed be the name of the Lord..." (Psalm 112:2)
 * Psalm 33
 * Dismissal
 * A sermon is given here if it was not given after the Gospel

Almost all texts are chanted throughout the Divine Liturgy, not only hymns but litanies, prayers, creed confession and even readings from the Bible, depending on tradition. In ancient rubrics, and contemporary Greek practice, the sermon, Nicene Creed and the Lord's Prayer are spoken/read, rather than chanted. Slavic traditions chant or sing everything except the sermon.

Oriental Orthodox Churches
"Divine Liturgy" is the normal word for church service in Oriental Orthodoxy. In their own languages, followers of the Byzantine Rite apply it to their Eucharistic services but, while in English the same word (as also the word "Mass") is at times used to speak of the corresponding services of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the normal names used in those Churches refers either to the aspect of offering/sacrifice (Qurobo Alohoyo in the Syriac Orthodox Church), Badarak in the Armenian Apostolic Church, Prosfora in the Coptic Orthodox Church) or of sanctifying (Keddase in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church).

The Oriental Orthodox Churches own a richness of different liturgies, which are named after the anaphora included.

Coptic Liturgy
At present, the Coptic Orthodox Church and Coptic Catholic Church have three Liturgies:

 * The Liturgy of St. Basil (4th century)
 * The Liturgy of St. Mark the Apostle, this liturgy is also known as the Liturgy of St. Cyril
 * The Liturgy of St Gregory the Theologian

The Liturgy of St. Basil is celebrated on most Sundays and contains the shortest anaphora. The Liturgy of St. Gregory is usually used during the feasts of the Church but not exclusively. In addition the clergy performing the liturgy can combine extracts of the Liturgies of St. Cyril and St. Gregory to the more frequently used St. Basil at the discretion of the priest or bishop.

The main liturgy used by the Coptic Church is known as Liturgy of Saint Basil. The term Liturgies of Saint Basil in a Coptic context means not only the sole anaphora with or without the related prayers, but also the general order of the Alexandrine Rite liturgy.

Anaphora
The Egyptian (or Coptic) anaphora of Saint Basil, even if related and using the same Antiochene (or "West Syrian") structure, represents a different group from the Byzantine, West Syrian and Armenian grouping of anaphoras of Saint Basil. The Egyptian version does not derive directly from the latter and has its own peculiarities: its text is more brief, with less Scriptural and allusive enhancements, and it lacks well-defined Trinitarian references, which are typical of other versions and reflect the theology of the First Council of Constantinople of 381.

The structure of the Bohairic Coptic version used today in the Coptic Church can be summarized as follows:
 * Anaphora:
 * the Opening Dialogue
 * the Preface, praising Father as Lord and everlasting king, as creator of heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and as Father of Christ by whom all things were made
 * the Pre-Sanctus, praising the Father on his throne of glory and worshiped by the Angelic hosts, so introducing
 * the Sanctus, conducted without the Benedictus
 * the Post-Sanctus, recalling the whole history of Salvation, from the Original Sin to the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection of Christ up to the Last Judgment
 * the Institution narrative
 * the Anamnesis, referring to the Passion, Resurrection and Second Coming of Christ
 * the Oblation, offering to the Father the Eucharistic gifts
 * the Epiclesis, asking the Holy Spirit to come and to sanctify and manifest the gifts as the Most Holy; then asking the Holy Spirit to make the bread the Body and the chalice the Blood of Christ
 * the Intercessions, praying for the participants to become one single body, for the Church, for the Pope of Alexandria and for all the ecclesiastic hierarchy, for the town and the harvest, for the floodings, for the living, for who have offered the Eucharistic gifts, for the saints – naming Mary, John the Baptist, Saint Stephen, Saint Mark and Saint Basil; then reading of the diptychs, followed by the prayers for the dead
 * a prayer for the fruit of the Communion and the final doxology.

The 7th-century Sahidic Coptic version found in 1960 shows an earlier and more sober form of the Bohairic text: the manuscript, incomplete in its first part, begins with the Post Sanctus, and is followed by a terse Institution narrative, by a pithy Anamnesis which simply lists the themes and ends with the oblation. The next Epiclesis consists only of the prayer to the Holy Spirit to come and manifest the gifts, without any explicit request to change the gifts in the Body and Blood of Christ. The intercessions are shorter and only Mary is named among the saints.

