Talk:Maundy Thursday/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article Name

What was the rationale for moving this page? Outside of the Roman Catholic Church, the English-speaking world universally calls this day "Maundy Thursday".Rockhopper10r 18:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The Article Should be called Holy Thursday or a least be called a name that is more common to people. With all the Christian churches it's confusing. In the Catholic Church we call it Holy Thursday.

In nearly every other Western Christian Church the name for the day is "Maundy Thursday". It is the traditional name for the day in the English language. "Holy Thursday" has also been used as a name for Ascension Day. "Maundy Thursday" is unique to the Thursday during Holy Week. We could argue this point forever, but I think keeping the article at Maundy Thursday is most appropriate. Rockhopper10r 16:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Google reports the following numbers of hits:

• holy: about 237,000,000
• holy thursday: about 611,000
• maundy: about 1,010,000
• maundy thursday: about 847,000

My point is that "holy" is a very common word, whereas "maundy" is not: less than 0.3% of "holy" hits are for "holy thursday", whereas almost 84% of "maundy" hits are for "maundy thursday". Given the Naming conventions:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

It seems to me that "maundy thursday" would be slightly easier to recognize and much less likely to be ambiguous, so I agree with Rockhopper10r that the article should stay at Maundy Thursday. --JBeck 02:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Even though we call it "Holy Thursday" in the vernacular in the Philippines, when we refer to it in English, it is almost always "Maundy Thursday". RashBold ^Talk 12:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, not sure what to think on this one. I'd never heard the word "Maundy" before in my life, but then I come from a very Catholic part of the US. The Catholic Encyclopedia lists it as Maundy Thursday rather than Holy Thursday, so I'm inclined to think that Maundy should be the main article here. Telonius 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Maundy Thursday is the traditional name for 'holy thursday' I actualy hadn't heard of it called 'holy thursday' before this year. I Think the article should be called "Maundy Thursday (Holy Thursday)" because of this discrepency.

The "Maundy/Holy" thing does not work. It just leads to more confusion. Please revert to "Maundy Thursday". We seem to have reached consensus on that one. Thank you. Rockhopper10r 17:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be called Holy Thursday. I am Greek Orthodox and I have never heard of "Maundy" in my life. If its that much of a big deal then make two pages. Maundy is not the traditional name either. If people didn't know, NOTHING in the orthodox church ever changes. The doctrines have been the same for 2000 years. It should be noted that the Catholic church split from it so it could change. Now Catholics dont even fast meat or dairy for the 40 days of lent. My friend who is Catholic once told me she was fasting from gum, wow what a feat! And the Orthodox Church calls it Holy Thursday so anything else would just be wrong!

According to this article ([1]) the global number of Catholics (of all rites) is 1.9 billion. The total number of Protestants is 699 million. The Catholic Church now uses the term Holy Thursday. Because Catholics outnumber Protestants almost 3-to-1 (according to the article) the name, I believe, should be "Holy Thursday". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.138.87 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Further comment on Article Name

Maundy Thursday is the traditional English term for the day, used by both Anglicans and Catholics prior to the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. Since Vatican II the Catholic Church refers to the day as Holy Thursday as maundy is now an archaic term with no use or meaning outside of this singular usage. The average English speaker could not define the word maundy. Holy Thursday is now the term used in most of the liturgical churches of the West, with the exception of the Anglicans who use Maundy in England and other countries but to a much lesser degree in North America. The majority of Western Christians clearly use Holy Thursday in place of Maundy Thursday; therefore, I propose that the article move to Holy Thursday and remain there. Vaquero100 23:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Maundy Thursday" was never the traditional English term for the day in Ireland. I strongly doubt that it was ever the traditional English term among Catholics in the United States of America. Vaquero is probably too young to remember clearly. At my age, I do remember clearly that, at least in Ireland, "Maundy Thursday" always sounded particularly English - I speak of the country, not the language. Though, where I am now, I am unable to check, I think I saw that the edition for England of the present English translation of the Roman Missal has "Maundy Thursday". But certainly the printings for other countries have "Holy Thursday", surely a sign that "Holy Thursday" was the traditional term among Catholics in those countries even before the 1970s. Is it really believable that the translators took it upon themselves to change the English term for the day? In short, the Second Vatican Council has nothing to do with the question. Lima 04:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lima, you are correct. I am too young to remember clearly. I simply recall that on American (not specifically religious) calendars which used to have more Christian religious holidays marked on them routinely read Maunday Thursday at least in the early 1970's. Since then, in the US anyway, all references to that name have virtually vanished except in Anglican settings. Even in many ECUSA settings, especially the more liberal onces, Holy Thursday is the common name.

My sense that it was a matter of traditional language was based on the Catholic Encyclopedia preference for Maundy. However, this may well be explained if the CE of 1913 was originally published in England. I have no knowledge of its editorial/publishing history.

Still, it is true that Catholics in the US presently do not use the term Maunday. Whether that is a matter of the liturgical reform or simply a preference for the Roman over the Anglican usage, I admit I am not clear.

Nevertheless, whether it is an Anglican matter or liturgical reform matter, it strikes me that Maunday is the minority use. Catholics in the USA alone now nearly equal the membership of all Anglicans on the globe. Why an Anglican terminology should dominate WP, I cannot imagine. English is no longer the province of England alone nor the C of E.

Lima, I might think you and I would agree on this. Vaquero100 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been argued back and forth. No one is ever going to be totally satisfied; however, "Maundy Thursday" is less ambiguous in that it distinctively refers to the Thursday in Holy Week. The word "Maundy" precedes only the words "Thursday" and the derivative "money". See above for the reasoning.Rockhopper10r 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not the relative ambiguity of Maundy vs. Holy, but rather Maundy Thursday vs. Holy Thursday. Both are equally unambiguous. There is no other Holy Thursday. So, the question is whether the small minority of English speakers in England and the Anglican Communion has some kind of monopoly on the English language. I am neither English nor Anglican. This is true for the majority of English speakers. Maundy is archaic and obscure at best. Vaquero100 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero has a very good, well-put point. Lima 04:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. We've been through this before.Rockhopper10r 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature" (Wikipedia quotation by Rockhopper). Which name, "Holy Thursday" or "Maundy Thursday", would the majority of English speakers (except, of course, in England) write in the "search" box? Neither name is at all ambiguous. To me, "the above discussion" seems far from conclusive. Lima 07:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rockhopper, having read your userpage, your self-professed preference for Commonwealth English and your high church Episcopalian commitments does not foster much confidence in your capacity for unbiased opinion. While I find a Texan who prefers the Queen's English truly a fascinating phenomenon this profile exhibits a proclivity for fanciful and unrealistic thinking. Maundy may be quaint and you may be on a campaign to save it, but nevertheless Angles no longer control the course of the English language. Now the Dutch have perfect control over their language because no one else speaks it. For better or worse, English now has a life of its own and Maundy, whatever it means, is steadily becoming an irrelevant word. Vaquero100 02:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because the Catholic and Anglican Churches call it Maundy, doesn't mean that all other christian churches do. If im correct, the Anglican church was once Catholic, so this is just one churches name. Besides a Catholic website even refers to it as Holy Thursday http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent/thurs.php

Cleanup tag

I removed the cleanup tag that was put on the article back in March. I don't know why it was tagged as needing a cleanup, other than the debate between Holy and Maundy Thursday. (Personally, I don't think it's that big of a deal, since Holy redirects to Maundy.) If anyone knows what else needs cleanup, it should probably be mentioned here. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Blake

Shouldn't this article mention Blake's 2 poems named 'Holy Thursday' in the Songs of Innocence and Experience? They are highly relevant, imo. - Elin

They are not necessarily relevant to Holy Thursday itself since they were written as commentary on it. However, there should at least be a disambiguation page for 'Holy Thursday' that has a link to Holy Thursday. Also, that page needs to be renamed to Holy Thursday (II.) or have some information added on the poem Holy Thursday (I.). I don't know how to make a disambiguation page or change the name of a page, however.--Mr Bucket (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Quantity of Maundy money

Seems to me that this page conflicts with Maundy money#Availability of the coins in that this page says each recipient receives "one coin for every year of the Sovereign's reign" whereas the other page says "people were given Maundy money consisting of silver pennies totalling, in pence, the current age of the monarch." I'll look it up somewhere, eventually, unless anyone has a good source to hand. --AndrewHowse 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A potential source. Royal Mint website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndrewHowse (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I have a set of Maundy Money. It is in a box with the royal coat of arms. There are four coins in it: a penny piece, a twopenny piece, a threepenny piece and a fourpenny piece - all silver. They are dated 1917 with the head of King George V. As he reigned from 1910 to 1936, I see no connection to his length of reign or age. Paulmet (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Gründonnerstag

There is a vive fight for the meaning of German "Gründonnerstag" as the most popular name for Great/Holy Thursday or Maundy Thursday. Is it useful to link to the DE-Wikipedia-page which explains more details of the ethymology? I would not like to see here any comments like "Gründonnerstag means either 'mourning Thursday' from Middle High German greinen (to weep) or ..." where there seems to be more than one objective mistake: "greinen" looks to me like a modern German word (unless I get a source for verification) - the middle high german should be "grinan", "gronan" or something like that; and I don't think that the word's root has the basic meaning "weep" even if modern "greinen" (mourn, wail) sounds close to "weinen" (weep). Not to mention that the development of the word is not clear and may already base on old high german rather than middle high german. But I am not a linguist. FZiegler 13:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the origination of the English word 'maundy' can be linked to the German word 'Gründonnerstag' and, as such, the link you're proposing would be beneficial? Sorry, but I'm unclear on the meaning of the above post and I speak no German at all so the link would be lost on me completely. CanadianMist 15:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Passover Eve?

Is there any connection with this date and the Eve of Passover? I had heard that the last supper was actually the Passover Seder and that the wine and wafer were the obligatory cups of wine and matzah. --Valley2city^₪‽ 19:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Christians believe that Jesus Christ gave these elements of the Seder meal a new meaning. As a result, Christians practice Holy Communion. This year, the Jewish Passover begins on Tuesday, the 3rd of April and will continue for 7 days until Monday, the 9th of April. Maundy Thursday, the commemoration of the Last Supper and the night Holy Communion was instituted, falls on April 5 this year. This link will explain your inquiry in further detail. I hope this helps! Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Eastern Orthodox Church has different days for Easter than other Christian churches most years because of the Jewish Passover.

