text:
Talk:Killian documents controversy/Archive 2

 * First Archive, up to September 22, 2004

The term "right-wing" is used a couple times in the "initial scepticism" section. Since that term may habe negative connotations, should we replace it with a less loaded term like "conservative"?

Reproduction using contemporary technology
The "Reproduction using modern technology" section clearly indicates that many find the reproductions via Microsoft Word to be convincingly exact beyond reasonable doubt. That being the case, it is silly to have a sentence in the very next section which states almost the opposite. The article should not contradict itself.

My opinion is that nothing from the "Reproduction using modern technology" section needs to be reiterated in the "Reproduction using contemporary technology" section, but since someone insists on having the issues rehashed there, I have added a reiteration, contrasting the two very different situations.

Kudos
I've been following the evolution of this page for a few months now, and I'd like to commend the person or persons who reorganized and cleaned it up recently (no time to analyze the History). IMHO, it has achieved near perfection. Kudos.

New articles
Are these articles worth mentioning? I don't know enough about the issue to be able to evaluate their credibility:

The Blue Lemur Claims the White House has just released genuine proportionally spaced documents made on a TANG typewriter in 1971

David Hailey, PhD Believes the documents were genuine based on wear marks consistent with a typewriter and not a digital document, amongst other things.

Psychobabble

 * The Hailey report clearly belongs. He is director of an academic lab which among other things investigates "authentication problems".  Now he may or may not be a good academic, but that's not for us to judge.  He clearly meets objective standards for credibility, much more so than a bunch of bloggers.  Even if these were written in 1972, it won't make much difference after the CBS admission of gross negligence. Wolfman 15:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The ones who finally did disprove the memos were not "a bunch of bloggers", but rather acknowledged experts in their own fields. The bloggers just broke the story and kept covering it, the real analysis was not theirs. Unlike those who proved the Memos were fake, Hailey is NOT an expert in typography, fonts, word processing, typewriters etc, though he is unsurprisingly the holder of a BA in creative writing (see his CV here). Incidentally, the Boston Globe even backed off of Hailey, as it seems he may have modified the docs using Photoshop in order to create his "analysis". See here. It's generally not a good idea to leave traces of forgery on your website when trying to do something like this... Also, he created his comparison on a word processor, so it doesn't quite count as using a 1972-era typewriter to prove the memos being genuine... Impi 15:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Two things (a) if someone has criticized his report, it would be fair to note that; but that's no reason to censor a report by a director of an academic media lab. (b) do you have links to the cv's of experts on the other side? i'm curious what the standards for expertise are -- research publications, or what? who gets to decide who's an expert? Wolfman 16:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, one of the primary debunkers' resume is here, and I say without fear of contradiction that it's far more impressive in this sphere than is Hailey's. That said, I was not intending to use Hailey's inexperience in this field as a reason to exclude this from the article, I was taking issue with your comparison of his credibility (and hence also qualifications) as compared to bloggers, when in reality the comparison is between Hailey and people like Newcomer. However, if you want to take issue with the qualifications of some of the bloggers involved in the story, here's the CV of sorts of Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs. My only intention by writing what I did here was to point out the problems with Hailey's analysis. If it is wished that mention of his report be added to the article, these flaws need to be remembered. Impi 18:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Neither of those CV's has anything at all on them about typewriters (that I noticed). Nor does the "far more impressive" resume include any peer-reviewed publications (that I noticed).  But, whatever, Hailey is not a typewriter expert either.  I think his report should be included.  If anyone can link to a debunking of his analysis, that would be fine too. Wolfman 01:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem with the Hailey report is that it can't see the forest for the trees. He looks at the minutae of deterioration of letterforms but this is meaningless if the original document was not produced in the way supposed. One of the most basic principles of a hypothesis is that if the basic premise is wrong, everything that follows is useless, no matter how well argued. --

Cecropia | Talk 15:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I suspect one can find problems with just about any study. To flip around your argument, it's meaningless to argue that the document could have been produced by a MS Word-fax-photocopy combination, if in fact it was actually produced by a typewriter.  To me, this report clearly should be included. Wolfman 16:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It is fairly well acknowledged the memos are fakes. Of what use is it for Wikipedia to keep alive speculations based on doubtful suppositions. Yeah, I know the guy is a PhD, but that doesn't make his reasoning good. It's quite a stretch logically to assume that the living world came into being by a series of accidents, but do we give honor to Creationism? -- Cecropia | Talk 16:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I rather suspect that Wikipedia does report on Creationism.

 * Let's be clear. I think the memos are fakes.  CBS has not acknowledged that the are fakes, but only that their source misled them.  They explicitly avoided stating these were fake.  This is not about whether we should keep speculation going, speculation is going on anyway.  It is not our job to worry about influencing whatever debate remains, but to report on that debate neutrally. Is that not the essence of NPOV? Wolfman 16:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Blue Lemur
Notwithstanding that the Lemur is beating a very dead horse, we are noting (if the document is 1971) that a Brigadier General had an Executive Typewriter. Ever hear the term RHIP? However, it goes further to cast doubt on the Killian Memos rather than affirming them. As a typographer whose experience goes back 40 years, I can readily pick out that this is the IBM Executive's serif font, which was a variation of Century Schoolbook, which is much different from Times Roman or Times New Roman. I could go on about the letterforms (Cent SB is very rounded) but for the lazy typographer, just look at the number "9" on the referenced document. Now go into your copy of MS Word and type a "9" in Times New Roman. Easy one. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Newcomer
Newcomer specifically addresses Hailey in a new writeup. http://www.flounder.com/bush2b.htm -Joseph (Talk) 11:11, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

 * Pretty complete, and as Wolfman asked, here's an analysis dealing specifically with the typewriter: Selectric analysis. Incidentally, looking at Newcomer's CV, I see many elements which would have been peer-reviewed in any case, being as they are in the software development side, in which other developers usually undertake their own form of peer review. Also, to be declared a Microsoft MVP is nothing to sneeze at. Impi 18:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FOX News identified Newcomer as "an expert in computer-based typesetting" here.

And FOX always get it right? Talk:FOX_News. There is no evidence of that on on his CV. But, I'll note that FOX News calls him that. Wolfman 15:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, FOX doesn't always get it right. But until there's evidence to the contrary, they're entitled to the same presumption of accuracy as other major news organizations. Unless you're prepared to include similar attribution and scare quotes on a consistent basis, your edit violates NPOV. 216.160.111.242

 * No, it doesn't violate NPOV. What is the "scare quote"?  I used exactly the quote listed by anon above "an expert in computer-based typesetting", is that scary to you?  And further, I would be absolutely thrilled to have the expertise of every 'expert' cited.  We have no competence in assessing expertise, so of course objective credentials or opinions by news organizations should be cited attesting to that expertise.  If you like, we can strike also strike the word 'experts' from the section title. Wolfman 16:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Did you read his initial analysis? That's the one that contains his credentials on computer typesetting. It's in the following paragraph:
 * I am one of the pioneers of electronic typesetting. I was doing work with computer typesetting technology in 1972 (it actually started in late 1969), and I personally created one of the earliest typesetting programs for what later became laser printers, but in 1970 when this work was first done, lasers were not part of the electronic printer technology (my way of expressing this is “I was working with laser printers before they had lasers”, which is only a mild stretch of the truth). We published a paper about our work (graphics, printer hardware, printer software, and typesetting) in one of the important professional journals of the time (D.R. Reddy, W. Broadley, L.D. Erman, R. Johnsson, J. Newcomer, G. Robertson, and J. Wright, "XCRIBL: A Hardcopy Scan Line Graphics System for Document Generation," Information Processing Letters (1972, pp.246-251)). I have been involved in many aspects of computer typography, including computer music typesetting (1987-1990). I have personally created computer fonts, and helped create programs that created computer fonts. At one time in my life, I was a certified Adobe PostScript developer, and could make laser printers practically stand up and tap dance. I have written about Microsoft Windows font technology in a book I co-authored, and taught courses in it. I therefore assert that I am a qualified expert in computer typography. Impi 23:12, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Great, so he's described as an expert by a major news organization in the text and the included link describes his own claims about his expertise in the first paragraph. Seems like pretty fair & NPOV coverage of his expertise to me. Wolfman 02:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wolfman, please explain your "npov" claim justifying your revert of my edit. 216.160.111.242 07:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page title
Not sure why someone wants to undo my page move. Google has tens of thousands MORE page hits for Rathergate than for Killian memos. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll wait an hour for discussion before doing any more REDIRECTS. No point in working at cross-purposes. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Because "Rathergate" is a baited term intended to shape the opinion of the reader. -Joseph (Talk) 15:36, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
 * I concur. Lots of things have had -gate attached to them (Monicagate, etc.) and we don't use those names for article titles regardless of how many google hits it gets. Gamaliel 15:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * But Rathergate (minor variation: "Memogate") is what these have become known as. It reflects the fact that the story had shifted from what the "memos" alleged to what the memos were: forgeries put forward by a major news organization. In fact, keeping the name "Killian memos" is not longer even appropriate as an article title (as opposed to a redirect) because the memos weren't written by Killian. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Whether or not Killian actually wrote the memos is irrelevant. After all, Hitler didn't write the Hitler Diaries and the Learned Elders of Zion (if there ever was anyone who actually called themselves that) didn't write the The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