Liturgy of Saint Basil
The term Liturgy of Saint Basil may refer also to the whole Eucharistic Liturgy which in the Coptic Church has the following structure:

Offertory
Offertory (or Prothesis) is the part of the liturgy in which the Sacramental bread (qorban) and wine (abarkah) are chosen and placed on the altar. All these rites are Middle-ages developments.

It begins with the dressing of the priest with vestments and the preparation of the altar, along with prayers of worthiness for the celebrant. At this point is chanted the appropriate hour of the Canonical hours, followed by the washing of the hands with its prayer of worthiness, and by the proclamation of the Nicean Creed.

Then takes place the elaborate rite of the choosing of the Lamb: while the congregation sing 41 times the Kyrie eleison, the priest checks the wine and chooses among the bread one loaf which will be consecrated (the Lamb). The Lamb is cleaned with a napkin and blessed with the priest's thumb wet with wine. Afterwards the priest takes the Lamb in procession around the altar and the deacon follows with the wine and a candle. At the altar, the priest, with appropriate prayers, blesses the Lamb and the wine, places the Lamb on the Paten and pours wine and a few drops of water in the chalice (the chalice is placed on the altar in a wooden box named ark).

The last part of the offertory resembles an anaphora: after a dialogue, the priest blesses the congregation and proclaims a prayer of thanksgiving, giving thanks to God for his support to us, and asking him for a worthy participation to the liturgy. Then comes the prayer of covering said inaudibly by the priest, which has the form of an epiclesis asking God to show his face on the gifts, and to change them in order that the bread and wine may became the Body and Blood of Christ. This text might come from an ancient anaphora or simply be a later High Middle Ages creation. The paten and the ark with the chalice inside are here covered with a veil.

Liturgy of the Catechumens
In the Liturgy of the Catechumens the readings from the New Testament are proclaimed. This portion was in ancient times the beginning of the liturgy, and the only part which could be attended by the catechumens. It is roughly equivalent to the Liturgy of the Word in the Western Rites.

It begins with a Penitential Rite in which first the priest prays inaudibly to Christ for the forgiveness of sins (The Absolution to the Son) and then all the participants kneel in front of the altar and the celebrant, or the bishop if present, recites a prayer of absolution (The Absolution to the Ministers).

The reading from the Pauline epistles is preceded by the offering of incense at the four sides of the altar, at the iconostasis, at the book of the Gospel and at the faithfuls in the nave; in the meantime the faithful sing a hymn to Mary and a hymn of intercession. The Pauline epistle is followed by a reading from the Catholic epistles and by one from the Acts of the Apostles. Another offering of incense is conduced (the Praxis Incense), similar to the Pauline incense except that only the first row of the faithful is incensed. A reading from the Coptic Synaxarium can follow.

After these readings, the Trisagion is sung three times, each time with a different reference to the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, thus addressing the Trisagion to Christ only. After the Trisagion follows a litany, the recital of a Psalm and the singing of the Alleluia, and finally the proclamation of the Gospel from the doors of the sanctuary. The sermon may follow.

Liturgy of the Faithful
The Liturgy of the Faithful is the core of the Liturgy, where are placed the proper Eucharistic rites.

It begins with the prayer of the Veil, in which the priest offers the liturgical sacrifice to God. The Long Litanies follows, where all pray for the peace, for the ecclesiastic hierarchy and for the congregation. The Nicean Creed is proclaimed, the priest washes his hands three times and sprinkles water on the congregation reciting the Prayer of Reconciliation which is a prayer of worthiness for all who attend the liturgy. Next is the Kiss of peace during which the faithful sing the Aspasmos Adam (Rejoice O Mary) hymn.

The Anaphora is conducted. After the anaphora takes place the consignation, i.e. the moistening of the Lamb with some drops of the consecrated Wine, which is shown for the worship of the faithful. The Fraction of the consecrated Lamb ensues, during which the priest says a prayer which varies according to the Coptic calendar. All of the congregation stands and prays with open hands the Lord's Prayer.

To be prepared for partaking of the Eucharist, the faithful bow while the celebrant says in low voice the prayer of submission, then the priest and the participants offer each other a wish of peace and the priest inaudibly prays to the Father for the forgiveness of sins (The Absolution to the Father).