Jesus had the Last Supper the evening before the Passover, because he knew he was going to die the next day, as the Passover sacrifice Himself. The Last Supper took place on the Eve of the Passover, the first day of the unleavened bread, the day of preparation, the day before the Sabbath, called the Parasceve. The next day is recorded in the gospels as being the Passover because the High Priests would not enter the Governor's Hall, (or the Praetorium - Pontious Pilate's Hall), as they would be defiled if they went into a gentile's building, "and that was the great Passover" on the Friday. Paulmet (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's what the Gospel of John says. The synoptics, by contrast, say that the Last Suppor was passover itself. Tb (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Usual Celebration

I think the article would be improved by a reference to the Catholic practice of having the "Chrism Mass" on this day, perhaps with a brief reference (if known) as to how this came about. (As an aside: I would vote for "Holy Thursday" for the article name as well. "Maundy" is an obscure English word; it is sufficient to redirect a "Maundy Thursday" search to a "Holy Thursday" article.) MrArticleOne (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A reference to the 'Roman' Catholic practice of the Chrism Mass would be a good idea. I disagree with 'Holy Thursday' as a name for the article - the traditional name in English is Maundy Thursday. Let's not dumb down the English language for Americans with limited vocabularies. InfernoXV (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between "dumbing down" and obscurantism; preserving "Maundy" to me rings of the latter. I find (for whatever reason) that the British English speakers who contribute to the project often have an extremely heightened concern over a perceived threat of American linguistic ignorance; see, for example, the Talk page for The Open Championship. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but I'd still hold out for 'Maundy' over 'Holy'. I'd prefer 'Spy Wednesday' over 'Holy Wednesday' myself, but I'd agree that usage is no longer in general use. 'Maundy', however, is still used all over the Commonwealth. InfernoXV (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved -- Aervanath (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Maundy Thursday → Holy Thursday — Move to Holy Thursday — MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Discussion

Any additional comments:

"Maundy" appears to be an English term, the usage of which would appear to be local, and not global in nature. Holy Thursday, despite its problems of being Catholic, and the commonness and non-uniqueness of the "Holy" name (as if we should rather call it "Xkcd day" because its more rare) -Stevertigo 07:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree. Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and Oriental Christians vastly outnumber Protestants, and most Protestants around the world do not use the term Maundy Thursday. Speakers of non-UK based English vastly outnumber speakers of UK-based English. The name "Maundy Thursday" apparently sounds extremely England English even to most English speakers in Ireland, Australia, etc. "Holy Thursday" is a widely understood term among English speakers worldwide. Outside Anglican/Episcopal/English Protestant circles, "Maundy" is archaic and obscure except in the UK. InfernoXV's comment about "Let's not dumb down the English language for Americans with limited vocabularies" is a highly inappropriate comment typical of the sort we see from a thankfully small group of editors who confuse academic internationalism with American intellectual hegemony. "Holy Thursday" and "Maundy Thursday" seem to be getting about the same number of google hits because of clones of this article. This all makes the name of this article very inappropriate for Wikipedia. Even the text of the article itself indicates "Maundy" is a particularly English use that contrasts with most of Christendom.-- --Boston (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I disagree. I am a native of the United States, and I've never heard of "Holy" Thursday. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to be bold and make the move.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm having problems getting the title. Thursday will not appear capitalized. If some admin fixed it that would be great.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the recent move that has been moved unilaterally. Previous discussion of the issue led to the conclusion that the article would bear the name Maundy Thursday. Most Christian denominations in the United States, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, use the name Maundy Thursday. For example, the Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, and Presbyterian Church all primarily use the name Maundy Thursday. In addition, the Catholic Encyclopedia uses the term Maundy Thursday chiefly. By looking at my local newspaper regarding Holy Week services, 18 churches implemented the term Maundy whereas only two used the term Holy. Further discussion regarding this issue should take place for consideration of moving this article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I stopped reading your POV when I read 'in the United States'. Why do you think it says 'The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. ' Discussions that took place 3 years ago do not count as consensus as all the postings that take place in 2009 indicate a desire for change.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree it should be moved but also agree more formal discussion is needed. My biggest concern is that we're not only giving too much weight to Anglophone Protestant usage, we are disregarding Orthodox Christians and Oriental Christians completely. But, most it importantly, it's not the sort of thing any of us should get to worked up over either way. So let's please not. BTW, Catholic Encyclopedia reference from 98 years ago doesn't reflect current usage but its relevance can be discussed when/where we eventually hash this out. Best wishes. --Boston (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for listing this at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I hope that generates an appropriate level of commentary so that we can move it, or not, with confidence. --Boston (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not including a more global perspective. However, it is definitely evident that the locution Maundy Thursday is widespread among countries that hold English as their primary languauge. And, this is English Wikipedia. In the United Kingdom (Great Britain), the term Maundy Thursday is also the standard. For example, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) uses the locution Maundy Thursday on their Religion and Ethics page primarily. Holy Thursday is given as an alternate name. TIME Magazine also does the same thing. In light of the fact that Maundy Thursday is the most widespread name among English speaking coutries and that it is been used historically as well, the article's name should remain Maundy Thursday. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Boston, thanks for your consideration. However, it might be better to move the talk page of the article now, in order that it corresponds with the article. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I put in a move request. I am from an English speaking country (Ireland) and I have never heard of the term Maundy Thursday in my life. I have celebrated Easter in Australia, United States, France, Canada and my home country and still have only heard the term Holy Thursday being used so saying Maundy Thursday is the most common is pure original research. Protestants in UK and US are a small part of the population and their name does not conform to WP:NPOV or WP:COMMON.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it original research when I have provided multiple references to confirm my claim and you have provided none? In addition, the Times of India, which is a major newspaper of India, a country having a population of 1,147,995,904 and that uses English as its official language, uses the terminolgy Maundy Thursday, when discussing the holy day, rather than Holy Thursday. The name of the article should remain Maundy Thursday in light of these facts. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to talk numbers well then the Catholic Church who use the term have over 2 billion members worldwide (not just the US or UK) so therefore it is much more common. MusicInTheHouse (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Protestants are the majority in the USA and the UK, but worldwide they are vastly outnumbered by Catholics and Eastern Christians. That's why it's a complicated issue. We're not going to convince each other, we need opinions from additional editors. I do hope the page get's moved, but please do consider my comments about not getting upset about this. --Boston (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern User:Boston. I don't believe anyone is getting upset about the issue. From my understanding, people are just engaging in discussion. One thing we have to keep in mind is that despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination, and where the RCC may be prevalent, English is not the predominant language. And, this is English Wikipedia. One more thing to consdier is that the world renowned Encyclopædia Britannica article (in English) is named Maundy Thursday. Holy Thursday is written is small font and is given as an alternate name. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• But consider that this article is also about the day celebrated in Spain, Italy, Russia, Greece, etc. etc. etc. Would we say the "Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem" a celebrated Maundy Thursday mass...? Perhaps we would; let's research that. --Boston (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the name Maundy Thursday is taken from an anthem sung in Roman Catholic churches on that day: “Mandatum novum do vobis” (“a new commandment I give to you”; John 13:34) see Encyclopædia Britannica. By having the name Maundy Thursday, we will not only be representing the majority of Christian denominations, which use the term Maundy, but also the Roman Catholic Church, from which the name Maundy is derived. We wouldn't use the Maundy Thursday Mass for a Greek Orthodox Church anyway, since they use the term Divine Liturgy instead of Mass. Regardless, the name of the event in Jerusalem for a Greek Orthodox Church would be in Greek anyways, not English. We are discussing the English name. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Point taken regarding the mass, but that's a besides-the-point point. I know the history of the name "Maundy" and that it is based in the Mandatum, but we still do have to consider what we call it when Orthodox and Oriental Christians observe this day as that topic is also covered by this article. For this reason, I think ultimately this might not be a matter of demographics. It might come down to a semantic/logical argument along the lines of "all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples" in that "Holy Thursday" always includes what we call "Maundy Thursday" but the reverse doesn't seem to be true. We can't just say "it would be in Greek anyways" as there are millions of Anglophone Orthodox. --Boston (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