 * "Rathergate" may be in common usage in the right-wing blogosphere, but I've never seen that term used outside of Wikipedia and I doubt it's in common usage in the real world. As an occasional comedic nickname, perhaps, like Monicagate or Shrub or whatever, but like those things hardly appropriate for an article title. This reminds me of the anon who keeps adding a paragraph about "Queen of the Space Unicorns" to the Dan Rather article claiming it is a common nickname for Rather after a couple right-wing blogs started calling him that.  Gamaliel 16:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "The right-wing blogosphere" LOL!!! Your point about the "Protocols" and "Hitler Diaries" is well-taken but inapplicable. That is what they are called, just as this has come to be called "Rathergate." Google: "Killian-memos" 7,510 hits. "Rathergate" 63,700 hits. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Listen, I think Dan Rather is a moron, but I think calling it "Rathergate" is inaccurate and loaded. -Joseph (Talk) 18:12, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
 * Point taken. How about "Morongate"? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * "Rathergate" is an utterly absurd title for this article. It is pure POV.  The main article should mention the term but put it in context, as a term used by some to express the POV that CBS and specifically Rather committed an impropriety.  Of course the particular phrase "Killian memos" doesn't get a lot of hits.  Most of the websites or blogs discussing the subject would refer variously to "the CBS memos" or "the memos from Jerry Killian" or "the memos allegedly written by Bush's superior" or "the 60 Minutes memos" or "the documents used by CBS News" or any of a number of other terms.  No one of those terms is so obviously right that it should be the article title.  We had to settle on one.  That no one of the generic terms gets as many hits as the POV term doesn't mean we have to use the POV term.  As for "Morongate", I think we should reserve that as the new title for our article about the invasion of Iraq. JamesMLane 18:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Time out
At Joseph's request, I'm going to stop editing Rathergate and pages that link to it, for the time being.

But just before I got his message, I began to notice that there are dozens of pages each giving a slightly different spin to the same incident. At some point, it would be nice to consolidate all these and/or come up with an accurate and unbiased way of introducing it.

And I agree that Rathergate might not be the best title for the article. I just think that calling forged memos the "Killian memos" gives the impression that they are authentic - which goes counter to the non-Wikipedian consensus out there in the real world.

How about National Guard memo hoax of 2004? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title vote
OK, I guess it's time to consolidate the arguments. As worked well in other controversies, we have only three choices here, so we can determine sentiment on the current titles. We can then determine sentiment after we've established that basic point.

'''(0/1/0)

Killian memos (former title)

 * 1) Gzornenplatz 22:21, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Psychobabble 23:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) (with a redirect from Rathergate, of course)
 * 3) Gamaliel 21:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Joseph (Talk) 23:06, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

CBS Documents Scandal

 * 1) User:M. E. Smith I agree that "Rathergate" is, for now, still inappropriate, but also agree that current title is too obscure. I suggest this alternative, which excludes the word "forgery" from the title, but includes the word "scandal", which is quite accurate. The word "affair" could be replace "scandal" if someone insists. UPDATE: To reiterate, I'd be quite happy with "CBS Documents Affair".
 * 2) Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) I'd probably prefer "affair" though.

CBS Document Forgery

 * 1) 216.153.214.94 06:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some other title than the above three
Posibilities: CBS-National Guard memo controversy, 60 Minutes forged memos controversy, Dan Rather forged memos controversy, George W. Bush National Guard forged service memos, 2004 U.S. election forged memos controversy, etc.
 * 1)   --Uncle Ed (El Dunce)
 * 2) Withrdaw vote for Rathergate This is observably the most common usage at this time. The problem with Killian memos is that this is probably one of the lesser known titles as time goes on. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®
 * 3) * I'm agreeing that Rathergate is too aggressive if there are better alternatives, but "Killian memos" doesn't do it. Any of the above titles or some other can be more descriptive without being unnecessarily POV. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments/argumentation

 * As far as I know, CBS has not conceded that the documents were forged, and I think another thesis advanced was that CBS's source had indeed created them in 2004 but had done so by re-creating documents he had seen 30 years earlier. Regardless of what you think of these arguments, I don't think that "hoax" or "forge" belong in the title.  (Even Hitler Diaries doesn't have those words in the title.)  The title should be neutral.  The article should of course give a full report of all the reasons that have been advanced for considering the documents to be forged.  I don't think anyone can reasonably contend that the article, as it stood yesterday, was at all deficient in that respect.  In this context, the title "Killian memos" will be clear to the reader as meaning memos attributed to Killian.  The very first sentence said "allegedly".  The second sentence stated that many experts disagreed, and the third sentence reported the CBS climbdown.  The whole article gave more attention to the pro-hoax position than to the pro-authenticity position.  (I have no reason to think this was bias.  My impression is that the article, as it stood yesterday, fairly reflected the overall discussion.)  I'll hold off voting to see whether anyone suggests a title that's an improvement on Killian memos.
 * Meanwhile, what to do in the interim? I don't want to get into a revert war but I don't see any basis for saying that an edit that many of us object to has to remain in place while it's discussed and polled.  How about we put things back to where they were yesterday, subject to subsequent revision?  JamesMLane 20:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That CBS is trying to salvage a tiny bit of its dignity is a nullity. They've gone about as far as they can without simply saying "yeah, it's an apparent forgery, and we fell for it, accepting them as true from a known Bush-hater and characterizing him as an 'unimpeachable source.' " As to the "reflects a recreation of a (not present) 30-year-old document" thesis, that is being put forward by none of the principals. It is an attempt by partisans to rescue something from this mess. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Regarding retitleing, the title should refer to the affair, not the documents, and "Killian documents" or "Killian memos" is too obscure; nobody is using this terminology. I'm for "CBS Documents Scandal".

I'm bowing out
On second thought, with all the tension over the upcoming election, I don't think I can muster the necessary objectivity that an admin ought to have. So, please ask another admin to move the article back to Killian documents or Killian memos or whatever; and feel free to ignore my vote when determining consensus.

I'd rather err on the side of NOT being forceful enough than take a chance of ruining my near-pristine record as a fair-minded admin. I've managed to tick off more Wikipedians in the last 2 days than in the last few months, so I'm just gonna chill out. . . --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Any decision on this would be post-election anyway, more than likely. I think we can come up with a better title than either. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm back in
A Google search shows significantly more hits for Killian documents than for Killian memos - so I'm going to move the page. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:11, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Adrian Zmed

Adrian George Zmed (born March 14, 1954) is an American actor, singer and television personality, noted for the roles of Johnny Nogerelli in Grease 2 and Officer Vince Romano in the T.J. Hooker television series.

Early life
Zmed was born in Chicago, Illinois, the youngest of three sons of George Zmed, later known as George Zmed-Smith (1916–2010), a Romanian Orthodox priest, who served from 1952 until his retirement in 1983, and his wife, Persida (née Golub) Zmed, later known as Sadie Smith (1923–2015). His father George was a first-generation Romanian American born in Chicago to Nicolae and Paraschiva (née Bălan), who had emigrated from Comloșu Mare, Timiș County in the early 20th century. At the age of five, George and his family returned to Romania, where he was educated, and returned to the United States in November 1952. George and Persida (also Romanian-born) were married October 15, 1942, in Timișoara. The couple had three sons, in the following order: Cornel, Walter, and Adrian.

Adrian graduated from Lane Tech High School in Chicago. He began playing football for the school's team until, when playing in 1968, he broke a leg bone which in turn punctured a major artery. He quit sports and began acting, appearing in his high school's production of Guys and Dolls. After being featured on a local TV show as one of Chicago's top high school performers, Zmed transferred to the Goodman School of Drama and began studying voice at the Chicago Conservatory of Music. He graduated with a Bachelor of Fine Arts from the Goodman School of Drama.

Acting career
Zmed's first major acting gig was the role of Danny Zuko in the national touring company production of Grease. He later appeared in the Broadway musical three times, twice in the role of Zuko. At 40, Zmed revived the role of Zuko in the 1995 Broadway revival.

