Talk:Armenian Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Armenia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon Armenian Catholic Church is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 

"represents a schism from the AAC"[edit]

I believe this is a) not NPOV and b) contradicted by the later statement 'the church of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia entered into a union with the Catholi Church'. I suggest it be changed to 'represents a church resulting from a schism of the Armenian Apostolic Church' or the sentence omitted entirely. Richardson mcphillips1 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion[edit]

No notice was placed here that this image has been nominated for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Other images used on this page may also have been nominated -- please check them all by clicking on them to see if there is a deletion notification on the image page. If there is, use the link that takes you to "this image's entry" to comment on the nomination for deletion. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Leopolis[edit]

That struck me. Is there a reason the Latin name was used? I would like to change it to Lviv (which is what it links to anyways). --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't be clarified as being modern-day Lviv, but in brackets, as Leopolis would not be a recognised naming convention: i.e., Leopolis (Lviv). The nomenclature of the time, however, should be retained. This is an issue which other editors of this page should decide. If there are no responses within a couple of days, you should certainly be WP:BOLD and make the change. If nothing else, it will certainly bring any policy and guideline based objections or support to the table.
Given that you've posed the question, you've already opened up any issues per WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I wouldn't want to change it without input like yours. I wonder what you mean by nomenclature of the time. Lviv was never Latin-speaking. On the other hand, it is possible that the see of the Armenian Catholic bishop of Lviv was always known by its Latin title - perhaps that's what you mean. In that case yes, you are right.
I agree using Leopolis (Lviv) or even Leopolis (Lviv), which I would prefer. We should use primarily the name of the city that was common in English at the time. Most cities -- as well as countries and even regular objects -- have different names in different languages. What non-English speakers call the city, including any non-English residents, should not be our primary guide. Further, like English in general, a city's English name will evolve and change. I think that we should use the English name most closely associated with the specific historical event, which is usually the name that was common in English at the time. (P.S. I've indented the comment immediately above just to make the formatting consistent.) --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's usually the preference to use the historical name with a link to the contemporary city/territory unless there is an article dealing with historical context. If it were a more complex article, there could be legitimate arguments for contemporary over historical, but I don't see that such arguments are warranted here. Cheers for your tidying up the article! You've done an excellent job of cleaning up duplications of information, redundant information and making it more succinct for readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

new martyr saints[edit]

When the Catholicos Karekin II canonized the victims of the Great Crime, did he intend to canonize only the ones who were members of the Armenian Apostolic Church? Would any Catholics who were killed have been canonized too? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)