`

I agree completely.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would Holy Thursday encompass Maundy Thursday but not vice versa? The original name of the holy day in English is Maundy Thursday, which is recognized by numerous Christian denominations, including the Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church, among others. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church also recognizes this name. This is evidenced by the official Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Maundy Thursday. Holy Thursday is a relatively new term. By using this term, we are catering to one Church that has very recently supplanted Maundy with Holy. Concerning the Greek Orthodox Church: The Greek Orthodox Church uses the term Great and Holy Thursday for the day (see reference), which I will add to the article. As I mentioned earlier, most secular sources, when discussing the holy day use the term Maundy Thursday because that is the day's original, most widespread, and historically accurate name. The very name Maundy Thursday reflects the exact significance of the day. I am confident that world renowned see Encyclopædia Britannica as well as the Catholic Encyclopædia use the name Maundy for these reasons. If Wikipedia is to be reliable, it should follow these establishments rather than invent new ones. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep on repeating your own POV. So far no other editors are agreeing with it. Boston's logical argument over turns all of your claims. We know the Protestant Churches use Maundy but the point is other churches don't. However all use Holy Thursday to some extent as indicated above and therefore Holy Thursday is the more NPOV title.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to produce any references to support your claims, whereas I have provided a reasonable argument which is buttressed by both sacerdotal and secular references. Because I have complied with WP:RS and WP:V, my comments are correctly deemed NPOV, while your constitute POV. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The notion that this can be resolved by some agglomeration of particular users' experiences ("I've never heard it called [x] Thursday") is erroneous; it's obvious that there are religious, social and cultural environments that almost totally avoid using one term or the other. I support a move to "Holy Thursday" simply because it seems to me more generic and a better reflection of worldwide language usage patterns. I don't think there is any dispute that the word "Maundy" itself is archaic. Moreover, as I understand the linguistics of it, it is an anachronism with uniquely British roots and history; the fact that it has been borrowed by English speakers in parts of the rest of the world doesn't change that history, but simply reflects the fact that it was the British who spread English to most of where it is in the world. If the holiday had uniquely British roots that would be an excellent rationale to leave the article title as "Maundy Thursday," in much the same way that the tournament known to much of the world as the "British Open" remains at the article title "The Open Championship." However, the holiday does not have uniquely British roots. As a result, I think it is incumbent upon the English-language Wikipedia to use Holy Thursday because it is more international in its history and derivation. I know many people who, for their own linguistic and religious reasons, refer to this coming weekend as Pascha, but I doubt anybody would argue that ought to be the title of this article, even if that use were widespread in the UK or US. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Both names are valid. Different countries have different names for things. In England the day before Ash Wednesday is Shrove Tuesday, Pentecost is Whit Sunday, and the Thursday in Holy Week is Maundy Thursday. (That man at Christmas time is 'Father Christmas'). All are valid entries in a dictionary and in an encyclopaedia. Maundy Thursday is the title used by the Roman Catholics in England, and the Protestants in England, and all those churches around the world that stem from those Protestant churches. Many Protestant churches in the US still call it Maundy Thursday. Paulmet (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose. Holy Thursday is a bit of a neologism. Maundy Thursday is widely used in English contexts, cf. Shrove Tuesday. — AjaxSmack 03:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the traditional English-language name. InfernoXV (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my comments below. --Boston (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per all the arguments below. --MusicInTheHouse (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the arguments above from three years ago.Rockhopper10r (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous consensus as well as my arguments given above in the new discussion. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per previous discussion and as per reasons given below.HeartofaDog (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, To the rationale of changing the name to Holy Thursday because the word holy is more common than the word Maundy: How common is the instance of crucifixion and resurrection? According to the New Testament, this is something that has happened only once. Changing the name of Maundy Thursday to Holy Thursday is another attempt to secularize the Christian faith--akin to moving the Feast of the Ascension to the following Sunday so that one day of obligation fewer falls on a weekday. Maundy Thursday is sacred; Holy Thursday--especially in reference to the day that should be known as Maundy Thursday--is profane. -- Ric/Detlef 03:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll agree with what the majority decides, but I want to respond to Ric/Detlef's surprising comments nevertheless. I don't think any of us (pro or con) are basing our argument on the word "Holy" nor the word "Maundy" in isolation; we're discussing the phrase. I intuit the reason Orthodox, Oriental and now Catholic Christians prefer "Holy" is because "Maundy" refers to the Mandatum specifically and it is the institution of the Eucharist rather than the foot washing which is (to Catholic, Oriental, Orthodox, and some Protestant Christians) the most important event commemorated. That has nothing to do with secularization. And the notion that the phrase "Holy Thursday" is profane? I think I would be greatly offended by that statement if I wasn't simply baffled by it. --Boston (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, although I don't know how much else I can add to this discussion other than echoing User:Boston's befuddlement at the suggestion that "Holy Thursday" is somehow "profane." MrArticleOne (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I offered some additional comments (which are now above, not below) but in general I support Boston's arguments as seeming better-reasoned to me. Anupam seems to be making his argument largely from tradition and some examples of the "Maundy Thursday" usage in print. While informative, I do not think these ultimately carry the day. The day and celebration are significant outside of Western Christianity, but the use of the word "Maundy" is, it seems to me, a distinctively western practice. It goes without saying, I think, that it would be virtually impossible for there to be, say, a Greek or Russian equivalent to "Maundy," because "Maundy" itself is an Anglophone corruption of a Latin word. And yet, we know the Orthodox also celebrate the day, and for the same reasons; it isn't like they coincidentally celebrate something else that same day. As a result, it strikes me as important to have a more generic title that safely encompasses all perspectives, and only "Holy Thursday" offers that. I am, in other words, convinced by the "fruit argument" above. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I am a Roman Catholic, for what it's worth, and we call it "Holy Thursday", so that's the name I'm more familiar with. But "Maundy Thursday" is specifically used to describe some rituals, practices, etc., generally in the English-speaking world, while "Holy Thursday" is not, so, in a sense, the Maundy encompasses more material relevant to English-speaking people, and unless we want two different articles on the subject, which I for one don't, I prefer that name. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent argument for precisely the opposite conclusion. The fact that "Maundy Thursday" is specifically used to describe some rituals, practices, etc. in the English-speaking world is exactly why, it seems to me, the article ought to be titled otherwise, with the text of the article then explaining the special significance of "Maundy" in the English-speaking world. That way the article as a whole safely encompasses the perspective of the non-English speaking world as well, or perhaps even more importantly, English-speaking practitioners of non-Western religious traditions (such as the Eastern Orthodox). MrArticleOne (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as usual, per the usual arguments. NB Maundy Thursday is used by Catholics in England & Wales at least [2] - Scotland I don't know. I'd never heard of "Holy Thursday" as a name in English before coming on WP. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The term Maundy Thursday does not exist in the Orthodox Church and is not the most common English name for the day. It is always referred to as "Holy Thursday" as far as I know, and I live in the US. Maundy seems to be specific to a religion, while "Holy" seems more neutral as the rest of the days of the week are referred to as such and it is recognizable for all Christian religions: I would have never guessed this is the article for Holy Thursday with the present name. As for what the article says about Eastern Orthodoxy, my church just uses "Holy Thursday" and not "Great and Holy Thursday". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This illustrates my position; irrespective of the prevalence of the use of "Holy" vs. "Maundy" (which is itself disputed), "Maundy" is not a neutral term to use. Since it isn't neutral, its prevalence seems irrelevant to me, even if it could be established that "Maundy" is more common. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as usual, per the usual arguments. -- Secisek (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment/Suggestion: This is not a matter of prevalence in the Anglophone world. It's a matter of global prevalence and which term best encompasses a world view -- which is most "generic". I keep reading arguments (i.e. "Catholics in England say Maundy") which aren't getting at the heart of this matter. In Spanish this day is Jueves Santo. In French it's Jeudi saint. In Russian, Великий четверг ("Good Thursday"). To put it plainly, the vast majority of the world's people call this day by a name that would translate into English as "Holy Thursday" (or "Great and Holy Thursday", "Sacred Thursday", etc.) and does not refer to the Mandatum. I would ask editors think less about what they personally are familiar with and think more globally. If necessary, we should change this article name to "Thursday before Easter". This is a serious suggestion. If certain Protestants (and UK Catholics) think "Holy Thursday" excludes them how much more are the rest of the world's Christians excluded by the peculiar "Maundy Thursday" term? --Boston (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be an argument for calling Easter "Paschal Sunday" or something! In fact most Germanic & some Slav languages use "Green Thursday" or similar - look at the iws. Johnbod (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Those names you mentioned however, are common in Spanish, French, and Russian respectively. However, in English, "Maundy Thursday" as evidenced by the discussion above the survey, is the most commonly used term. English Wikipedia should convey what is most common in the English Language. Encyclopædia Britannica, another well respected English encyclopedia follows this precedent. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is denying that it is used, but I have never heard of it before and I live in American and am religious, so you can't justify it as a blanket term. I would support "Thursday before Easter" if that is more acceptable to you all than "Holy Thursday". I just cannot except "Maundy Thursday" because it simply isn't the term to refer to the day as, it is not neutral to all the religions. If one says, oh well UK Catholics say it, then it seems to be a UK word for the day, not the term with which most people refer to it as. Unless there is a concrete consensus for Maundy Thursday, then I think we have no other choice then to not chose and use Thursday before Easter. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe Anupam is simply wrong on this front. English Wikipedia should not necessarily convey what is most common in the English Language, although what is most common will in some cases be illuminating (otherwise, the "Google test" would be dispositive as a matter of Wikipedia policy, which it is not). This is an excellent counter-example of the argument from commonality: the necessity of being NPOV and fairly construing the topic necessitates selecting the most generic name possible. Boston presents excellent research which is on-point: the ongoing debate on this page indicates that there is not such a close association of the name "Maundy Thursday" in the English language as to say that this is necessarily the name for this (in the way that Good Friday is), and that the more generic name ought to be the title of the article. I quite frankly find the arguments in favor of "Holy Thursday" far more logically sound, because they make an effort at justifying themselves a priori, without reference to or reliance on particular observed practices, which are disputed. It is simply impossible to say that "Maundy Thursday" is the traditional name for this in English, because if it that were so unambiguous, there would not be this raging debate. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider: if the vast majority of the English-speaking world referred to the men's golf major championship played in July as the "British Open," would there be any doubt that the article should still be titled "The Open Championship"? Of course not; since it is a British event, the particular British usage ought to prevail and cannot be "outvoted" by a more prevalent usage. Here, the opposite is true: even if "Maundy" were more prevalent (and I think the evidence on this front is extraordinarily unclear; it sounds almost 50/50), it is incontestable that "Maundy" reflects particular religious traditions and a cultural and etymological history that is not universal in scope. That is why I feel it violates the NPOV policy. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider, also, that the "Google test" favors "aluminum" over "aluminium," but the latter spelling was chosen after a difficult debate. Prevalence is not the only concern. Nor, frankly, did they choose "Element 13" or "Element Al" or something like that, which seems analogous to this "Thursday before Easter" suggestion. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Most common is English" is an argument I've made many times, but there are instances when that isn't the only factor because we want clarity, we want to be sure to include the entire topic, etc. BTW, Search engine results are close (like a 4.5:3.5 ration or something) and are probably effected by clones of this Wikipedia article and the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia article. Anupam, any thoughts on Thursday before Easter? --Boston (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Maundy Thursday is the usual name in English, and is more specific. There are other Thursdays that are holy, notably Ascension Day. —Angr 08:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• "Holy Thursday" does not refer to any other day besides the Thursday before Easter. If you think it does, you're mistaken. The fact that "Maundy Thursday" is specific (to some Anglophone Protestants and British Catholics) is the problem. --Boston (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Never say never. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Using the name "Holy Thursday" to refer to Maundy Thursday is also specific to some groups, though it isn't clear to me who those groups are. It's called Maundy Thursday by both Brits and Americans (so this isn't like "alumin(i)um" or "airplane/aeroplane"), and by both Protestants and Catholics (so this isn't like "(Roman) Catholic Church"). If it's called Holy Thursday by Anglophone adherents of Eastern Christianity, that's fine, but it should be clear that Eastern Christianity's cultural influence on the English language is negligible compared to Western Christianity's. —Angr 09:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, though, that the issue of "cultural impact" is immaterial and inappropriate in this context because there is an essentially culture-free alternative. "Holy Thursday" is unquestionably linked with this particular day; nobody calls Ascension Thursday "Holy Thursday," notwithstanding the fact that it is a Thursday which is holy. But "Holy Thursday" as a label simply does not have the specific etymological, cultural and social history that is attached to Maundy Thursday, which I think this debate has shown is unique to England even if it has spread other places. It is a more neutral term because it is not laden with the particular history of "Maundy," and is thus fairer to Anglophone adherents of Eastern Christianity, for whom "Maundy Thursday" has no meaning except to the extent that they are aware of the practice in some Western churches to call it that. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying Maundy Thursday "is unique to England even if it has spread other places" is simply a self-contradiction. Once it has spread to other places, it is no longer unique to England. The term "Holy Thursday" is not neutral, however, because it is virtually unknown to English-speaking Protestants all over the world. In England, "Maundy Thursday" is used by Protestant and Catholics alike; outside England, it's used by Protestants, while Catholics use "Holy Thursday". Since there are Catholics who routinely call it MT (namely those in England) but there are apparently no Protestants who routinely call it HT (the Protestant web sites I found either don't mention the name HT at all or else say "MT, also known as HT, ..."), MT is both the more common and the more neutral name. —Angr 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a self-contradiction. My point is that the word itself has uniquely English roots (English in the sense of the demonym for the constituent country of the United Kingdom, not the language). "Holy" does not have that history, and more generically applies to all Christian faiths, even if some (indeed, even if the majority of English-speaking Christians) call it something else. I say, again, that an Anglophone Orthodox Christian does not celebrate "Maundy Thursday" and never has, because the derivation of "Maundy" has unique, not generic, roots. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main argument against using the title Maudy Thursday appears to be that is not common. This a good reason to keep it the way it is. I don't need an encyclopedia to tell me what I already know. I found this article to be very helpful when a coworker of mine mentioned "Maudy Tuesday" and my response was "I never heard of it." If you had renamed the title, how would I have learned about a common practice among some Christians? Just because your church has a different name for the holiday does not mean you should erase all record of it.
  • All record of it would not be erased. If the article were to be renamed Holy Thursday, Maundy Thursday would still redirect to it, and the article would still mention both names. —Angr 14:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:ENGVAR, different usages are more predominant in different areas. The article was originally given this name, and there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming argument for the new name. David Underdown (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "Maundy Thursday" is a specifically English, not a British or UK term, as some have called it. It is not used in Scotland (here are a couple of examples that all use "Holy Thursday" and nothing else: ref ref ref ref ... In nearby Ireland, "Maundy Thursday" is known only as a quaint word that the English, with their quaint "Queen's Maundy money", use. "Holy Thursday" is certainly the term used in the official Roman Catholic lectionaries and missals in English, except, I believe, in editions made specifically for England The official texts available on the website of the England and Wales liturgy office show that there is no exception even for England. Everywhere else, from Australia and New Zealand to Canada to Scotland, "Holy Thursday" is the term used. "Holy Thursday" is also the term used by the Vatican. So it is really only a tiny minority of Roman Catholics who use "Maundy Thursday" rather than "Holy Thursday". What proportion of other English speakers use one term or ther other? It may be difficult to know. In any case, it seems that a much higher proportion of the general body of Roman Catholics than the general body of Protestants attend service on that day or any religious feast. So I wonder how many of the latter use either term. Lima (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  • All of your links are to Roman Catholic churches. Catholics have no monopoly on Maundy Thursday. Presbyterians in Scotland, Methodists in Wales, Anglicans in Ireland, Baptists in the U.S., United Churchers in Canada, and Lutherans in Australia are all calling it only Maundy Thursday (though those links may not stay the way they are today for very long!). —Angr 18:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I must not have been clear enough. I though it was clear that I began by speaking only about usage among Catholics, among whom the situation is clear, and was therefore using only links that illustrated that fact. After that, I remarked that the situation is not as clear for Protestants (do you on the contrary say Protestants never use "Holy Thursday"?). Then I concluded by asking whether it is possible that Catholics may constitute the majority of those who actively use either of the two terms. I am still unaware of having claimed that Catholics have a monopoly of naming the day. Did I? Lima (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The fact that you chose to speak only about usage among Catholics strongly suggests that you consider only Catholic usage to be relevant. I have been unable to find evidence that "Holy Thursday" is routinely used among Protestants as the ordinary name for the day. The Protestant web sites I found (including but not limited to those I linked to above) either didn't mention the name HT at all, or wrote something along the lines of "Maundy Thursday, also known as Holy Thursday, ..." which shows which name they consider to be primary and which they consider to be the alternative. —Angr 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • "Holy Thursday also known as Maundy Thursday" also exists, doesn't it for Methodists, "theologically progressive" Protestant, Methodist again, Church of the Brethren, LDS, some group in the Bahamas, some African American group? Neither name is excluded. Lima (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support as Lima argued. I grew up in the American South, and I've never heard the term "Maundy Thursday" outside of things specifically talking about England, and that in very archaic contexts; if I were only a bit less well-read I would have had no idea what it was talking about. Let me add that the text is "Maundy Thursday (Western Christianity, 2009)", implying that all Western Christians, even those who live outside of England, call it "Maundy Thursday." It also implies that the Eastern Orthodox don't commemorate the Last Supper at all -- an embarrassing implication which could also be fixed if we were calling it "Holy Thursday," in which case the descriptor could just be "Christianity" instead. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It also implies that the Eastern Orthodox don't commemorate the Last Supper at all. Surely it only implies (correctly) that they do not do so on the same day. We would still have needed to specify that April 9 2009 was the Western date (although, to add a wrinkle, Western Rite Orthodox Christians - who do call it Maundy Thursday - observe it on the "Eastern" date). Carolynparrishfan (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: Quoting from MOS: Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Now, what would be the best way to judge the "most easily recognized" name for this article? For non-specialists? In my mind it's the EB, and that's what they use as stated above. Awolf002 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: The Wikipedia article naming rule is simple, use the name that is currently more commonly used in English, but very difficult to decide objectively. None of the above eloquently and not-so-eloquently expressed opinion obviously establishes one name over the other. As things stand, both Holy Thursday and Maundy Thursday reference the same article, and the article clearly mentions both names in the lead. Therefore let the status quo stand. -- Meyer (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This approach seems flawed in that it privileges whichever usage happened to be utilized first at this article, which could be due to a variety of reasons and may well not have been the product of a disciplined consideration of the NPOV policy. It seems to me that whichever position prevails ought to rest "on its own bottom" than on acquiescence to the status quo. If the issue were basically arbitrary, such as how a word in one language gets transliterated into another, leaving the status quo as-is seems defensible to me, but this seems substantially different. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the flaw in what MrArticleOne describes. The article was almost certainly not named after a disciplined consideration of any policy but simply with the term the original editor usually used himself, but so what? We have established that both terms are used by large groups of English speakers. We have not established that either term is generally considered perjorative. Therefore the choice effectively is arbitrary. -- Meyer (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The chief argument in favor of "Holy Thursday," as I see it, is that it avoids an NPOV issue. Calling it "Maundy Thursday" seems similar to me to referring to the American Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression," which it is known as in pockets of the American South; there may even be people who only know it as that for all I know about language patterns in the South. Even if that name was fairly widespread, I think we would still have to call it the American Civil War, because that is an academic, NPOV name for it. Retention of "Maundy," with its unique linguistic and cultural tradition, excludes from the scope of the title all of those English-speaking Christians who have no association with that linguistic and cultural tradition, even though they celebrate the same thing for the same reasons. If "Maundy" is an English (in the sense of the demonym) corruption of the Latin word mandatum, that has little meaning for Anglophone practitioners of religious traditions who do not derive their heritage from England specifically or Western, Latin-speaking Christianity generally. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying this, but it isn't so. "Holy Thursday" does not avoid any NPOV issue. It is not a neutral name. It is very rarely used except by Roman Catholics. (Even English-speaking Orthodox Christians don't usually call it that, they call it "Great and Holy Thursday", which is different.) "Maundy" has no more "unique linguistic and cultural tradition" associated with it than any other English (as in the language) word. —Angr 15:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