Television
In 1978, Zmed made his television debut, appearing as Marty Decker in an episode of Starsky & Hutch. From there, he won the role of Socks Palermo in the short-lived television series Flatbush (1979), based upon the film The Lords of Flatbush. Following the show's cancellation, he was cast as Frankie Millardo in Goodtime Girls, which lasted one season (1980). He had guest roles on such series as Angie, I'm a Big Girl Now and Bosom Buddies, and made a guest appearance on An Evening at the Improv in 1982.

Zmed reached celebrity status as Officer Romano in ABC's T.J. Hooker. He played Fred Feliciano in Victims for Victims: The Theresa Saldana Story (1984) and made guest appearances on a number of television shows throughout the 1980s and 1990s, including Hotel, Empty Nest, Murder, She Wrote and Caroline in the City. He left T.J. Hooker in 1985 when the show moved to CBS, choosing instead to replace Deney Terrio as host of Dance Fever for its final two seasons.

He has appeared as himself on VH1's I Love the '80s, Saturday Night Live and The Bozo Show. He appeared as Basil (the "floating head") on the soap opera Passions and participated in VH1's Confessions of a Teen Idol.

Features
Following the huge success of John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John in the movie version of Grease, Paramount Pictures quickly secured the rights to a sequel. Zmed was chosen to play one of the lead roles in Grease 2, Johnny Nogerelli, the new leader of the T-Birds gang. His performance led to other movie roles, including The Final Terror (1983) and Bachelor Party (1984). He appears in the film The Craving Heart (2006).

Return to theatre
Zmed returned to stage work in the 1990s. In 1992, he appeared Off-Broadway in the musical version of Eating Raoul. He headlined the musical Children of Eden at the Paper Mill Playhouse. He starred in three shows on Broadway: Falsettos, Blood Brothers, and Grease. He later appeared as Noah in the musical The Ark in New York City. He played Nick in the short-lived play Surf the Musical at Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas in 2012.

Other work
Zmed provided the voiceover for Toth in the 2002 video game Star Wars Jedi Starfighter. He was also under contract from June 2008 to April 2009 with Princess Cruise Lines to perform Adrian Zmed, in Concert... aboard the Coral Princess and the Island Princess.

In 2006, he filmed a 30-second public service announcement for the non-profit organization Dogs Deserve Better.

Personal life
Zmed has been married three times. He married his high school sweetheart, Barbara Fitzner, in 1976. Their two sons, Zachary and Dylan, are rock musicians who have been members of the rock band The Janks and the Bird Dogs, an Everly Brothers tribute band.

Zmed married Broadway actress/singer Susan Wood in 1995; that marriage also ended in divorce.

He married Lyssa Lynne Baker on October 5, 2012. They held another (smaller) wedding in Thailand on November 23, 2012.

Zmed remains friends with his co-star and childhood television hero William Shatner. He spoke in a 2016 interview with Las Vegas Magazine about Shatner: "I learned so much just watching him...it's a very different energy on camera than onstage. Instead of reaching the last person 50 rows away from you, you're reaching someone three feet in front of you, which is really daunting...His camera technique was just incredible. He was so relaxed and all. I learned so much in term of the moment, on how you readjust your energy, how you get efficient with camera technique. And just the stories. When he directed, he would mentor me. I do consider Bill a mentor, no question about it...Oh yeah. He was very helpful in saying, 'Be smart with the money that you're making during T.J. Hooker and be smart with the decisions you're making in terms of your career'...I did heed his advice on making good choices."

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

title: Adrian Zmed


text:
Talk:Evangelical Church in Germany

Name Evangelical vs Protestant
The German word "Evangelisch" is to my understanding better translated to Protestant than to Evangelical, s. Protestant Reformation, Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau. Consistency is desirable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See this thread in the archives as well as several threads in /Archive 1/ for previous discussion on this. The church itself uses the name "Evangelical Church in Germany" on its English-language website. And using the word Evangelical in the meaning of German evangelisch is not unknown in English, although it's rare compared to its usual meaning "having to do with Evangelicalism". Using Evangelical in its "German meaning" is especially common in the names of churches, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, neither of which is "Evangelical" in that word's most common English meaning. —Angr (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no time to read all this, but to remark that such translations from German institutions often lack knowledge of English, therefore the least controversial way might be to use the German name as the article name and give translations as redirects, as it is done for many German universities and theaters, s. Hochschule für Musik und Darstellende Kunst Frankfurt am Main or Hessisches Staatstheater Wiesbaden, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The first of those links redirects to Frankfurt University of Music and Performing Arts, though. Using German names of institutions is fine when they don't have English names, but the EKD does have an English name, and its English name is no more misleading or incorrect than the names of the North American churches I mentioned above. And those were (presumably) named by native English speakers. —Angr (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the bad example, smile (but there are others, like Hochschule für Musik und Theater München). I don't doubt that native English speakers name churches "Evangelical" which tend to Evangelicalism. The German official churches called "Evangelische Kirche" don't. I am afraid that is misleading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my point is that there are churches named "Evangelical" by native English speakers that are not evangelikal but only evangelisch, including the two listed above: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada. Neither of those two churches adheres to Evangelicalism; they are using the word "evangelical" in the same way as the EKD uses the word "evangelisch". Although the English word "evangelical" most often means evangelikal, it can also mean evangelisch. Especially in the names of churches. —Angr (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's great that the article addresses potential confusiion related to the meaning of "Evangelical," but is there no citation for it. As an Evangelical Lutheran myself, I had the impression that it meant "the same as the 'Evangelical' you normally think of except that we're shy/nice about it and instead of standing on street corners with a sign, just tell visitors that there's coffee after the service and leave it at that."208.68.128.53 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, that is commonly confused. " Evangelicalism is a moderate form of Protestant Christian fundamentalism and has roots in American culture. The term "evangelical" used in this article was used by Luther and early Protestants to describe their doctrines as faithful to the gospel. Obviously, you can be both evangelical and Evangelical Lutheran. Ltwin (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

minorities
"Important Protestant denominations that are not part of the Evangelical Church in Germany include the United Methodist Church ... (whole paragraph)" is incorrect.

"Important" maybe in the U.S. but not in Germany. These are very small denominations and seen as more or less exotic. Methodists and Baptists never had a foothold in Germany, Pentecostals and Adventists are seen as American sects not to be taken seriously, and the New Apostolic Church is highly unpopular for their authoritarian style.

Again, none of all these denominations is important in Germany as they neither are influential nor have a meaningful number of members. They are dwindingly small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.71.12 (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

New Apostolic Church
Why is the New Apostolic Church counted among the "Protestant" churches here? It developed from the Roman Catholic church, it is not part of any ecumenical associations like the World Council of Churches or any protestant associations, their teachings differ from those of the Protestant churches to a degree which makes ecumenical or "protestant" contact difficult to say the least. I mean it's o.k. to state that they do not belong to the EKD (obviously), but it's misleading to include them in a sentence beginning with "Other Protestant denominations". --Anna (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Our article New Apostolic Church says "The New Apostolic Church (NAC) is a chiliastic church, converted to Protestantism as a free church from the Catholic Apostolic Church" and "Most of its doctrines are akin to mainstream Christianity and, especially its liturgy, to Protestantism, whereas its hierarchy and organisation could be compared with the Roman Catholic Church", so if you disagree I'd take it up at Talk:New Apostolic Church. Angr (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, you are right of course; this question should be tackled on the main NAC page. However, this article describes the situation in Germany, and it seems to me that the use of these terms may vary depending on the region and the situation. Just compare the use of the term "united" for different regions and church bodies.
 * I don't know if you read any German, but if you compare the German article, you will find that the NAC is certainly not considered a Protestant church in Germany due to their special teachings and their lack of participation in ecumenical contexts. --Anna (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do read German, but I'm not sure what you're looking at in that article. It says, "Die neuapostolische Kirche ist weder im Ökumenischen Rat der Kirchen noch in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen (ACK) vertreten und arbeitet auch nicht in der Evangelischen Allianz mit, wobei mittlerweile Aufnahmeanträge gestellt wurden oder Annäherungen bestehen", which just means they don't participate in various ecumenical organizations, including the Evangelische Allianz, but that's probably true of various other unquestionably Protestant Freikirchen as well. I think the question of whether the NAK can be considered Protestant or not is probably as open to interpretation as the question whether Anglicans can be considered Protestant or not. (And that is a recurrent issue in Wikipedia articles: do we say "Anglicans and Protestants" or do we say "Anglicans and other Protestants"? Either solution is non-NPOV, leading to protracted battles over the single word other.) Angr (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The participation in ecumenical organisations is one thing only. The set of special teachings is another. Of course every small church has their set of special teachings, but the ones of the NAC really are pretty far from Protestant teachings. What's more though, these teachings themselves (apostle, sacraments, exclusivism) basically prevent further ecumenical relationships. --Anna (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seventh-day Adventists are mentioned in the same paragraph, and I'd say their classification as Protestants is just as questionable (some people don't even consider them Christians, let alone Protestants). But the more I think about it, the less I see the point of the entire paragraph. It's threatening to become a list of Christian denominations in Germany from which only the EKD, the Roman Catholics, and the Old Catholics are excluded. Any objections to removing the whole paragraph on the grounds that the article doesn't need to define the EKD on the basis of who isn't in it? Angr (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * None at all. On the contrary, I think that's a great Solomonic solution which will solve this problem without offending anyone. Or we'll end up repeating this discussion as soon as someone comes up with the idea of listing Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses among the Protestant churches, making it necessary to explain why they are not part of the EKD. --Anna (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging of three churches to one church in Northern Germany in 2012