The Elevation is similar to that in the Byzantine Rite, with the celebrant who raises the portion of the Lamb engraved with a cross (the ispadikon) crying: "The holy things for the holy ones". The priest makes a second consignation and puts gently the ispakidon in the chalice (the commixture), then he recites aloud a confession of faith. The partaking of the Eucharist follows, first the Body of Christ given to the celebrants, to the deacons and to the faithful who approach the sanctuary without shoes and then the Blood of Christ in the same order. Psalm 150 is sung in the meantime. The distribution of the Eucharist ends with a blessing with the Paten.

The dismissal rites include The Prayer of Laying the Hands and the final blessing.

Syro-Antiochene liturgy
The Syriac Orthodox Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, the Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church of the West Syriac Rite which is developed from the Antiochene Rite use a version of the Divine Liturgy of Saint James which differs substantially from its Byzantine Rite counterpart, most notably in being substantially shorter (it can be completed in under two hours, whereas the historic form of the Byzantine Rite liturgy prior to the revisions of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom took more than four hours), and in that it can be used with more than eighty different anaphoras; the most commonly used are those of Mar Bar Salibi (which is the shortest), and that of St. James, which resembles that of the Byzantine Rite liturgy, and is mandated on certain occasions, such as major feasts, the consecration of churches, and the first liturgies offered by newly ordained priests. Due to the long isolation of the Saint Thomas Christians the rite of the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church shows some differences, so that this rite is called the Malankara Rite.

Armenian Liturgy
The Armenian Apostolic Church and the Armenian Catholic Church have at present a single liturgical structure, called the Armenian Rite, with a single anaphora (the Athanasius-Anaphora) for the liturgy: Holy Patarag or in Western Armenian Holy Badarak, meaning 'sacrifice'. This is in distinction from the other liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, West Syrian, Ethiopic) which have retained multiple anaphora.

This means that the text of the Patarag can be contained in a single, unified liturgical book, the Պատարագամատոյց (Pataragamatooyts, Western Armenian Badarakamadooyts, meaning 'the offering of sacrifice'). This book contains all of the prayers for the Patarag assigned to the bishop (if celebrating as a bishop), the celebrating priest, the deacon(s), and the people, the last typically led by a choir with accompaniment.

Before the end of the 10th century there were also other liturgical forms, such as the Anaphora of St. Basil, the Anaphora of St. Gregory the Illuminator and others in use.

The elements of the Armenian eucharistic liturgy reflect the rich set of influences on Armenian culture. The roots of the liturgy lie in the West Syrian and Byzantine forms, with the influence of the Roman Catholic Mass, the latter having arrived likely during the period of the Fourth Crusade or shortly thereafter.

Among the distinctive practices of the Armenian Patarag is the tradition that on the Sundays of the fast before Easter (the Great Fast) the curtain which hangs down in front of the elevated altar area (Armenian խորան khoran) is never opened – even for the reading of the Gospel, certain movable parts of the liturgy are omitted, the parts of the liturgy sung by the choir are said or chanted simply without adornment, there is no general confession, and there is no distribution of Communion to the faithful. This practice of fasting from the Communion bread in preparation for Easter may reflect an ancient custom of the church in Jerusalem. A special prayer of repentance is sung by the clergy on the morning of Palm Sunday (Armenian: Ծաղկազարդ tsaghkazard, Western Armenian dzaghgazard), after which the curtain is opened for the first time since the last Sunday before the Great Fast.

One element which almost certainly derives from the influence of Western liturgy is the reading of a last Gospel at the conclusion of the Patarag. However, the celebration of a short memorial service for one or more departed persons (Հոգեհանգիստ hogehangist, Western Armenian hokehankist, meaning 'rest of the spirit') is quite prevalent in parishes and replaces the reading of the last Gospel.