English speaking Orthodox Christians call it Holy Thursday, Great and Holy Thursday is only typical in liturgy books etc, it is not the word of choice. And like I've said, the media has been calling it "Holy Thursday" over and over. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Great and Holy Thursday" as some kind of 3rd choice that only demonstrates a further plurality of usage is a straw man here. Nobody uses that lengthy formulation conversationally, any more than they would routinely refer to today as "Good Friday of the Lord's Passion." "Holy Thursday" is (a) not "rarely used," since the Google test alone indicates that they are quite close (within less than 100,000 hits) and this debate suggests the contrary, and (b) is POV with regard to Anglophone Orthodox Christians, as Grk1011 suggests (I take his comment to suggest that at any rate). It seems to me that a legitimate POV concern trumps usage patterns, especially when (as here) there is an alternative that is nearly as widespread which avoids the issue. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, also, that the fact that the Catholic Church (apparently) also prefers "Holy Thursday" does not necessarily make this POV in its favor, any more than using the NPOV label "American Civil War" in favor of "War Between the States" makes that POV because it is preferred in the North. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose based admittedly on personal experience (Midwestern USA native, LCMS member); but additionally, Meyer above makes a solid case for no consensus to move. Fishal (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. As of now, as the day in question has just ended where I live, we stand with 16 votes to keep the article where it is and six to move it. Good arguments are made on both sides, but I agree that there is currently no consensus to move. Can we please call this closed for at least another year? Rockhopper10r (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Breakpoint

• Here in England I have only heard it called Maundy Thursday, never Holy Thursday. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Here in American I have only heard it called Holy Thursday, never Maundy Thursday, except when we make fun of the British way, sorry ;) . As an Orthodox Christian, I say Holy Thursday, and my Protestant friends use it as well, one is American Baptist, the other is Congregational. Also, they have been referring to it as "Holy Thursday" on the news stations all day: ABC, FOX, NBC, and Google news shows almost 6,000 hits for "Holy Thursday", while only 1,000 for "Maundy Thursday". I think the problem here is that it is definitely the most common in the UK, but definitely not in the US. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• When I lived in America (for the first 29 years of my life) I only ever heard it called Maundy Thursday, never Holy Thursday, so this can't be settled on the basis of users' personal experiences. —Angr 08:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was created as "Holy Thursday", you were the one who decided that "Maundy Thursday" was more common and moved it, we should revert back to the original name. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ignoring consensus

User:Lima, despite the fairly clear consensus here for leaving the title alone, has proceeded to alter nearly all many occasions of "Maundy Thursday" in wikipedia to read "Holy Thursday". I believe this is inappropriate, but I would like to hear the thoughts of others too. Tb (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's inappropriate. It's POINTy and smacks of the dog in the manger. —Angr 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Nearly all"? By no means. I have only changed to "Holy Thursday" in 12 articles on the Roman Catholic liturgy and in 1 article that dealt with a liturgical book of the United Methodist Church, a book that uses "Holy Thursday"; and to "Great and Holy Thursday" in 2 articles concerning the Eastern Orthodox Church. I reverted one of my edits on finding that there was reason to support the use of "Maundy Thursday" in that context. I finished that work some hours ago. A total of 15 articles made to conform with the usage of the Churches concerned. If you look up "What links here" you will find that there are (still) over 300 links to "Maundy Thursday" without counting the articles that link through redirects. Is that "nearly all occasions"? And is it wrong to let articles on the Eastern Orthodox Church use their own terminology and articles on Catholic Church liturgy to us its official terminology? Lima (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize; saying "nearly all" was very unhelpful hyperbole. Can we agree then that in articles which are strictly about Roman Catholic liturgy, any such changes were in error and I can go ahead and revert them? I have in mind, for example, Gremiale, Angelus, or Altar bell, anrd a number of other such cases. Tb (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be in error? What I gather from this debate is that, roughly speaking, "Holy Thursday" is the usage preferred by Catholics, so it would seem appropriate to change the name on articles that are "strictly about Roman Catholic liturgy," unless I missed something. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Gremials, the Angelus, and Altar bells, along with some of User:Lima's other changes, ar not strictly about Roman Catholic liturgy.