In 2012, three churches in northern parts of Germany merged to one church.
 * nordkirche.de (german) 178.3.31.188 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Name of the article
Sorry the name “Evangelical” might be the correct word by word translation but holds completely different connotations in English. I would suggest to replace the word “Evangelical” with “Protestant”. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 * True, see above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Move
This page was boldly moved from "Evangelical Church in Germany"; the move was reverted, and the discussion here finds no agreement that the move was appropriate. Closed (see last comment) and archived by Moonraker12 (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I moved the page from “Evangelical Church of Germany” to “Protestant Church in Germany (EKD)”. The English term “Evangelical” holds the same connotations as it does in German. The German term “Evangelisch” should however be translated as “protestant” not as “Evangelical”.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with Catflap08's move, which was done without consensus. "Evangelical" has a different meaning in Europe and North America, but the term is perfectly correct in English in both continents. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I moved the article back to its original and well-established name, Evangelical Church in Germany. It is true that evangelisch in the German context has usually a different meaning than evangelical in the North American context (see Evangelicalism and Evangelical–disambiguation), but, as discussed many times (most recently, as far as I know, at Talk:Evangelical People's Party of Switzerland), the most obvious translation for evangelisch is evangelical. It's indeed no surprise that, even in the United States, there are churches, most notably the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, still including evangelical in their name, while not being evangelical from a North American point of view. One always needs to remember that names of organizations not always explain their nature, theology, polity, ideology, etc. (Examples? Conservative Judaism and the Social Democratic Party of Portugal, which is not a social-democratic party but a conservative one, are just two.) Most articles on European churches/denominations including the term evangelical (evangelisch, évangélique, evangelico, etc.), notably including most EKD's member churchers, have been translated in en.Wiki using the term evangelical. --Checco (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * You call the name well-established, I would only call it established. The problem is a result of translation. The best solution, if you ask me, would be to move to the original German name(s). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * With "well-established" I meant that it was the name of the article for most of its "life", since its start in April 2003. I understand and respect your opinion, but I think that articles should have English names as long as it is possible in order to make them more intelligible for readers (especially those not speaking European languages), who understand better English than any other language. --Checco (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * We can agree on long-established and that in general an English title is preferable. In this case, someone imagining the EKD as anything close to evangelism will be mislead. There is a nice explanation of the name in the article but way too late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I would most strongly disagree here. I had a similar discussion in the article on East Germany in this discussion I was outvoted as I wanted the article to be named German Democratic Republic. On which grounds was it overturned? Common usage. Evangelical holds both in German AND English a very much different connotation as to what the article is about. In German the term “Evangelikal”  also exists and thereby corresponds to the usage of “Evangelical” in today’s English. The EKD however is the umbrella organisation of PROTESTANT churches in Germany – not evangelical congregations. What the Swiss make of it is of no importance here as Swiss German varies slightly from standard German anyways and most of all this article is about the protestant Church in Germany – its members would surely not like to be thrown into the same pot as Evangelicals (German “Evangelikale”). At any rate to translate the term “evangelisch” is by all means in linguistic ways utterly wrong! A good translation should keep the meaning of what is said and the articles name does not serve that purpose at all.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Disagree with what? To move the article (and similar ones) to the original German name, as I mentioned above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree to translate the term “evangelisch” with “evangelical” – it should read “protestant”. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I said so in 2011, look above. We will not succeed because the EKD was [...] enough to have the wrong translation on their website. Therefore I seriously suggest to move to Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. Nope the article should read “Protestant Church of Germany” as this is the English not German Wikipedia.   --Catflap08 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Best then to first write to the EKD to change their website. - Some articles are fine, see Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau. - This is the English Wikipedia, but we don't need to translate common German names for things and people known by their German names. We have articles Schloss, Hochschule and Thomaskantor; Schloss is not a castle, Hochschule not a high school, and a Kantor is not a cantor. Better German than misunderstood because of a wrong or ambiguous translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As long as the EKD officially translates its name to "Evangelical Church in Germany", that has to be the name for this article. Moreover, that translation is notably used by the World Council of Churches (see here) and has many more hits in Google than that proposed by Catflap08 (24,600 v. 12,900). Also Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau should be moved to "Evangelical Church in Hesse and Nassau" per consistency, despite its website. Regarding Gerda Arendt's opinion on translations, I agree that some articles should keep the original language name (Schloss is a wonderful example and I would never want to move it to "Castle (Germany)" or something else), but names about organizations, especially when they are known in English literature and/or media by their English translations, should be in English. This is en.Wikipedia, indeed. --Checco (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC) "
 * Thanks for the response, but I think you contradict yourself saying here that "organizations, especially when they are known in English literature and/or media by their English translations, should be in English" and there that Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau should be moved, which is known by that name. You could have consistency as soon as you use the original names instead of consistency of the worse translation. Look at Schloss Moritzburg, another (easier) case where the Germans were not able to translate well, and compare to Schloss Weimar, using the shortest original name and explaining alternatives in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, despite the en.Wikipedia's article, the church is better known as "Evangelical Church in Hesse and Nassau" than "Protestant Church in Hesse and Nassau" on Google, and also the WCC refers to it that way (see here). Moreover, the comparison with Schlösser is not particularly appropriate (there are exceptions: the very Moritzburg Castle, Neuschwanstein Castle and most of the Schlösser listed at Schloss—the translation is usually either castle or palace) and the inconsistency of the articles on Schlösser is not a good reason to be inconsistent here too. --Checco (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By simply comparing google hits, we suffered a move from a Beethoven sonata's ordinary name to a nickname (reverted after endless discussion). The translation of Schloss to Castle is wrong misleading, therefore I believe it's better to say Schloss and rely on the article of that name to explain to those who don't know. I believe the same for Evangelisch, but will leave it for the next three years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 * A move to the German original would the best, or keep evangelic. Its seldom I dare to disagree with Gerda, but it does happen ;) As far as I understood the policy of the EKD to translate E into "evangelical" its a) traditional b) claiming the evangelium ;) c) similar as "catholic" means more than just a confession but all of the church, evangelic is - yes - evangelisch. Serten (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with Checco on this - the EKD translate their own name to the Evangelical Church in Germany, it's the most widely-recognised 'direct' (or literal) translation from German to English, it just makes senses. I am aware of the German word Evangelische equating to Protestantism rather than Evangelicalism, but as long as that is explained in the article clearly, which it is in this case, it really shouldn't be an issue for readers' general understanding of the article. (Perhaps move the sentence "The German term evangelisch here more accurately corresponds to the broad English term Protestant rather than to the narrower evangelical" to the opening section as a compromise?)--Autospark (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Autospark. I have a similar issue with my draft about the Popular image of Native Americans in German speaking countries - the translation of "Indianer" in "native americans" is not appropriate, as Indianer covers much more than "plain(s) US" and I used a similar approach by adding an explanation in the entry. Serten (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I just contacted the EKD via e-mail. Even though they do translate their page with “Evangelical” in their English HP version I do still object. The negative or sectarian connotation that the term “evangelical” holds still exists. The proper translation of the German term “Evangelisch” corresponds to “Protestant” in English. The English term “Evangelical” would in German translate as “Evangelikal” … all in all the article’s title gives the average English reader a wrong lead. Even though some congregations regarded evangelical are members of the EKD one should keep in mind that it compromises most protestant churches within the FRG.--Catflap08 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Catflap08, I would be cautious in assuming that the EKD doesn't use the name game without a reason. That said, lets as good Reformed ones be not more popish than the Bishop of Rome and keep the official name. Serten (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope wrong just received an email from the EKD they are well aware of the conflict, but will leave the matter as it is as to them come to a conclusion. Protestant and evangelical are not the same thing in the 21st century.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 * They are exactly the same thing from a continental European point of view, they are not from an Anglo-Saxon one. By the way, this is not matter of discussion here: we are just discussing on which is the most correct, hence literal, translation of Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, which is clearly "Evangelical Church of Germany" (are we going to move also Evangelical Lutheran Church in America? no way). --Checco (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I cannot speak for „Continental Europe“, but the term “Evangelical” translates in its “negative” meaning to “evangelikal” in German. The term “evangelisch” corresponds to simply mainstream Protestantism. In the end it’s about where one would like the reader to be directed to the EKD is not an umbrella organisation for fundamentalist evangelicals. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Again, please do not confuse terms and meanings. There are many churches which are "evangelical" by name but not by orientation, parties which are "liberal", "democratic", "social democratic", etc. but not by ideology, etc. --Checco (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 * [@:Catflap08] Well, English speaking Lutherans do not agree with you. The largest Lutheran church in the United States is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It seems that "Evangelical" is the standard translation in English. Yes, it may be confusing, but that is why there is an entire section dedicated to clarifying what "Evangelical" means in this context. Ltwin (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point! It is exactly what I have been trying to argue for a while. --Checco (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope not a good point made as the guideline of WP:COMMONNAME still is in use and a major reason why some articles are not renamed. I resist my case as at this point as the EKD translates its own homepage as “evnaglical”, but I am more than happy that due to my email contact I have made them YET AGAIN aware of the problem. Some people I know, and who are extremely active in the Protestant Church, agree full heartedly with me – but as the EKD does not correct the translation so may be it. The reference to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is somewhat misleading as the EKD does not only encompass Lutheran congregations but all mainstream protestant churches including some Baptist congregations that could truly be called “evangelikal” or as in English evangelical. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, I'd like to see mainline Protestants take the term "evangelical" back, but this is another story—as yours. :) --Checco (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm treating this as a requested move discussion, as it has been discussed many times already (cf. here, or here, or even here) with no agreement on a move. This way maybe we won't have to do this all again unless someone has something different to contribute.
 * The argument for a move was that “Evangelical” does not accurately describe the doctrinal stance of this body; the argument against is that this is the name the body calls itself in English, and the term affiliates in English-speaking countries use.
 * From a WP point of view, the applicable policy is WP:COMMONNAME ie. the name most likely to be found in English language sources, or be searched for by English-speaking readers, or by which the subject would be (or should be) referred to in running text in other articles. In this case the common name, overwhelmingly, is "Evangelical Church in Germany", regardless of how appropriate anybody feels that might be.
 * An alternative proposal, to use the German name here, has also been discussed before; it is clear that such a move was not acceptable then, and that it has little or no support now.
 * I am archiving this discussion; if anyone in future feels the page title is wrong I suggest they open a Request move and make a case (preferably in accordance with policy), and resolve it that way. Otherwise I suggest the matter be closed. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Evangelisch vs Evangelical
A few months back I had an email exchange with the EKD on this article. They seem to be well aware of the fact that the expression “evangelical” (or in German “evangelikal”) does these days holds different implications. In common use however the German term “evangelisch” corresponds to “protestant” in English. The German term “evngelikal” corresponds to the common use of “evangelical” in English. That’s what it boils down to – only the official “seal” is missing, as the EKD itself translates the German term “evangelisch” to the English “evangelical” even though the common use says different. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I still don't see any problem about it and I don't see why the official translation should change. There are many non-evangelical churches having "Evangelical" in their names, notably including the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. --Checco (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evangelical Church in Germany. 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/20150709215759/http://www.ekd.de/english/4247.html to http://www.ekd.de/english/4247.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430195847/http://www.ekd.de/statistik/mitglieder.html to http://www.ekd.de/statistik/mitglieder.html