Holy Qurbana
Holy Qurbana is the Eucharistic celebration in the Edessan Rite. The Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East and their larger Catholic counterparts, the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro-Malabar Church, which use the Edessan Rite that they all inherit from the Church of the East, employ one or more of three different Eucharistic anaphorae when celebrating Holy Qurbana:

 * Anaphora of Addai and Mari (or The Hallowing of the Apostles, i.e., of the Apostles Saint Addai and Saint Mari)
 * The Hallowing of Theodore of Mopsuestia, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia
 * The Hallowing of Nestorius, attributed to Nestorius

title: Divine Liturgy


text:
Talk:Divine Liturgy

Stub
I just put in enough information to tell people what the Divine Liturgy is. It's a placeholder. There needs to be a more thorough discussion, as there is for Roman Mass. Basil Fritts 06:46 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

(Structure outline moved from talk into actual article.)

 * Good start; looks pretty familiar. Between the Lesser Entrance and the Epistle Reading, we usually have a number of Troparia and Kontakia hymns that are appropritate to the day, and the ones we nearly always do, like to the patron saint of our parish. Our priest gives the homily right after the Gospel reading, though I think some do so after Holy Communion, and there may be a couple other places. For the first point, I think the priest first says "Blessed is the Kingdom..." which signals that the service is a Divine Liturgy and not just a vespers or matins service.

 * Even having said all that, this is good enough to go into the article; it can be improved on there. Edit boldly! Wesley 20:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Haha, I even forgot the homily :) Ok, I'll be bold...

Oops, where is the Trisagion ? Would you mind inserting it correctly ?

In my humble opinion, detailed descriptions of one particular liturgy are out of place in discussing Divine Liturgy. Such discussions should be broken out into separate pages for the Divine Liturgy of Saint so-and-so. For example, there might be a page for the Divine Liturgy of Saint James and another for the Divine Liturgy of Addai and Mari, etc., etc., etc... --Sophroniscus 16:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes indeed, but the article in its current state is little better than a stub. There's clearly plenty of room for expansion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Genealogy of Liturgies

 * Pardon me, folks, but the genealogy of liturgies (James>Basil>Chrys) in this article is so dead wrong. I'll try to rewrite it in next couple of days, if you don't mind. Ouital77 16:25, 27 August 2005

 * While it's true that the there exist anaphoras earlier than either recension (Byzantine or non-Chalcedonian) commonly seen today of the Liturgy of St. James, Church tradition does hold that that was the first liturgy to be composed. The Byzantine Liturgy of John Chrysostom is clearly a modification of the Byzantine St. Basil's liturgy, though whether that one is truly a descendant of St. James' liturgy is open to debate. What modifications are you planning to make to that section of the article? YBeayf 04:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry if I was too rough in my comment. As to the genealogy, the James>Basil>Chrysostom origins model has been disproved by many scholars. In short, the prayers of CHRYS were not the abbreviation of BAS - they were just different prayers, composed by different people and originating in neighbouring, but different regions. CHRYS comes from Antioch and has parallels with the Syrian anaphora of the 12 apostles; BAS has some roots in Egypt and probably got to Constantinople via Cappadocia. What concerns St James, it was a standard liturgy of Jerusalem and has nothing to do with either CHRYS or BAS. The Byzantines don't celebrate it that often (only maybe once a year) precisely because it wasn't a part of Constantinople service book! With respect to the article, I plan to add a section on the history of the liturgy, an outline with short description of concrete rites (preparation, little entrance, great entrance etc.) and a short bibliography. It's ab. 70% ready; once I submit it, I'll be happy to read comments and answer questions. Respectfully, Ouital77 1:27, 28 August 2005