Absolutely not! "Maundy" is universally and officially used by English & Welsh Catholics (not Irish - Scottish I don't know), to whom "Holy Thurday" is unknown, so the matter falls under WP:ENGVAR, and the existing style in each Catholic article is retained. In Orthodox articles I presume it is fine (we haven't heard from any UK Orthodox I think), but I would check on the Methodists - that too may differ across the Atlantic. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally I see that Lima's claim above is not exactly true! "Maria Stella (? - December 23, 1843) was the self-styled legitimate daughter of Louis Philip II, Duke of Orléans." (started by an English editor) - is hardly an "article on the Roman Catholic liturgy", and yet [3]! Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Even in England and Wales "Holy Thursday" is the official name for Roman Catholics. I have given in the article a reference to the England and Wales edition of a section of the Roman Missal in English, which several times uses "Holy Thursday" and never "Maundy Thursday". The Liturgy Office of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales uses "Holy Thursday" in its own articles. For English Catholics, "Maundy Thursday" is only what the day is called civilly in that country, not what it is called in their own Roman-Rite liturgy. I forgot about the article on Maria Stella: it caught my eye because it reminded me of the Catholic hymn "Ave Maris Stella"; and then I thought, as I indicated in the edit summary, that a change was justified in an article concerning a country where the quaint usage of one person on this one day in the year distributing specially minted coins in connection either with a mandate (mandatum) or with begging (mendicare) is unknown. I will not resist if someone reverts that change of mine. But there is absolutely no reason for making articles on the Roman-Rite liturgy use a term that that liturgy does not accept in English (or, for that matter, in other languages). That has nothing to do with the title of the article "Maundy Thursday". While there may well be good grounds for changing that title, the necessary consensus among involved editors is lacking. And the strong desire of some to make articles on Roman Catholic liturgy use a term different from what the liturgy itself uses indicates that consensus will continue to be absent. Lima (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear about your view on articles that are not strictly about Roman Catholic liturgy, such as Gremiale, Angelus, and Altar bell, among others. If you agree that consensus is absent, then it was wrong of you to alter the articles: I hereby object---to all of the alterations. A reasonable compromise, it seems to me, is to alter the ones that are geographically specific to countries which use the "Holy" form, or which are strictly and only about the Roman Catholic liturgy. Tb (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, take the first one you mention, Gremiale. It begins: "A gremiale, sometimes anglicized as gremial, is a square or oblong cloth which a bishop, according to the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale" ..." Aren't the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale" books about the Roman Catholic liturgy? Or are there other books with the same name issued by, for instance, the Church of England? The only category under which the article is classified is "Roman Catholic vestments". So the article does seem to be, to quote your own words, "only about the Roman Catholic liturgy".

It is interesting that you should suggest that articles "that are geographically specific to countries which use the 'Holy' form" could have "Maundy" altered to "Holy". That was the idea I had in mind when I changed the word in the "Maria Stella" article, an idea I am not insisting on. Lima (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale" books about the Roman Catholic liturgy?. Yes, and like most such books, they are used in parts of the Anglican Communion. Certainly the gremial, Angelus, and altar bell can all be found in Anglican worship. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm dubious that "Holy Thursday" is actually the "official" name for English Catholics, but in any case this is irrelevant as it is never used, & was completely unknown to me (in English)as an English Catholic before I came on WP. As linked above, the website for Westminster Cathedral in London uses "Maundy" in listing services. Therefore per normal WP policy (WP:COMMON), Maundy is the correct name to use for English RC purposes. I have reverted some of your changes already, and from the above others perhaps should be reverted. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So your one church in England means that it is the official word? There is no official word for this day. It is regional and depends on where you live, it's as simple as that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Carolyn correctly says that some Anglicans do follow the Roman Catholic liturgy, in preference to any other liturgy. And Johnbod is right in saying that, while English Catholics use liturgical books that have the for Catholics more common name, they very frequently employ in speech and in writing the name used by most people in their country. Many of them, like Johnbod, may even be unaware of what is in the liturgical texts. Lima (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Does "a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod source" constitute a reputable source for matters etymology and linguistics? I'd say no more than my linguist friend at uni could be considered a reputable source for matters theology. But that's just me. 59.167.42.156 (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Dave

Names in English

What do you think of this proposal for a revision of this section, making it, I think, less polemical-sounding? It would get rid of at least one baseless statement: that the Scottish Book of Common Prayer uses "Holy Thursday" as a name for the day the article is about. The Scottish Book of Common Prayer, like the original, uses "Holy Thursday" to refer instead to Ascension Day. Blake's poem also concerned Ascension Day. If the image with that poem is to remain, the Anglican usage should be stated expressly in the text. The heading of the section should, I think, also be changed from the singular ("Name in English") to the plural ("Names in English"): there are in fact more names than one.

For one thing, I think the last two paragraphs in the present text should be put under a new heading: ==Derivation of the name "Maundy Thursday"==. For the remainder, I suggest the text I give below.

I hope you will agree that my revision is not pushing any view on the best title for the article. I believe that in fact it gives more support than before to keeping the name "Maundy Thursday": at least it adds the Anglican meaning of "Holy Thursday" and the fact that "Maundy Thursday", rather than "Holy Thursday", is used in the civil legislation of two English-speaking countries. But that was not my intention. I only wish to improve this section and make it more objective. Nothing more. Lima (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

== Names in English ==

William Blake's Holy Thursday (1794).

Use of the names "Maundy Thursday", "Holy Thursday" and "Great Thursday" is not evenly distributed. What is considered the normal name for the day varies according to geographical area and religious allegiance. Thus, while in England "Maundy Thursday" is the normal term, this term is almost never used in Ireland. The same person may use one term in a religious context and another in the context of the civil calendar of the country in which he lives.

The Anglican Book of Common Prayer uses the name "Maundy Thursday" and considers "Holy Thursday" an alternative name for Ascension Day. The official English-language liturgical books of the Roman Catholic Church have "Holy Thursday", even in countries where "Maundy Thursday" is the name in civil legislation. In the United Methodist Book of Worship the name used for the day is "Holy Thursday".

Outside of the official texts of the liturgy, Anglicans sometimes apply the name "Holy Thursday" to this day, while "Maundy Thursday" may be used by English Roman Catholics, and by Methodists. Both names are used by other Churches, such as the Lutheran Church in America, while Reformed churches use one or the other.

"Maundy Thursday" is the official name in the civil legislation of England and the Philippines.

discussion

You need a page ref for note 3 - as I've said, never having heard the term used in the English Catholic Church, I'm very dubious about this. You should make it clear it is not usual. If Blake meant Ascension Day, the image should just go, maybe to that article. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Holy Thursday" appears in sections 3, 4, 199, 204, 380, as I indicated in the article itself before another editor did away with those specifications. The same editors did away with the two examples I gave of the use of "Holy Thursday" in documents entirely of the England and Wales Liturgy Office's composition: Easter Triduum and Season of Lent. Lima (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Not 199 in fact. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes 199 in fact. The last sentence is: "On Holy Thursday, however, and for the Mass

of the Easter Vigil, it is not permitted to celebrate individually." I presume you found the other four mentions of the term. All you have to do, after calling up the document, is to press Control-F on your computer and type "Holy Thursday", and you will find them. You may also wish to search for "Maundy Thursday", or just "Maundy" if you want to be sure that that other name is not used in the document. Lima (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have recently corrected the section being discussed. The second reference given above concerning the Reformed Church is not representative of the denomination as a whole and should not be used to make a statement of the denomination as a whole. If that was the case, then the same rule needs to be applied regarding the Roman Catholic Church as some individual parishes and Roman Catholic organizations use the name "Maundy Thursday" when discussing the holy day ([http://www.fisheaters.com/customslent13.html see reference]). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The second reference given above concerning the Reformed churches serves only to indicate that there is no absolute uniformity among them. There is no absolute uniformity for any religious group, I think, in what they put on their websites or use in ordinary conversation, where you find Anglicans using "Holy Thursday", Catholics using "Maundy Thursday" etc. Lima (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC) And the same rule is already applied above to Roman Catholics, citing a source more authoritative than the one you mention. It has been applied to Anglicans also, citing an Anglican source that uses "Holy Thursday" not for Ascension Day but for the Day this article is about. Lima (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The example I gave of Reformed churches using the name "Holy Thursday" was only one of many possible. Here are some more: Frederick, MD Niskayuna, NY Clinton Avenue Reformed Church Hungarian Reformed Church Cambodian Christian Reformed Church New Utrecht Claverack, NY Wynantskill. NY And there are cases of Reformed churches using both names: Hasbrouck Heights, N. J. Hampstead, London, England! One mention on one site of one Reformed church is not enough for concluding anything about usage by Reformed churches in general. Lima (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

comparison with present text

It seems to me that the present text is confused and confusing. It contains the phrase, "... England, which comes from the Latin word ..."! It makes the false statement that the Scottish Book of Common Prayer uses the name "Holy Thursday" for this day. Its omission of the traditional meaning for Anglicans of "Holy Thursday" also gives the false impression that this is the day Blake had in mind when he wrote his poem. On the basis of a single appearance of the name "Maundy Thursday" on a single website of the Reformed Church in America it draws the unwarranted conclusion that that is the name that is "chiefly" used by "other Christian denominations" - whatever that means, since it excludes not only Anglicans and Roman Catholics but also "Protestant churches that originated in (England and) some that originated in Scotland" and "other English-speaking Protestant Churches, such as the Lutheran Church".