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) 12:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evangelical Church in Germany. 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/20071009162012/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/cep/gec.html to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/cep/gec.html

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) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Move to Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany reverted
User:Po Mieczu moved the page name, adding "Lutheran" in to the title. Obviously, this would cause problems because the church is actually a federation of Lutheran, Reformed and United regional churches. Please see the above discussions on the name, and discuss any future naming proposals on the talk page first. Ltwin (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User talk:Ltwin I have seen the discussion. In English usage "evangelical", as others have pointed out, is not a translation of the German "evangelisch". In English it literally means following the Gospels and applies to Protestant churches, as opposed to Catholic or Orthodox denominations. It commonly refers to the more "fundamentalist" side of Anglicanism. To misuse an English adjective as a nominative for a foreign group of churches just because it sounds similar is really not helpful or accurate in an encyclopaedia. You might consider altering the title simply to "Protestant" for that is the actual translation of "evangelisch". --Po Mieczu (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Po Mieczu, this has been fully discussed before (check out the archives on the right side of the screen). Of course, we can always discuss it again, and see if consensus changes. However, as I said above, the name should not be "Lutheran" as the church is not simply a Lutheran church. But, here is food for thought, in English speaking countries, Lutheran churches are often called "Evangelical"—Evangelical Lutheran Church in America being an example. So, while it may be confusing, the reality is that in the English speaking world there are two uses for the term "evangelical", but it just so happens that the meaning of Evangelicalism is what most people think of rather than the more broad meaning of "Protestant." Ltwin (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I perfectly agree with Ltwin, who subscribed to my long-held position (see aforementioned threads). --Checco (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reverting that move. The discussion about "Evangelical" or not will continue in all eternity, but "Lutheran" is just plain wrong here. There's absolutely nothing to discuss about that. --91.34.40.110 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Strange sentence
"The Church Office is the administration of the EKD and shall the business of the Synod, Council and Conference of the EKD."

Something surely must be missing here -- presumably the verb. What was it meant to be?

Also, I'd like to know why all these words are capitalized. Is something like "Church Office" really to be considered a proper name in English? --91.34.40.110 (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

United (Prussian Union)
The article says "United (Prussian Union)" churches. Thats not correct in that way. United protestant churches in Germany (Unierte Landeskirchen) are mergers of lutheran and reformed churches, but not all of them were parts of "Prussian Union". Many of them have their origins in Prussian Union of 1817, but others not: f.e. "Evang. Kirche der Pfalz" and "Ev. Kirche Landeskirche in Baden" were united in german states which weren't part of Prussia. And there are different kinds of United Churches. Most of them are an administration merger and their parishes and ministers can chose if they want to use lutheran, reformed or united religious confession (of course most chose united one). But f.e. Palatinian church is a genuine merger whith only united confession. (of course some parishes and ministers have either more lutheran or reformed elements  but there's no official difference). Of course all United Chuches in Germany (UEK) are members of EKD. ManfredV (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Official English name
@K1812: Do you have a good source for the EKD having changed the official English translation of its name to Protestant Church in Germany? Given the difference in meaning between the German word Evangelishe and the English Evangelical, I can see why the EKD would make this change. However, given that the name Evanglical Church in Germany has been used for so long in English, the old translation needs to be included at least in the article text.

Of course, this brings up the whole question of what the name of this article should be, but that's a question for a later date. Indyguy (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Hello, the name change has been published on the English version of their web site Protestant Church in Germany. I don't agree that the former name Evangelical Church in Germany should be mentioned prominently, as it was a blunt mistranslation and the word evangelical is misleading in this Church's context. K1812 (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was misleading, but the fact remains that the former name was widely used and familiar to English speakers. That's why the former English name needs to be included in the article text - especially since it is the actual name of the article.
 * Is there a press release from the EKD announcing the change that can be cited in the article? Indyguy (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have asked for the article to be moved. I didn't find a press release about the name change. K1812 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not actually a misstranslation, but an old translation. It is the english word evangelical that changed its meaning. Evangelical in english used to mean the same as the german Evangelische, that is: the name protestants chose for themselves. This can still be seen in the english names of lutheran denominations (ELCA for exemple). However, when in english the term evangelical started to be associated with the Evangelical Movement, then the germans conceived the term Evangelikal for that movement in order to differentiate from the original term. Barumbarumba (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. While slightly more editors opposed moving than supported it, consensus is not determined by counting !votes but by assessing arguments through the lens of policy.

Editors in opposition argued that the name was less recognizable, that "evangelical" was a less accurate translation, and that the name has changed and the common name would soon follow.

Of these, I was only able to give full weight to the first argument, but I was forced to give the others less weight as when translating we follow the sources, and we base our titles on the current common name, not the future common name.

Editors in support argued that this is in the common name, an argument that I gave full weight; as such, I saw a rough consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Protestant Church in Germany → Evangelical Church in Germany – Both terms (in English) are used by the EKD itself, but Evangelical is the more common, more accurate term. Etymologically, evangelical/evangelische refers to the gospel (εὐαγγέλιον), while Protestant refers to the Protestation at Speyer. It is not true that "Evangelical" is the former name (see EKD en homepage), and it is also untrue that the term "Evangelical" strictly or primarily refers to the Evangelical/Mainline divide among American denominations. The onus must be on those preferring "Protestant" to demonstrate such a shift in meaning, and I do not feel that prior discussion participants have succeeded. If we are worried that the reader would make this false association, it could easily be cleared up in the body of the article.

