This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The section is not in any case about the feasts but the theological beliefs, which are, or can be, different, as is explained perfectly clearly. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Merge. Bad idea, no arguments for it produced. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I am myself Eastern Orthodox and don't see the need for two different articles. It is one and the same feast, maybe with different emphases. Lakeroese, on the basis of your arguments, we should have two, or even more, articles for Christmas (and all other feasts).--theltalpha (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose For Roman Catholics, Assumption is an issue in itself. A merger will result in a new article (by me) called "Assumption (Roman Catholic)". History2007 (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(1) there doesn't appear to any real distinction between the two feasts For starters, one feast is about falling asleep" or death of the Theotokos Mary. The other feast is about Virgin Mary, "having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."
(2) Anybody who reads the two articles can easily see (as Johnbod rightly points out) that the main issue is theology and not feasts!
(3) This section does not make sense I do not know, what JPSheridan means by section. To which section is he referring to? Or does he confuse "section "with "article"?
(4) I have never before seen a Wikipedia merger request so poorly justified, lacking any foundation whatsoever! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: (Why not merge Roman Catholic Church with Eastern Orthodox Church, since all they disageee is the papacy?) Why mix a well-written and adequately referenced article (Assumption) with a bunch of generalities (dormition). Only two statements are actually verified. See below. Note also, that this request was made in October 2006 and nobody responded until theltalpha flagged it in the Assumption of Mary article on August 16, 2008 --Thomaq (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we have concensus here, so I'll remove the tags. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
In the article Dormition of the Theotokos the following sentence is stated: The Dormition and the Assumption are different names for the same event, Mary's departure from the earth, although the beliefs are not entirely the same. Why make a artificial split where actually no split is needed? Every Christian feast on Wikipedia is described in one article each, with the differences between the respective denominations described within the article. Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, every feast just one article. Even Epiphany is one article although this is really a completely different feast in Western and Eastern Church. If you really want to keep the split between Assumption and Dormition (although being the same feast) you definitely have to split the article Epiphany, which actually handles two different feasts. Even books about Orthodoxy written by Orthodox People mention that the feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos equals the Western feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (while not forgetting to mention the differences in the theological views of this event).--theltalpha (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually no: Nativity of the Theotokos and Nativity of Mary are different articles, for the same reason - the Catholic & Orthodox views of the event celebrated are sufficiently different to justify this. I'm sure there are other examples, like Timkat (Ethiopian Epiphany), also Catholic/Protestant ones etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
We are normally not to quote from Wikipedia articles for verification. This would apply even more in contested cases to sentences which are not sourced in any way shape or form. --Thomaq (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
This article requires much faith because it offers virtually no verification. In addition words like "often" and "some" are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards unless the texts are adequately verified. --Thomaq (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please explain your problem. The article is undercited, but I can't see weasel words myself. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines Weasel words as "small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement, such as "some argue that..."" Several times the articles uses words: as Some, in some places, in some churches, often, fairly representative example, Admittedly, the problem is not quite as severe as with the absence of citations--Thomaq (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding the policy, which relates to views of experts etc, as evident throughout Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, though this could be made clearer there. It does not cover generalizations attempting to cover wide variations in the matter under discussion, as here. I'll remove the tag. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to prefer a narrow interpretation. In my view, the Wikipedia policy applies here in a broad sense, because at issue are repeated small phrases attached to the beginning of a statement and the artificial creation of facts through weasel words. Thus, there is no difference between "some experts", "some argue that" and: "some places" or, some "churches". But this is a minor issue, as I mentioned above. I am not going to waste our time over it. The main problem is the virtual absence of verification. --Thomaq (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)