I suggest that the present text should be replaced by that given above. Lima (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Lima, Happy Easter! If it is okay with the rest of the community, I do not object to your changing of the section. However, as I stated above, after you do so, I would like to correct the information on the Reformed Church as well as add the current information on the Orthodox Church (both Eastern and Western rite). We can then evaluate the version from there. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 08:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anupam. And best Easter wishes to you and to any other editor who is celebrating Easter today, as well as to any who will celebrate it next Sunday. Lima (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the proposed text is a superior effort. MrArticleOne (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and make the change now. Lima (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reversed the attempt to modify the previous version. It makes no sense to discuss individual groups such as the "United Methodist Church" when there are multiple Methodist groups. Why single out one? The previous version discussed Methodism in general and used sources from the Free Methodist Church and United Methodist Church. The World Methodist Council, i.e. Methodist Church, represents all of these the Methodist groups of the world and can make ecumenical agreements such as adopting the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, along with the Holy See and Lutheran Church. In addition, it makes more sense to talk about individual parishes directly after discussing the hierarchy. The previous also talked about the Churches in order, rather than jumping around. First, Anglicans and Catholics were discussed, followed by Methodists, Lutherans, Reformed, and then Orthodox. This flow is more logical, rather than the current version. Please discuss before reverting. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it was more logical to arrange as follows: 1) Churches with a clear choice in their official liturgical books about the name to give this liturgical day (Anglicans, Catholics and Methodists); 2) Examples of usage by these three that differs from that of their liturgical books; 3) Other denominations.

You see as more logical the arrangement: 1) Anglican and Catholic liturgical texts on the name for this liturgical day + usages by these two that differs from that of their liturgical books; 2) Usages by all other denomination whether in liturgical books (Methodists only) or outside of liturgical texts (all, including Methodists).

While I do not accept that this is more logical, that problem fades into insignificance in comparison to the presentation of Methodists as using only "Maundy Thursday" in their official sources other than the liturgy. This is quite false: I already gave several examples of official sources of exactly equal status with those you gave but that use "Holy Thursday". You simply deleted them. Why? Lima (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. In trying to make the rearrangement, I may have accidentally neglected those sources. I just saw that you re-inserted them, which is fine. I am fine with your revisions and will accept the section as it currently stands. Thanks for noticing that. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anupam. Perhaps this changes the situation and makes the situation of Methodists somewhat similar to that of Anglicans and Catholics: the liturgical books use one term, but the other too is used in different fields. If you see it in this way, do you perhaps think that the arrangement by which Anglicans, Catholics and Methodists are treated together may, after all, be best? Thanks again for your patience. Lima (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welocme Lima. I personally think that the current version is a good consensus and am fine with it. The section is neat and clean with discussing Methodists in a separate paragraph (as is now). Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you prefer separate paragraphs for a) Anglicans; b) Catholics; c) Methodists (alphabetical order)? My difficulty is combining the first two, while keeping the third separate. So I think we should combine either all or none. Lima (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you can split the first paragraph. The other sections are fine as they are. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I take this as a preference for keeping each of the three churches separate. I have reduced the non-liturgical citations of Methodist use to only two for each name. I think one citation for each would really be enough. Indeed, were it not for the presence of the word "official", it would be quite enough to mention a single use of "Maundy Thursday" only. Lima (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 Discussion (Thanks)

• I'm the editor largely responsible for having stirred up fresh debate on the naming issue. Though strongly of the opinion that it should have been moved, I agree there's no consensus and opinion was weighed towards "Maundy" rather than "Holy." Thanks greatly to all who opined intelligently and respectfully on both sides of the debate.
• Although there's plenty of room for improvement, the article now better addresses the complexities of the names by which this day is called.
• In no case should the name "Maundy Thursday" be used in articles which discuss matters in a primarily Roman Catholic or Eastern Christian conext, for reasons which I think are obvious.

Thanks again for everyone's concern about these related topics. Happy Easter (or whatever you celebrate, and whatever you call it!) --Boston (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wet Monday discussion of "Maundy" vs "Holy" in other articles

I'm going to agree, except that the "primarily" needs to be a little different. If an article is about something which is strictly Roman Catholic or Eastern, then I agree--otherwise, existing usage should be left alone. For this reason, in view of his silence, I'm going to revert some of the edits User:Lima made recently to articles which are not strictly Roman Catholic, where he altered Maundy to Holy. Tb (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you start forcing the term "Maundy Thursday" on articles which have 99% to do with Catholicism and with %1 High Church Anglican (or whatever) we're going to have a problem. While a discussion like we just had isn't strictly a contest and I didn't consider it as such, I'd ask you with all editorial fraternity not to be a "sore winner". We needed to choose a single title for this article and we did. That doesn't mean we chose a single title for use across Wikipedia. Thanks. --Boston (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't propose a single title across Wikipedia; I proposed a WP:ENGVAR style solution: we leave existing text alone, unless the article relates to only one tradition, and then we use the term in that tradition. Gremiales and the Angelus do not relate to only one tradition.

I'm sorry, Tb, I don't understand the reference to my "silence". I thought the silence was on your part, in not responding to what I said about the article Gremiale. Carolyn too said that certain Anglicans use the specific books mentioned, which are issued not for the Anglican Church but precisely for the Roman Catholic liturgy. Does the Byzantine liturgy cease to be the Byzantine liturgy just because some non-Byzantines adopt elements from it? Is the use of the Byzantine liturgy by others a reason to change the Byzantine-specific terminology in articles about the Byzantine liturgy? Does the Roman-Rite liturgy, and in particular its official books, cease to be the Roman-Rite liturgy and its books because of being adopted by others? If some others use elements of the Roman-Rite liturgy, should we for that reason change the specific terminology in articles about the Roman-Rite liturgy, such as Gremiale?

But why on earth am I repeating myself just because someone who has not answered these observations says it is I who have been silent! Lima (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the books, but to the actual objects called gremiales, and the actual prayers called the Angelus, which are not only Roman Catholic. Tb (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tb reverted the article Angelus to the use "Maundy Thursday" (Trying to use "Maundy Thursday" in the Angelus article is a "Hail Mary pass" that won't succeed!) The handful of Anglicans and Lutherans who have hung on to or revived the distinctively Roman Catholic devotional practice of the Angelus does not justify referring to the Thursday before Easter as "Maundy Thursday" in this article. Nor can we refer to "Maundy Thursday" when we're discussing any topic having to do with Eastern Christianity. Nor, for that matter, will we be referring to "Holy Thursday" when we're discussing how the Queen of England spends that day. The discussion above clearly shows there's a plurality of usage that we have to reflect in various contexts. It bears repeating "We needed to choose a single title for this article and we did. That doesn't mean we chose a single title for use across Wikipedia." --Boston (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Boston, for drawing my attention to this (I hadn't bothered to check the articles). And I see that Tb has also quietly changed the article Gremiale without deigning to continue the discussion, on which it is he who is silent! Lima (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Boston is absolutely right in saying that the day is known by more than one name. It has been shown that even Anglicans have been known to use "Holy Thursday" for the day before Good Friday. The fact that Eucharist is the name of a Wikipedia article does not justify anybody insisting on using that name in place of "Holy Communion" or "The Lord's Supper" throughout Wikipedia. In the same way, why should the choice of "Maundy Thursday" for the title of this article (a decision that gained my support once I learned - something that was absent from the article until I myself inserted it - that "Holy Thursday" is ambiguous because of Anglican usage of it to mean Ascension Day) mean that it should be used throughout Wikipedia? Lima (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

A question aside: Did we determine Anglicans call the Ascension "Holy Thursday" or did we just state that Ascension is "a holy Thursday"? --Boston (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the usage in the Book of Common Prayer, and is referenced twice in the present version of the article: "THE ASCENSION DAY BEING THE FORTIETH DAY AFTER EASTER SOMETIMES CALLED HOLY THURSDAY"; "Holy Thursday or the Ascension of our Lord". Lima (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Good to learn something new! --Boston (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• To my mind the point about Gremiale is not that it is or is not exclusively an RC article, but that, like several of these articles, it began from the US Catholic Encyc. of 1913, although I note that when the relevant bit was added [4] it was "Maundy" - in fact by User:MishaPan who is a US Orthodox priest. But to my mind, if the Catholic Encyclopedia text as added (largely copied I think) had mentioned the day, it would have been "Holy", so that style is established for that article under WP:ENGVAR. I think myself, given the unfamiliarity with the "other" term recorded by so many people above, that ideally we should use "Maundy Thursday (Holy Thursday)" or vice versa throughout on first mention in an article. If the editors above, all with an interest in the subject, were unfamiliar with the other term until some relatively recent point in adulthood, how confused will many WP readers be? Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia of almost exactly a century ago was written when there was no official Catholic liturgy in English and so no official Catholic name in English for the day. Very many of the articles were written by Englishmen, and they naturally used the name current in England. If I remember correctly, the article in that encyclopedia on the day in question is titled "Maundy Thursday". Lima (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Lima on this matter. Gremiale and Angelus are articles about an essentially Roman Catholic topic. When the language in the 98-year old Catholic Encyclopedia differs from modern Catholic parlance, we should update it. Johnbod, you theorize a possibility for confusion if the term "Holy Thursday" is used. Well, "Maundy Thursday" now implies a context related to Anglicanism and historically-related Protestant denominations. Using it to discuss (for example) Gremiale and Angelus is more confusing and extremely inappropriate. Fortunately for all of us, Wikipedia has clickable links. --Boston (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept at all that "Holy Thursday" is the "official" name, or the the only official name, for English Catholics, & so for all WP RC purposes. Lima has produced one recent book, translated from the Latin, but the website of the RC Cathedral in London, & seat of the head of the English church, only uses "Maundy Thursday", as in practice do all English Catholics except I suppose some with foreign origins. Let's be clear about this: if an exclusievely RC article (a rather elusive beast it appears) were to be established using British English, it should not be changed per WP:ENGVAR. Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Really, worrying about English Catholic terminology seems beside the point. There are 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales out of 1.05 billion Roman Catholics worldwide. I'm not that concerned about them for the purpose of this discussion. We were trying to get a title that better represented a world view. I think we failed, but as I expressed, I've no bitterness over that. I'm less accepting of the idea that the name "Maundy Thursday" would be forced into the article about the (for example) the Angelus. --Boston (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am well aware that you and Lima are trying to brush the English RC usage under the carpet! The non-English-speaking Catholics are irrelevant here, & in fact there are many other variants in other languages, "Green Thursday" in German, Dutch etc. None of us I think know for a fact that other 3rd world countries with English missionaries don't use Maundy either. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod, declarations about other editors' supposed motives are almost never helpful. I have no interest in addressing a concern delivered with that preamble. --Boston (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing "essentially Roman Catholic" about a Gremiale unless you are also going to say that anointing is an essentially Roman Catholic thing; there is nothing "essentially Roman Catholic" about the Angelus unless you are also going to say that devotion to Mary is. They are both distinctly western, but the POV that all western catholicism is RCC is a rather offensive POV, as I am sure you know. Numerical predominance is not the issue, if we are using WP:ENGVAR as our model. Tb (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus and stay happy