Survey of use: Ngram, World Council of Churches, Britannica. The lead could read, for example: "the Evangelical Church in Germany, (also called the Protestant Church in Germany)" Dirkwillems (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Supportper nom, and anecdotally, most monographs I've read on Protestantism in Europe written in the last few decades have also used this formulation. Garnet Moss (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Support per nom. Also, the literal translation suits better. --Checco (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Support It is the original meaning of the word "evangelical" that later changed meaning in english, but outside the english speaking word evangelical still refers to protestants at large. Even in english we still see remnants of this: like the name of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -Barumbarumba (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose The Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland changed its English name from Evangelical Church in Germany to Protestant Church in Germany one or two years ago. The reason why the name Evangelical Church in Germany still can be found in some instances on their web site is probably that they are lazy and haven't implemented the name change across the entire web site yet. English isn't a living language for many Germans and many of them aren't capable of writing correct English. Google Ngram stats are irrelevant in this case - just because many have mistranslated the German name to English doesn't make the erroneous translation right. Britannica and the World Council of Churches probably haven't yet noticed that the EKD has changed its English name and are therefore not authoritative. The correct English translation of the German word evangelisch is protestant and not evangelical - please check with any German-English dictionary. While the English word evangelical might sound more similar to the German word evangelisch than the English word protestant, translating to the most similarly sounding word is not always correct. --K1812 (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @K1812 Do you have a citation for the name change? Dirkwillems (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen an explicit announcement of the change, but can only refer to their web site. They have a news section on their homepage. If you load older news, you will see that they start calling themselves Protestant Church in Germany in May 2022. In older news, they call themselves Evangelical Church in Germany. On their home page, they have a section called "Protestants in Germany". At the bottom of that section, there is a link to EKD. If you follow that link, the new page shows that they call themselves the Protestant Church in Germany. Further down on that page, they offer a pdf document called "The Protestant Church in Germany". You can use the Internet Archive to see how that web page changed over time:

 * https://web.archive.org/web/20210415000000*/https://www.ekd.de/en/EKD-98.htm

 * If you look at the version of e.g. May 19, 2001, you can see that at the time, they called themselves the Evangelical Church in Germany and that the pdf document they offered also was called The Evangelical Church in Germany. --K1812 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @K1812 You are right to point out the frequency that "protestant" is used, but that does not indicate that "evangelical" is a former name, since both names are present on their current website. We would need to see that expressly stated, and we can't assume laziness. Dirkwillems (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's realistic to expect a Church, which has mistranslated its German name to English for decades, to make a public announcement that they have now finally managed to translate their name correctly. K1812 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @K1812 you are presupposing that evangelical is a mistranslation Dirkwillems (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To me, evangelical is an adjective that is used to describe Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism, however, is just a subset of Protestantism. From what i understand, a substantial part of the members of the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland don't adhere to Evangelicalism. They adhere to Protestantism, but not to Evangelicalism. Therefore, i find it would be wrong to translate the Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland to the Evangelical Church in Germany. Such a translation would suggest that all its members would adhere to Evangelicalism, which actually isn't the case. K1812 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Reformed Christianity, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard, and WikiProject Lutheranism have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 00:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Support as almost all encounters with the subject in academic settings defers to "Evangelical". It also helps disambiguate against someone looking for Protestantism in Germany more generally. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Further up on this page you see in several discussions that "evangelical" - while not exactly a mistranslation - is ambiguous and too easily misunderstood as evangelicalism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Whether accurate or not, this is how it is known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You state that "this is how it is known". Can you present any evidence that supports your assessment? A Google search for "Evangelical Church in Germany" renders ~ 113,000 results whereas a Google search for "Protestant Church in Germany" finds ~ 161,000 results. The name "Protestant Church in Germany" seems to be more commonly used than "Evangelical Church in Germany". K1812 (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too easy to confuse them with evangelical churches otherwise, and it is their official translation. If you want to preserve "EKD", just use Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. —Kusma (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kusma what is their official translation? Dirkwillems (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dirkwillems, currently Protestant Church in Germany. —Kusma (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kusma citation? Dirkwillems (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The German term "evangelisch" differs significantly from the English meaning of "evangelical", which is presumably why the church currently uses the term "Protestant". The brief etymology provided by the nominator does not accurately reflect this. I would have to see exceptionally strong evidence to convince me that we should override common sense, accurate translation, and the church's own usage with this page move. The evidence presented thus far does not convince me.
 * Aside from this logical explanation, I can nitpick the sources provided by the nominator: 1. The Ngrams graph does not show a big enough difference to convince me that we should override the logical, accurate current title. 2. The WCC website, as K1812 pointed out above, is probably behind on updating their name to "Protestant" and should be given much less weight than the organization itself; it is not an independent RS, either. 3. Britannica is a tertiary source; this doesn't mean it's completely unusable, but it's also not especially reliable or scholarly. I give this, too, little weight. Toadspike   [Talk]  02:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comments such as the literal translation suits better and Whether accurate or not... disregard some fairly important facts here. I hope the closer weights them appropriately. Toadspike   [Talk]  02:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Toadspike I would really like you to prove your two main points; that the term evangelical is an inappropriate translation and that the EKD has changed its English name. I discussed both of these already.
 * I also feel that you are shifting the burden. Even though I'm proposing a change, the change I'm suggesting is a restoration of the longstanding common name. I feel that you need to show that evangelical always or usually gives a false impression, one so strong that it can't be cleared up in the body, and that the church has indeed changed its name. Dirkwillems (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dirkwillems Kusma already showed that the church has indeed changed its name above . I found the same link independently. On the English version of the EKD's website, that is the page about the EKD itself (like an "About" page). I don't understand why you asked Kusma for a "citation?" after he posted a link, nor why you then asked me the same thing. Please remember to listen.
 * As for the technical accuracy of calling the EKD "evangelical", the fact that at least two native German speakers (Kusma and myself) pointed out this issue is concerning. Evangelicalism, especially in the US, has a number of tenets and connotations that are very far from the EKD. I'm not a theological expert, but that article's second sentence is a clear example of these differences: ...[Evangelicalism] emphasizes the centrality of sharing the "good news" of Christianity, being "born again" in which an individual experiences personal conversion. This clearly describes American Evangelicalism, but does not apply to the EKD. Scroll down to the Terminology section and you will see this explained in great detail. The most relevant part is The German term evangelisch more accurately corresponds to the broad English term Protestant.
 * You can also look at Wiktionary, where evangelical and evangelisch have very different definitions. The usage notes at evangelical highlight the major difference between the original meaning of "evangelical" (which is also its meaning in German) and the modern English usage (which refers to the specific movement of evangelicalism). Toadspike   [Talk]  12:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Toadspike As discussed, the use of the name does not constitute a change when both are to be found in church material. A name change has not been shown, so I continue to ask because there could still be one I've missed.
 * As a native English speaker, I can report that "evangelical" does not necessarily imply "evangelicalism." You can see on the Wiktionary listing that this is the fourth sense, under the third meaning as interchangeable with protestant. I agree that EKD is not to be associated with evangelicalism, you are right to point out the disconnect, but that connection simply isn't implied with the titular term Evangelical. At least, not necessarily (see the ELCA, the largest Lutheran denomination in the US, also where Evangelicalism is the strongest).
 * I strongly feel that it is inappropriate for us to editorialize the name of this church over and against the common name for fear of political associations. That's why I propose this change, but at the least I would accept revising the lead to say "Protestant Church in Germany (also called the Evangelical Church in Germany)", because it cannot be shown that this is a former name. Even if the continued use of the name "Evangelical Church" is an oversight, it is still known by this name. Dirkwillems (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You want a name change? Here, have a name change. EKD website, 2019 reads "Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD)". On 14 June 2022, that same page reads "Protestant Church in Germany", with the German name in much smaller text below. The previous archive from 19 May 2022 still shows the old name.
 * I could not find a press release covering this, but the Internet Archive makes pretty clear that they changed their website somewhere between these two dates. Toadspike   [Talk]  15:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Toadspike You will notice that the 2022 page you shared uses both English names, like I've been saying all along. I do not feel that you're engaging with my point. Dirkwillems (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Final relist. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 11:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Oppose evangelical means something else in english—blindlynx 22:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. There are several denominations, also American ones, that are named "Evangelical", but are not "evangelical" in the American sense. Just think of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Furthermore, also other European denominations, including EKD's counterparts (like the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland) and more liberal and non-evangelical denominations (like the Waldensian Evangelical Church), have "Evangelical" in their name. --Checco (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Support. The majority of English-language sources favour the more direct translation. Zacwill (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A) Ignoring common name for a moment, "Protestant" is really the most accurate translation here.  It's a coalition of Protestant churches.  "Evangelical" is fine but isn't a 100% match to either the modern implications or the classical ones.  B ) The organization having a preferred translation should be given at least some deference.  Yeah, yeah, OFFICIALNAME and all, but it's a solid tie-breaker if nothing else.  C) Academic sources often using "Evangelical" are often talking more to a readership that knows the German context and the German implications of the word.  That isn't quite the case on Wikipedia, for a general audience.  SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose on the basis that the church changed the English translation in documents they control, and that it is expected that the name change is not publiclized, as this has not changed the German name. Techie3 (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment (already !voted above). User:Checco writes that the different meaning in English "makes no sense".  To be clear, this is a fairly late-breaking change, and a weird one.  See this June 2024 Washington Post article - if you don't have a subscription, a quote is "In one survey of Christian attitudes, for example, 43 percent of evangelicals said they did not believe in the divinity of Christ. But it gets even more bizarre. According to the 2022 Cooperative Election Study, 14 percent of Muslims (and 12 percent of Hindus and 5 percent of Jews) described themselves as 'born-again' or evangelical Christians. This is not a joke." For better or for worse, "evangelical" means something else in English in the past decade or so.  It isn't even necessarily associated with being a Christian exactly per above. SnowFire (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SnowFire All this quotation serves to show is that there is a sense of the word evangelical that doesn't match what is meant by the historic name of this church. Nobody contests this. It doesn't show that evangelical is an inaccurate or even a less preferable translation in this instance.
 * In my opinion, your argument "makes no sense" because it's based on a false fact - that evangelical cannot be an appropriate translation of evangelische. Dirkwillems (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose the name with "Evangelical" would be more common historically, because it is the old name. The group's website currently uses "Protestant" in its English name, presumably because of the changing implications of the word "Evangelical" in English-speaking countries over the past decades.  News sites such as al-Jazeera also use it. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