"Synod of Timothy"
Are there any thoughts as to the recent additions to this article on the practices of a group calling itself the "Synod of Timothy"? While a brief mention of the fact that they use a modified version of the Divine Liturgy in their services may be appropriate, I'm not sure that information on a one-year-old, tiny vagante group merits such a prominent place in the article. YBeayf 19:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I concur that it does not. The same editor contributed a moderately lengthy article on this organization, and I've been wondering if it should be submitted for a VfD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you don't feel the information is appropriate here, I guess I can understand, but I don't really see a reason to delete the entry for the Synod and all of the associated links developed from it. The Synod of Saint Timothy is relatively new, but it is in communion with a larger body and is on friendly terms with other bodies.  Further, the material on the Synod is presented in a matter-of-fact manner, and is intended for information, nothing more.  If you are going to consider submitting the Synod's entry for deletion, I think in fariness you need to consider asking for a VfD for every ecclesiastical body that has a link here on Wikipedia.  The Synod of Saint Timothy exists and is growing, and there is no reason that I can think of that it is less deserving of information here than any other Independent Catholic/Orthodox body.Father Rob Lyons 02:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I was just thinking out loud really, and have no intention of submitting a VfD at this time although I retain my doubts that this group is sufficiently notable to merit an article. Although you find many articles on Wikipedia on subjects you'd never find in a print encyclopedia, we don't cover everything. See Tutorial (Keep in mind). Regardless, mention of it plainly doesn't belong in this article when we're discussing groups only in very broad terms.  If we were going to single out one small vagante group for special mention, we'd (in all fairness) need to mention all the others -- as well as all the individual Orthodox local churches, every Oriental Orthodox local church, each of the various Uniate churches, etc. That's plainly impractical, and not terribly useful to the reader. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've removed this material, as it clearly falls within the "non-notable" realm. There's also a VfD in progress on the same grounds.  ——Preost  talk  contribs  01:32, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Pentecostal invocation"
This text seems to have been here a long time, so I thought I ought to explain here why I'm removing it. Although the Descent of the Holy Spirit is the defining moment of Pentecost, he also arrives at other times and in other ways. I've never heard the Epiklesis labelled in this way before. Indeed an explicit connection to Pentecost is only made in the Slavic tradition in what is really an interjection of the Prayer of the Third Hour. (An interjection that's particularly awkward in the case of St. Basil's epiklesis where there's really no room for it.) So it seems to me better to let "Epiklesis" stand on its own here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Byz Lit
Ouital77 is right. Those pretentions of fatherness of Chrys aren't but naive sights. There are a lot of liturgists that don't agree with.

Even the expression, «Liturgy of St ...» is false. It's only about anaphora (+ prayer upon the gifts, and other additions throughout the litanies btw word liturgy and altar liturgy).

And there should be an article as Byzantine eucharist, showing the schema of the eucharist within the Byzantine Rite, and separate articles speaking about the 2 anaphores: Apparently, the 2nd one is but an Antiochian text found late by a priest named John, from Constantinople. This is all.
 * Byzantine anaphora of Basil the Great;
 * Anaphora of John of Constantinople.

From another point of view, "Divine Liturgy" is NOT an Eastern word. In all the Eastern liturgies (except Byz), the eucharist is called sacrifice: «qurbana», «badarak», etc. So, we have only 2 choices:
 * Use this expression, "Divine Liturgy" for all eucharists (both Eastern and Western), as in most languages of East Europe;
 * Use it only for the Byzantine Rite.

We must choose one. - Waelsch 19:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Speaking of the Byzantine Rite, would it be a good idea to change the first line of the intro to link the word Byzantine to Byzantine Rite instead of Byzantine church (which is a redirect to Eastern Orthodox Church)? The Byzantine Divine Liturgy (the Eucharistic liturgy) should be connected with the overall topic of Byzantine liturgy.   Chonak 07:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but the Eastern Orthodox originally created the Byzantine Rite, and it was the Byzantine Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.172.76 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Singing
The only Divine Liturgies I've been to have been conducted in song. Is that always the case? KittyHawker 17:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Everything is chanted a capella except for the homily. Some Greek churches in the US now use organs, but this is highly incorrect. I suppose this ought to be mentioned in the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it should be mentioned. Not only in the Divine Liturgy, all public services are chanting. Perhaps we are better to explictly mention "reading from the Letters and Gospels" are also chanted.

Another question from me; the article says the D.L. has two parts - Liturgy of Catecumens and of Faithfuls. When the former ends and the latter begins? The former ends with "the Litany of Catecumens" and the latter begins with "the first Litany of Faithfuls"? Am I correct? --Aphaia 05:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's usually taken to be the dividing point, which is one reason why it's not such a good idea to omit the Litany of the Catechumens and their dismissal IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Psalms: which numbering?
Reference is made to various psalms. But is the numbering system Septuagint or Masoretic Text? It would be useful if this could be stated, perhaps with reference to the table in the Psalms article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Who wrote the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom?
The article acts as if the Liturgy of John Chrysostom has ambiguous origin, as if John Chrysostom may not have written it. I understand there were a few minor modifications done in early to mid Byzantine times, but we know what those were. Isn't it certain that he wrote the liturgy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.172.76 (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbian
What is the Serbian Divine Liturgy?