• Lima and Tb: I noted that Tb voiced unhappiness that Lima didn't explain certain edits, and I'm not surprised Lima was apparently bothered by that and then turned the tables to note where Tb seems to have done what Tb complained about what Lima doing, but let's try to avoid "discussion about the discussion" and focus just on the issues. It seems we're all editing in good faith so let's all nudge this back into the area of "friendly discussion" and enjoy bettering Wikipedia together! Thanks and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed fully on the practical level. On the theoretical level no. Your interpretation of my grounds for annoyance is mistaken, as is your idea that I "turned the tables to note where Tb seems to ..." Tb and I had been discussing the question here (see under the heading "Ignoring consensus"). Tb asked: "I'm still waiting to hear about your view on articles that are not strictly about Roman Catholic liturgy, such as Gremiale, Angelus, and Altar bell." I responded immediately: "Well, take the first one you mention, Gremiale ..." and proceeded to explain my point of view. Tb never answered, but instead actually says I have been silent. Reverting a change seems to me a normal reaction on the part of editors in normal circumstances, and I am not surprised at Tb's early reverting my edit to Angelus. What I do not agree with is the breaking-off without explanation of an on-going discussion about a particular edit and then at that point reverting the edit with the aggravation of saying that it is the other party who is refusing to continue the discussion. Lima (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe when I had written that, you had not yet written the "well, take the firstone you mention..." bit. If I was mistaken I apologize. By silent, I certainly did not intend to imply that you were refusing anything, simply that you had chosen not to comment on that bit. So as for Gremiale:

• The article mentions particular liturgical books of the Roman rite, but that does not mean that the use of the articles is specific to that rite; simply that the article was copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia and received little attention since. The question, it seems to me, is whether gremiales are specifically a RCC vestment, and, as it happens, they are not. Their use is not an example of "following the RC liturgy"; it's an example of some bishops and priests not wanting to get their vestments dirty. Tb (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I just meant that let's go easy on each other about how thoroughly and how promptly we justify individual edits while discussing the broader topic(s) here. Let's try to "go easy" on one another in general and try to interpret each other's comments in the best possible way. Everyone smile, say a prayer for compassion and patience if you are a pray-er, and perhaps munch some endorphin-releasing chocolate animal. - --Boston (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept unconditionally Tb's conditional ("If I") expression of regret for not having noticed that my reply of 11:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC) appeared immediately below his question of 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC). We can disregard all this and continue below our discussion of the article "Gremiale", gathering together what has already been said in different parts of this page and that Tb is having difficulty in keeping in mind.

The Gremiale article

I'm still waiting to hear about your view on articles that are not strictly about Roman Catholic liturgy, such as Gremiale, Angelus, and Altar bell, among others. ... Tb (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, take the first one you mention, Gremiale. It begins: "A gremiale, sometimes anglicized as gremial, is a square or oblong cloth which a bishop, according to the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale" ..." Aren't the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale" books about the Roman Catholic liturgy? Or are there other books with the same name issued by, for instance, the Church of England? The only category under which the article is classified is "Roman Catholic vestments". So the article does seem to be, to quote your own words, "only about the Roman Catholic liturgy". ... Lima (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the Byzantine liturgy cease to be the Byzantine liturgy just because some non-Byzantines adopt elements from it? Is the use of the Byzantine liturgy by others a reason to change the Byzantine-specific terminology in articles about the Byzantine liturgy? Does the Roman-Rite liturgy, and in particular its official books, cease to be the Roman-Rite liturgy and its books because of being adopted by others? If some others use elements of the Roman-Rite liturgy, should we for that reason change the specific terminology in articles about the Roman-Rite liturgy, such as Gremiale? Lima (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the books, but to the actual objects called gremiales, and the actual prayers called the Angelus, which are not only Roman Catholic. Tb (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions particular liturgical books of the Roman rite, but that does not mean that the use of the articles is specific to that rite; simply that the article was copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia and received little attention since. The question, it seems to me, is whether gremiales are specifically a RCC vestment, and, as it happens, they are not. Their use is not an example of "following the RC liturgy"; it's an example of some bishops and priests not wanting to get their vestments dirty. Tb (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article, which has been placed in the category "Roman Catholic vestments" and in no other, seems to me to deal, in its present form, only with the gremiale as used in the Catholic Church. It speaks not of any cloth placed on the knees, but of a cloth which a bishop, according to the "Cæremoniale Episcoporum" and "Pontificale", should wear over his lap in certain circumstances. The definition is of a liturgical vestment whose precise use is laid down by rules of the Roman Rite, not of similar aprons worn by others. So as the article now stands, there is no reason why the official English term in the Roman-Rite liturgy for the day before Good Friday should be excluded from it.

Secondly, even if you were to count the number of bishops who do use a gremiale (in a wider sense than that described in the article), the Roman Catholics bishops, if not the majority (although this is likely), are still a sizeable enough portion of those involved to make it permissible (I didn't say obligatory) to use in this article the name that they (and perhaps several of the others) use in the context of the liturgy, which is "Holy Thursday", a fully legitimate name for the day. Lima (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sure some High Church Anglican clergy use these when they rev up the "smells and bells", but also agree with the feeling that there might be dozens or hundreds of gremiales in Catholic use for every one used in a Protestant setting, but see my comments below. I'd prefer a solution that would make us all less than delighted to a solution that would any of us aghast. --Boston (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My proposal for the use of the term "Maundy Thursday" or "Holy Thursday" in other articles

I'm dropping out of the above threads, because I'm finding it too hard to keep track of the conversation, and that seems inevitably to result in misunderstanding and bad imputations of motives. So I'm going to (sigh) start a new thread here. Here is my proposal, whose substance is borrowed from the ideas of WP:ENGVAR.

• Articles which are specifically about some particular group of Christians or geographical area (RCCs, say, or Methodists, or a subset of those) should use the liturgical or theological terminology commonly in use for that community;
• Articles which are about generic terminology or subjects in common to more than one particular group should use the term held in common, if there is one. (So all Western Rite discussions would use "Eucharist" and Eastern Rite ones would use "Divine Liturgy", for example.)
• Articles which are about generic terminology or subjects in common to more than one particular group, when there is no term held in common, should use the "first use" rule of WP:ENGVAR.

This is, I think, a good principled compromise. It is almost what User:Lima seemed to be doing in his edits last week: most of the cases he altered Maundy->Holy were particular RC churches, or discussions of holidays in Peru, for example, where it is clear that the term "Maundy" is nearly unknown. The only exceptions were these, AFAICT: Gremiale, Angelus, and Altar bell. I don't believe there is any controversy about Altar bell. Tb (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am quite unsure where there even is a genuine tradition of the use of a Gremiale for the footwashing. It seems odd, since (1) I don't know how it's supposed to stay put if the bishop is down on his knees washing feet, and (2) the bishop is supposed to remove the chasuble anyway, so what is it there to protect? I should check my copy of the CE; the guy who added the mention may simply have been incorrect. As for Altar Bell and Angelus, "Thursday before Easter" is certainly a reasonable compromise which I would agree to as well, if some people believe (however incorrectly) that "Maundy" is a "protestant" term. Tb (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What we are, or should be, discussing is the existing article, not the article as someone thinks it ought to be. (By the way, the present Caeremoniale Episcoporum does mention use of a gremiale linteum (of linen) by a bishop celebrating the Missa in Cena Domini, but does not make it obligatory: "pro opportunitate".) I don't say that "Maundy" is a "protestant" term. In fact, if Anglicans are not Protestants, as some Anglican editors of Wikipedia insist, then "Maundy Thursday" is not at all a Protestant term. For Catholics the official liturgical term in English is "Holy Thursday", but for non-Anglican Protestants (or, you prefer, simply for Protestants) both "Maundy Thursday" and "Holy Thursday" are in common use, as is indicated by the sources quoted in the article. Neither name should be excluded. We may use either. Lima (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the editor who expressed the feeling that "Maundy Thursday" is a Protestant term. It was an un-nuanced choice of words on my part and I apologize for it having complicated this delicate discussion. --Boston (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again I strongly object to the suggestion that "Maundy" is not an official RC name in English. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we please distinguish and agree? It is no business of the Church to decree an official way for Catholics to refer to the day in newspapers, timetables and everyday life. It goes without saying that Catholics can and do refer to the day by whatever name is customary where they live. In England, they usually say "Maundy Thursday", a name neither imposed nor forbidden by the Church in England. In Ireland, they say "Holy Thursday", a name neither imposed nor forbidden by the Church in Ireland. In other countries, - fill it in yourself. But for its official liturgical books in English, and only for those (unless you also count documents such as Pope John Paul II's annual Holy Thursday letters to priests), the Church has in fact picked, out of all those available, one term as the term it uses in English. Agreed? Lima (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The official name for this name day, for Catholics worldwide, in English, is "Holy Thursday". I hope we agree on that and here's an example of the Vatican preferred choice in the English language Yet, as Johnbod emphatically reminds us, "Maundy Thursday" does indeed have some "official-ness" among Catholics in England and Wales in that it is used by (for example) documents released by Westminster Cathedral. However, for the articles we are discussing, the official-ness of "Maundy Thursday" in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is not relevant. Most Anglophone Catholics live outside England. If we're discussing something particularly Catholic that is not particular to England and Wales, we'll use "Holy Thursday." If we happen to be discussing an article about something that is particularly Catholic and particularly English -- let's say Westminster Cathedral again -- then we should probably say "Maundy Thursday". Suppose we need to mention this day in an article about (English-born) Pope Adrian IV? Again, I would do with "Maundy Thursday" but that doesn't affect the decisions we'd make in an article about John Paul II, the Angelus, the Rosary, or the Jesuits. --Boston (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with the unqualified statement that for Catholics world worldwide the official name is "Holy Thursday". It should be qualified with a reference to the liturgy in English. Outside of that context, no name is "the official name" (in the sense of being declared the only proper name) - or if you prefer, all names are "official names" (in the sense that all may legitimately be used). Catholics may use whatever understandable name they like. That holds also for bishops. When they use one name, they don't thereby declare it to be the one and only official name to be used wherever they hold authority, to the exclusion of all other names. In the article the cathedral of Hexham and Newcastle is quoted as using "Maundy Thursday". The same cathedral also uses "Holy Thursday" (see Cathedral Church of St Mary, Scripture Readings). So neither name is there "the official name", but you can say that both are "official names". Lima (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I thought properly qualified my statement when I said "...for Catholics worldwide, in English, is 'Holy Thursday'" (emphasis added) but I agree with your message. "Official" is a very limiting word. An authority almost needs to explicitly say something is "official" before it can be considered official. What we're really discussing might best be deemed "preferred usage". As popular as the usage "Maundy Thursday" might be among the 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales, I think everyone but Johnbod agrees that whether or not "Maundy Thursday" is preferred usage among English and Welsh Catholics, it shouldn't be our preferred term for use in for articles about particularly Roman Catholic matters when those matters aren't exclusive to England/Wales. The United States has the fourth largest Catholic population in the world (after Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines). While some of those 67.5 million American Catholics aren't Anglophone, these (like those in Brazil, Mexico) mostly speak Romance languages and would say Jueves Santo or Quinta-Feira Santa (i.e. "Holy Thursday", of course). --Boston (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be preferred, but it should not be changed in RC articles started in UK English style, on ENGVAR grounds. More and more I think the "other" form should be given in brackets in many or most articles, which really is the best way to resolve these matters, if a bit inelegant. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement about preferred usage also needs qualification. Preferred usage for Catholic documents in English intended universally (not for a single country only)? I think even Johnbod agrees with that: "Holy Thursday" is the form that has in fact been chosen, and exclusively so, for such documents (liturgy, letters of JPII ...). Preferred usage for English Catholics? If we abstract from the liturgical texts, "Maundy Thursday" may well be the preferred (though not exclusive) usage there. Preferred usage for a certain category of Wikipedia articles (as I understand you to qualify it)? There's the rub. Probably all would by now agree in principle, even Tb; but as we have experienced, there are hot disputes whether certain articles do fall within that category; so the formula is of somewhat limited practical usefulness. Lima (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thursday before Easter