EKD
I tried to fix the article, to give more prominence to Protestant but it was reverted, and now reads again "also known as Protestant ...". No. Not yet. It would be good if it became known as Protestant, as the organization now boldly declares: please look. The article says correctly that it is an organization of churches of German Protestantism, not of Evangelicalism. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 * These topics were covered in the move discussion. There is already a "Name" section of the article you may like to revisit, if you think the issue is unclear to a reader. "Evangelical" does not necessarily imply Evangelicalism the movement, and the two names are clearly both by the organization even on the link you just shared. Your edit was changed because it referred to just one of these names as official. Dirkwillems (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Evangelical Church in Germany


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dag Ågren

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. The page is pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 17:00, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dag Ågren
Blatant Vanity? What makes this contributor to Finnish and Swedish web forums so important that he should be included? GRider\talk 20:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, I wrote none of this myself. Also, I've never contributed to any Finnish and Swedish web forums, so I'm not sure what that's about. --130.232.85.15 13:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete message-board member. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 20:47, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:19, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. / u p p l a n d 09:04, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I know who this is but he isn't notable. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 09:02, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Bath, South Dakota

Bath is an unincorporated community and census-designated place in Brown County, South Dakota, United States. As of the 2020 census, Bath had a population of 142.

History
A post office called Bath was established in 1881. The community's name is derived from Bath, England.

title: Bath, South Dakota


text:
Jacques Legendre (Canadian politician)

Jacques Legendre is a former Ottawa City Councillor and Ottawa-Carleton Regional Councillor. He represented the Rideau-Rockcliffe Ward on regional council from 1994 until amalgamation in 2001 and continued to serve the ward on city council until 2011. He also represented Overbrook-Forbes Ward on city council from 1991 to 1994. Legendre moved to Ottawa as a teenager in 1955 he attended the University of Ottawa before leaving for McGill University in Montreal where he obtained a PhD in physics. He returned to the capital to work for the National Research Council.

A well known volunteer and activist Legendre was elected to Ottawa city council in 1991, defeating longtime city councillor George Kelly in surprise upset. The main issue in the election was the creation of a new baseball stadium in the ward. Kelly had pushed through the project, but Legendre complained that residents were not consulted and that the stadium would cause traffic and noise problems for the area. Once elected, however, Legendre failed to get the city out of the contract with the stadium developer. He was more successful in his campaign to fund a new community centre - the St Laurent Complex - and to have the St Laurent branch of the Ottawa Public Library be relocated to become part of the new community centre. As a member of the Ottawa Public Library Board he persuaded the Board to purchase a new vehicle for its "Bookmobile" service rather than scrap the service which was then provided by an aging vehicle.

In 1994 he ran for a position on the council of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. He was again challenged by Kelly, and also by the unsuccessful provincial NDP candidate Joan Gullen and local activist Julie Taub. On Regional Council he became a prominent member of the Police Services Board frequently challenging the chief of police.

With the creation of the new city of Ottawa in 2000 Legendre faced a bitter election battle with city council member Richard Cannings. On city council he continued his role scrutinizing the police and was a major proponent of making the city officially bilingual. In the 2003 Ottawa election he easily won election against two largely unknown opponents. However after the election controversy developed as Legendre was not given a position on the Police Services Board.

In 2005, Legendre was not among the nine councillors supporting the adoption of a compromise pesticide bylaw. He preferred to keep the pressure on at the next municipal election. He was also an opponent to the city's cancelled north-south O-Train light-rail line expansion which would have been completed in 2009.

Legendre did not run for re-election in 2010.

title: Jacques Legendre (Canadian politician)


text:
Richard Empson

Sir Richard Empson (c. 1450 – 17 August 1510), minister of Henry VII, was a son of Peter Empson. Educated as a lawyer, he soon attained considerable success in his profession, and in 1491 was a Knight of the shire for Northamptonshire in Parliament, and Speaker of the House of Commons.

Career
Richard Empson, born about 1450, was the son of Peter Empson (d. 1473) and Elizabeth (Joseph) Empson. John Stow claimed that his father was a sieve maker, but there is no evidence of this. His father, Peter Empson, held property at Towcester and Easton Neston in Northamptonshire.

Early in the reign of Henry VII he became associated with Edmund Dudley in carrying out the King's rigorous and arbitrary system of taxation, and in consequence he became very unpopular. Retaining the royal favour, however, he was knighted at the creation of the future Henry VIII as Prince of Wales on 18 February 1504, and was soon High Steward of the University of Cambridge, and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but his official career ended with Henry VII's death in April 1509.

Thrown into prison by order of the new King, Henry VIII, he was charged, like Dudley, with the crime of constructive treason, and was convicted at Northampton in October 1509. His attainder by Parliament followed, and he was beheaded on 17 August 1510. In 1512, his elder son, Thomas, was "restored in blood", meaning that his father's attainder was reversed so far as it affected him, by Act of Parliament.

Marriage and issue
Empson married Lady Jane R. Empson (née Hill) , by whom he had 10 children, including:

 * Thomas Empson, eldest son and heir, who married Audrey or Etheldreda, one of the daughters of Sir Guy Wolston.
 * John Empson, who married Agnes Lovell, daughter of Henry Lovell and Constance Hussey, and a ward of Edmund Dudley.
 * Elizabeth Empson, who married firstly George Catesby, son of William Catesby, counsellor to Richard III, and secondly, in August 1509, Thomas Lucy, with grandson, Sir Thomas Lucy.
 * Joan Empson, who married firstly Henry Sothill, esquire, of Stoke Faston, Leicestershire, Attorney General to Henry VII, by whom she had twin daughters, Joan Sothill (b. 1505), who married Sir John Constable (son of Sir Marmaduke Constable), and Elizabeth Sothill, (1505–1575) who married Sir William Drury, M.P., P.C., (c.1500–1558), a son of Sir Richard Empson's successor as Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Robert Drury of Hawstead, Suffolk. She married secondly Sir William Pierrepont of Holme Pierrepont, Nottinghamshire.
 * Anne Empson, who married firstly Robert Ingleton (d.1503), a ward of her father, by whom she had a daughter who married Humphrey Tyrrell. She married secondly John Higford, probably under duress, as in 1504 he was pardoned for her rape as well as burglary, and other offences.
 * Mary Empson, who married Edward Bulstrode, son of Richard Bulstrode.

title: Richard Empson


text:
Talk:Interstate 395 (Virginia–District of Columbia)

Name
I am dropping the Washington, DC from the article name as only a small portion on this highway lies in the district and the majority lies in the state in Virginia, thus leading to the article name being deceptive. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bridge dates

Rush Hour Pic?
There is no way that picture is rush hour! Maybe we should rename it! User:nbdinz 17:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