Text
Well, there is a lot talk about the Divine Liturgy, but where is it? Can we have the various texts (and translations)? That would make this article 100% more useful. Gingermint (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There seem to be various translations mentioned at the "External links" section. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

External links?
An editor has tagged the article with inappropriate external links. Not sure what is intended here. This is usually meant to suggest that imbedded externals are in the article. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Something wrong with material under "External links?" Would the editor care to be more explicit? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Divine Liturgy. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.armeniancatholic.ru/en/index.html
 * Added tag to http://britishorthodox.org/miscellaneous/the-fraction-in-the-coptic-orthodox-liturgy/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115112855/http://en.liturgy.ru:80/nav/liturg/ to http://en.liturgy.ru/nav/liturg/
 * Added tag to http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Oro/Daily_Liturgy.uni.htm
 * Added tag to http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Oro/Sun_Liturgy.uni.htm
 * Added tag to http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Oro/Lit_with_Deacon.uni.htm
 * Added tag to http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Oro/Basil_Liturgy.uni.htm
 * Added tag to http://analogion.gr/glt/texts/Oro/Pro.uni.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Divine Liturgy. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824163044/http://www.armenianchurchwd.com/ to http://www.armenianchurchwd.com/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armeniancatholic.ru/en/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205214308/http://www.anastasis.org.uk/presanctified.htm to http://www.anastasis.org.uk/presanctified.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.liturgy.ru/nav/liturg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Slavic
I added Polish & Czech/Slovak terms for the Divine Liturgy, since there are Orthodox in those countries, but...it seems to me that all of the Slavic terms are quite transparently etymologically related. Perhaps we could use the Church Slavonic in the lede as a shorthand, and move all of the modern Slavic descendants into a ref tag, to avoid an overly-long sentence? Jpbrenna (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Translations in lede sentence
The translations in the lede sentence seem excessive, indiscriminate, and if they should stay in the article, should be moved to a section such as "Etymology" or "Meaning". Elizium23 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I concur that they as excessive, & cetera, and in this and other Eastern Orthodoxy articles their number mushrooms. Honestly, just clicking "Languages" in the left column of the page reveals most of these (Georgian being a notable exception) and methinks that, at most, the original Koine Greek should remain. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 * And I just linked Georgian; that article had linked to Liturgy but on-line translation shows that that is about, specifically, the Divine Liturgy. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Divine Liturgy


text:
Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society

The Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, Inc., or LASFS, is a science fiction and fantasy fan society that meets in the Los Angeles area. The current meeting place can be found on the LASFS website.

LASFS is the oldest continuously operating science fiction club in the world, helped considerably in maintaining that record by being one of the few to have owned a clubhouse. The organization continues to hold regular weekly meetings on Thursdays. The club maintains a private lending library of books, videos, and other genre-related materials, for use by members.

Members of the club have run the World Science Fiction Convention several times, initiated the regional science-fiction convention Westercon, and hosts a yearly science fiction convention called Loscon. It maintains a web site and discussion forum, publishes (at irregular intervals) an amateur magazine called Shangri L'Affaires, and hosts the collations of a weekly amateur press association, APA-L. The LASFS monthly newsletter, De Profundis, is named for the club motto, De Profundis ad Astra ("From the Depths to the Stars") and is available (in PDF format) for reading at the LASFS website, or can be obtained by writing its editor/publisher, Marty Cantor.

History
In 1934 Hugo Gernsback, editor of the then-prominent science fiction magazine Wonder Stories, established a correspondence club for fans called the "Science Fiction League." Local groups across the nation could join by filling out an application. Early meetings were held first at the Pacific Electric Building, then moved to Clifton's Cafeteria. Forrest J Ackerman later wrote, "The first meetings of the club were held in what was called the Pacific Electric Building in downtown Los Angeles. I think that once a month, a man who worked there was able to get the seventh or eighth floor free for us. Then we moved to Clifton's Cafeteria, a feature of which was their free limeade and lime juice. Some of the members who didn't have more than a nickel or dime to spend guzzled a lot of that free juice.

By 1936, the League had begun to fail. New management was less interested in the League, and the members grew up and lost interest. Charter group number four, in Los Angeles, had an active member in Forrest J. Ackerman, who missed the first few meetings (he was living in San Francisco with his parents), but whose enthusiasm and imagination provided a focus for the group. "Forry" and a cadre of other members kept it alive as the science fiction and fantasy genres developed. Local authors (and sometimes those from out of the area) also helped by coming to meetings from time to time.

In 1939, the group broke with the Science Fiction League, changed its name to the Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society, and begun to meet every Thursday. In this decade, the club began publishing the fanzine Shangri L'Affaires. Nicknamed "Shaggy", the zine has died and been revived many times over the decades. When published now, it is photocopied, but originally it was done on a mimeograph machine. One of the ways to earn your dues was to crank the machine and collate the sheets.

World War II was a very busy time for the club, though few major changes were made. Most members were either below or well above draft age, and many fans from around the country visited en route to the war in the Pacific. Some moved to Los Angeles to work in defense industries.

In the 1940s, some members such as Ray Bradbury began writing professionally, and an increasing number of professional science fiction authors visited meetings or joined as "Members at Large" elsewhere in the world. For some years, the club sponsored "Fanquets" for members who had made their first professional sale.

In the 1950s, the club became embroiled in controversy, partly from taking the stand that if they didn't address controversies, they would fade away. Ackerman was still the mainstay of the club in the first part of the 1950s, but marriage and work needs led to his attending less frequently. One of the live wires of the club at this time was Bjo Trimble, a former WAVE who met her husband John under Ackerman's piano (at a crowded party).

In the 1960s the club continued to grow, with the effects of the counterculture of the 1960s adding new members from the surrounding suburbs of Southern California. Many members became fans of the newly created Star Trek television show, and in 1968 Trimble and other members of LASFS were instrumental in organizing a nationwide letter writing campaign which saved the show from its announced cancellation by NBC at the end of its second season.

The club's meeting place (called 'Freehafer Hall' by the members after member Paul Freehafer) was usually in a public meeting hall and so it would be forced to relocate from time to time. Over the decades it moved from central Los Angeles further west until it reached Santa Monica, "as far west as it could go and remain dry."

In 1964, member Paul Turner made what seemed to some like a frivolous suggestion, to others a brilliant idea: that the LASFS establish a building fund, generated from weekly meeting dues and fund-raising events such as auctions, with the idea of eventually purchasing its own permanent clubhouse. Members quickly began taking the idea seriously, and by the late 1960s, after a period of hesitation, Bruce Pelz became the building fund's most fervent supporter.

In 1973, less than 10 years after its inception, the LASFS building fund had enough money in the bank to purchase a small private residence on Ventura Boulevard in Studio City and convert it into the weekly meeting hall. By 1977, the club needed a newer, larger clubhouse, and so it sold the Ventura Boulevard property and purchased a property at 11513 Burbank Boulevard, about two blocks west of Lankershim Blvd in North Hollywood, with two buildings: Freehafer Hall (the rear building), and "Building 4SJ" (fronting the Street). Building 4SJ was named after Forrest J Ackerman, and contained the society's lending library, furnished rooms for socializing, and a pay telephone.

On September 1, 2011, the organization moved to a new building in Van Nuys, which formerly housed a cabinet-making shop and a poker school.

As of early 2018, while a more permanent location is being sought, the meetings are being held in a temporary location: Null Space Labs, 10717 Chandler Blvd. (rear), North Hollywood 91601, from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

The club met at the American Lutheran Church, 755 North Whitnall Highway, Burbank, CA 91505 from August 2, 2018 until in-person meetings became inadvisable due to COVID-19. LASFS meetings are now held via Zoom. See |the LASFS website for current meeting information.

Officers
The Treasurer is elected once a year; the other club officers are elected twice a year. The Board of Directors is elected on a staggered basis: 4, 4, and 3.

For the current list of officers and directors, please see the Contact LASFS page.

Cultural references
In the Hugo-nominated science fiction novel Fallen Angels by LASFS members Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle (with Michael Flynn), LASFS' unofficial motto "Death Will Not Release You" and its even more unofficial countersign "... even if you die" play a pivotal role in plot development. The protagonist of Keith Laumer's 1968 novella The Day Before Forever describes the fashion styles in a future society as "like something from Westercon II".

title: Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society