HOV Law
Hasn't the HOV for hybrids been extended? KevinPuj 11:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sort of. My understanding is that any hybrid registered with special plates is grandfathered to use all HOV lanes through June 2007. Any new hybrids registered this year are eligible to use the HOV-2 lanes (I-66) but not HOV-3 (I-395) through the middle of next year. It was on a VDOT site; I'd need to track it down again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Signage: "I-95"
FWIW, the street underneath L'Enfant Promenade (10th St. SW, I guess) has signs that still direct motorists to Interstate 95 (or, 95 and 295), with "Washington DC" "District of Columbia" underneath the word "Interstate" inside the shield. The signs do look like they've been there for a long time. I thought this was worth mentioning in the article but all I can offer for proof is an eyewitness account. Maybe next time I'll have a camera with me. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You mean the ones in commons:Category:Interstate 95? --NE2 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes! This sign. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps on exit list
Twice the maps have been removed from the exit list under the guise that they don't belong, citing WP:ELG and WP:USRD/MTF. I argue that those are mere guidelines, not firm standards, as the language in both indicates (the first, explicitly so, the second by implication). That the maps aren't perfect is no justification for their removal -- if they can be improved, let them stand until improved. I'm going to put them back in if there aren't any good responses here indicating why they should remain out. Additionally, "upside down" is a matter of opinion -- they are oriented to go in the same direction as the exit list so they can be read in parallel. Jkatzen (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Development on top of I-395
A developer may be erecting several buildings on top of I-395 near the Massachusetts Avenue exit. (Source from The Washington Post: ) Not sure if that should be included in this article, since I-395's routing itself will not actually change. Thoughts? ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the "Center Leg Freeway Development" and "Capitol Crossing" the same development? 71.163.231.27 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 395 Alternate
Could someone either add information about Interstate 395 Alternate, or start a new article? I was walking around Washington, DC in either August or September, and I saw (and took pictures of) signs of the road. Allen (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to see my photos, they are at File:Interstate 395 Alternate 1.jpg and File:Interstate 395 Alternate 2.jpg. I would have added the information, but I need a map of the route. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor added a section about this route. Can someone update and correct the date? I was there in late 2011 and took the above two pictures of signs that were up back then. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of I-395 Alt. on Google Maps. The signage along US 50 is merely a suggested route for southbound travelers. There are also signs near Independence Ave. and Washington Ave. for a northbound I-395 Alt., but that is an entirely different routing altogether. It's safe to say that the signs do not represent any official routing of an I-395 Alt. route. Greggens (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

City of Arlington?
Is there some reason why this article has referred to the nonexistent "City of Arlington" for so long? Doctor Whom (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Good catch. Should we replace it with "Arlington County" spanning both columns? —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 395 (District of Columbia–Virginia) → Interstate 395 (Virginia–District of Columbia) – Southernmost commonwealth/district needs to be listed first, per WP:IH. Greggens (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Support. This is a non-controversial application of a non-controversial WikiProject guideline (WP:IH § Naming conventions: "If the Interstate enters more than two states, then list all states in the name, beginning with the western/southernmost state. ").  —  AjaxSmack  13:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 395 (Virginia–District of Columbia). 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/20050405054756/http://virginiadot.org/comtravel/hov-novasched.asp to http://www.virginiadot.org/comtravel/hov-novasched.asp

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) 17:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Can't see the map
I haven't been able to see the map in the Infobox since this change was made by User:Fredddie at 03:26, 3 September 2018. Is it just me? Otherwise is there any reason not to undo that change (which seems to restore the map)? Can you comment on this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * It does not render for me, either. I purged the page. The change that broke the map might not be Fredddie's edit; it could be an issue with the maplink call that generates the map. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I see it fairly often where the maps don't always render. Usually as C.Fred suggested it just needs a purge or three.  Anyway, I moved the data over to Commons commons:Data:Interstate 395 (Virginia–District of Columbia).map and changed how  looks for the data thusly.  I saw a map before I commented here! –Fredddie™ 01:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


text:
Vicarius

Vicarius is a Latin word, meaning substitute or deputy. It is the root of the English word "vicar".

History
Originally, in ancient Rome, this office was equivalent to the later English "vice-" (as in "deputy"), used as part of the title of various officials. Each vicarius was assigned to a specific superior official, after whom his full title was generally completed by a genitive (e.g. vicarius praetoris). At a low level of society, the slave of a slave, possibly hired out to raise money to buy manumission, was a servus vicarius.

Later, in the 290s, Emperor Diocletian carried out a series of administrative reforms, ushering in the period of the Dominate. These reforms also saw the number of Roman provinces increased, and the creation of a new administrative level, the diocese. The dioceses, initially twelve, grouped several provinces, each with its own governor. The dioceses were headed by a vicarius, or, more properly, by a vices agens praefecti praetorio ("deputy of the praetorian prefect"). An exception was the Diocese of the East, which was headed by a comes ("count"). In 370 or 381, Egypt and Cyrenaica were detached from the Diocese of the East and made a diocese under an official called the Augustal Prefect.

In the eastern parts of the Empire, dominated by the Greek language and common use of Greek terminology, a vicarius was called an exarch.

According to the Notitia dignitatum (an early 5th century imperial chancery document), the vicarius had the rank of vir spectabilis; the staff of a vicarius, his officium, was rather similar to a gubernatorial officium. For example, in the diocese of Hispania, the staff of the vicarius included:
 * The princeps (i.e. chief of staff) was chosen from among the senior agentes in rebus (couriers or special investigators, 'men of affairs,' from the ministry of the interior headed by the master of the offices), from the salaried class of the ducenarii (those earning 200,000 sesterces a year - the highest regular pay grade in the Roman civil service; the highest officials, governors and above, were not civil service).
 * A cornicularius ("chief of staff").
 * Two numerarii (chief accountants).
 * A commentariensis ("keeper of the commentary", the official diary).
 * An adiutor (adjutant; literally "helper", an assistant).
 * An ab actis ("acts-keeper", archivist).
 * A cura epistolarum ("curator of correspondence").
 * An unnamed number of subadiuvae ("deputy assistants").
 * Various exceptores (lower clerks).
 * Singulares et reliquum officium (various menial staff).

title: Vicarius


text:
Chrysanthus (Roman governor)

Chrysanthus was the name of a vicarius of Roman Britain probably in the period 395–406. Little is known about his governorship, except that he probably served under the emperor Honorius.

He was the son of a bishop of Constantinople and had been a consular governor of a province in Italy before being moved to Britain. Later, he himself became a sectarian bishop in Constantinople and was considered for the prefecture there. His high rank indicates that Britain was still considered an important imperial possession even in the later fourth century AD.

title: Chrysanthus (Roman governor)


text:
Quebec Government Offices

The Quebec Government Offices (French: Délégations générales du Québec) are the Government of Quebec's official representations outside of Canada. They are overseen by Quebec's Ministry of International Relations.

The network of 35 offices in 20 countries consists of 9 general delegations, 5 delegations, 15 government bureaux, 6 trade offices. There are also 2 representatives at the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and UNESCO.

History
Quebec had agents-general in London, Paris, and Brussels prior to 1936, when legislation was passed by the government of Maurice Duplessis closing all Quebec government offices abroad. The government of Adélard Godbout repealed the legislation and opened an office in New York City in 1940. When Duplessis returned to power in 1944, his government retained the New York City office and its agent-general but opened no others.

In the early 1960s, the government of Jean Lesage began to open additional offices abroad in Paris (1961), London (1962), Rome and Milan (1965). Subsequent governments opened offices in Chicago (1969), Boston, Lafayette, Dallas and Los Angeles (1970), Munich and Berlin (1971), Brussels (1972), Atlanta (1977), Washington, DC (1978), Mexico City and Tokyo (1980), Beijing and Santiago (1998), Shanghai and Barcelona (1999), Mumbai (2007), São Paulo (2008) and Moscow (2012). A UQAM scholar in 1984 described the offices as "mini-embassies" for Quebec and part of the Quiet Revolution.

In 1971, the title of agent-general was officially changed to delegate-general, although the previous title is still often used, particularly for the government's representative to London.

, the Government of Quebec is represented by 35 offices in 20 countries and has delegates-general (agents-general), delegates, bureaux, and trade offices. Québec also has a delegate for the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and Multilateral Affairs and a representative to UNESCO, both based in Paris. Quebec, like other Canadian provinces, also maintains representatives in some Canadian embassies and consulates general.

List of Quebec Government Offices
Quebec Government Offices fall into several types. General Delegations are deemed most important, and handle affairs of economy, education, culture, immigration, and public affairs. Delegations are similar, but do not deal with immigration issues. Bureaus handle a small number of issues. Trade Offices deal with trade affairs.

title: Quebec Government Offices


text:
User talk:MGKillian

Sidewaysbike
G'day Michael

Thanks for your response. I can make no promises as to how it will go, but it seems to me that a brief mention is suitable material to incorporate in the bicycle article. But the VfD vote seems to be going badly, and perhaps this is to be expected. Best to let this go its course for the moment IMO.

There is nothing to stop you copying or even moving the article into your user space, or I would be happy to do this if you are unsure as to how to. Andrewa 20:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:MGKillian