IMHO, I think Holy Thursday is more appropriate for Gremiale, but I could reluctantly stay quiet with "Maundy Thursday" being used therein. Using "Maundy Thursday" for Angelus (or if needed rosary etc.) would just be just too bizarre for me as even in non-Catholic communities that use these devotions, there's an awareness that they are seen as distinctively Catholic. (Just like there are countless thousands of icons located in Western churches of all denominations but all are acknowledged as distinctively Eastern Christian). Thursday before Easter for both of these last two articles seems a good compromise. We might also set precedent that whenever this becomes a hot issue with any article “Thursday before Easter” should be chosen. Sometimes it will be Orthodox or Oriental Christians feeling left out of Western Christian wordage, sometimes vice versa. Eventually we'll have little disagreements between the proverbial hyperbolically-named "Second Assembly of Jesus Church of Zion United Orthodox Episcopal Catholic Universal Church of Christ the King" and the “Third Assembly...” of similar name four blocks down the same street. If we can identify a way to consistently defuse these edit conflicts, let's embrace it. I'd prefer a solution that would make us all less than delighted to a solution that would any of us aghast. --Boston (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What about "Mass of the Lord's Supper" instead of Maundy/Holy Thursday? The use of the linen apron and the singing of the Gloria and the other matters that are causing difficulty concern that Mass. They do not the day as a whole nor the other Mass that may be celebrated on that day: the Chrism Mass. I would be quite happy with that. A wikilink would bring the reader to the present article, and that ought to satisfy those who want to have "Maundy Thursday" plastered throughout Wikipedia. Would they accept it? "Thursday before Easter" is such an unfamiliar name, it would have people wondering what can it possibly mean and then, by an effortful process of counting back, perhaps coming to understand what it refers to concretely. Lima (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'll make what I think are suitable edits to the articles. Tb (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have any Christians having a Maundy/Holy Thursday service which is not a mass but are essentially using this same item? It's very doubtful they would call it a "Gremiale" but.... --Boston (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Not worrying about language, I'll venture to say the answer is "no". If it turns out that's wrong, we can find a different compromise term, I'm sure. But "Mass of the Lord's Supper" is an excellent choice for Altar bell and Gremiale for the reasons User:Lima gives. For Angelus, I've ventured a different solution, which I think helps the article anyhow. The point is that six "angelus moments" are skipped each year: those on Good Friday and Holy Saturday; so better to just say that. I have my cell phone programmed to beep me thrice daily for the angelus, and I admit I forget to turn it off before Friday morning, so I got one extra beep I shouldn't have.  :) Enjoy Easter Monday, and my apologizies for my own role in making this a harder discussion than it needed to be. Tb (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, I did not say I agree to either of these so-called compromises. But (...wait for it) indeed I do. Very well done. --Boston (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. I was assuming that you would likely agree with User:Lima. Tb (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Remove tags?

I presume that the "globalize" tag at the start of the article was in relation to the use of the name "Maundy Thursday". That question has been settled. Any objection to removing the tag? The other tag at the start of the article, asking for additional citations, has probably also been sufficiently answered by now. Any objection to removing this tag also? Lima (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has objected, at least so far. Lima (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Revote on Renaming

I think it should be renamed Holy Thursday. Holy Thursdy is a term used in most of the world since 1960. THIS TERM IS UNIVERSALY ACCEPTED. It should be changed to Holy Thursday on the English Wikipedia. I can not, and nobody I know can define "Maundy". Come on, this term is old english and NO ONE uses it anymore. Please Reconsider! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewrp (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think clearly you are incorrect here, as the discussion above shows. Tb (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

choice of graphic

The icon which previously was used as a lead graphic is lovely, and has been on this page for nearly two years (see [5]). The Da Vinci reproduction, despite User:Andrewp's shouting here [6] is difficult to make out, and has washed-out colors. I strongly prefer the previous image, and suggest that any change requires consensus, and not just shouting. Tb (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the Icon should be removed and replaced by the DaVinci painting. I think the DaVinci has more to do with it, has a better quality, and is one of the best on Wikipedia. Also, there was the institution of the Priesthood on Holy Thursday. (look up mass of the lords supper) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.216.84 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether the da-vinci won an award on the Spanish wikipedia for being awesome isn't really relevant here in my opinion. The icon is quite clear, while the da-vinci loses a lot in the reproduction and suffers from the degraded colors the fresco has (unfortunately) suffered over the years. Moreover, in an article with an overwhelming focus on western ecclesiastical matters, it is refreshing to have a more eastern treatment of the same topic. It's ludicrous to say that the da-vinci has "more to do with it"; the da-vinci is a fresco for a dining room, while the icon functions as a liturgical item specifically used on Maundy Thursday. In fact, the da-vinci has become so stereotyped in western culture, that I suspect it is often not perceived as tied to the specific liturgical celebration at all--and even is thought of by many as of principally secular interest (witness its stunning perspective experiments!). By contrast, the icon is clearly and immediately not only religious, but liturgical. Tb (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

institution of the priesthood

User:Angr removed the recent addition by User:Andrewp of the "institution of the priesthood" from the things celebrated on this day, asking for citation. User:Andrewp's rude edit comment notwithstanding [7] and all caps, do not substitute for a citation. Tb (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Commenting above, an IP editor assures us that the day really does celebrate the institution of the priesthood. Try as I might in the Ceremonial of Bishops, I can see only that the Chrism mass celebrates that, which happens on this day or some other. There isn't doubt that the Catholic tradition ascribes the institution of the priesthood to Maundy Thursday (though the Gospel of John perhaps would place it on Easter evening...) but that isn't the point; the question is whether it is specifically a part of the Thursday liturgical celebration, and not merely a part of the (movable) Chrism mass. So, we need a citation, not just assertion. (At least, that's my question; I can't speak for whether User:Angr has a distinct concern.) Tb (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Take, as an instance, Holy Thursday Evening Mass of the Lord's Supper, 45. This statement goes back at least to Pope Pius XII's revision of the liturgy of this Mass. It is found, for instance, in the 1962 Missal on page 155 under the number 13, and, of course, in the present Roman Missal in the Mass of the Lord's Supper under the number 9. Lima (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, so I think it should be added (with a reference to satisfy User:Angr's request. Can I suggest that counting the "number" of things celebrated is probably not a good idea; just a list is good. Tb (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Do those Christians who believe in the priesthood of all believers also consider the priesthood to have been established at the Last Supper? And wouldn't it make more sense to discuss the issue in the article Last Supper rather than here? —Angr 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Christians (Roman or Anglican or Orthodox or whatever) also believe in the priesthood of all believers. More to the point, the non-Catholics (speaking broadly) don't believe in the ministerial priesthood at all, so of course, don't believe it was "instituted" at all, whether on this day or any other. Or perhaps it's the day they believe Christian ministry was inaugurated, though I've never heard that and I don't see how it would go. So if User:Lima wishes to re-add the text, it presumably should be done in a way with a nod to those who don't believe there ever was such an institution. It is certainly the case that many of those still celebrate Maundy Thursday. Tb (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Name

I did a search for "Holy Thursday" and was surprised to be directed to this article. I had never heard of "Maundy" anything before, so I assumed I had searched incorrectly and searched again. After some confusion, I came to learn that some English people use this term for "Holy Thursday". So, my next obvious question was why is the article titled "Maundy Thursday"? I searched the archives and saw that this discussion has been played out before. However, when virtually all Catholics and U.S. English-speaking Christians call the day "Holy Thursday" (constituting the vast majority of Christians), how can we justify calling the article "Maundy Thursday"?LedRush (talk) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no objection to the change, and the archived record seems to indicate more support for the change, would anyone like to add anything before a change is made?LedRush (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate you for checking before moving. Have you read the heated discussion on the disccusion that was held on the occasion of last year's Holy Thursday? That discussion is referred to in the second item at the top of this page. I do not believe you can win consensus for a change. If you do wish to try, why not wait until close to this year's Holy Thursday, when more editors will be looking at this page. I am of course using "Holy Thursday" in your sense (and mine), not in the sense found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where (doubtless following general English usage before the Protestant Reformation) it means what you and I call Ascension Thursday. This ambiguity of the term "Holy Thursday" is, I think, an important reason for keeping "Maundy Thursday" as the title of the article: "Maundy Thursday" may be a less common term, but it is unambiguous and generally understood even by those who do not use it themselves. Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read the history and knew this was way too contentious to unilaterally move without a very, very long warning period. In my reading of the history, it looked like there was more support for "Holy Thursday" than "Maundy Thursday", but I could be mistaken. Also, I am not persuaded by the potential Holy/Ascension mix up: So very few Christians know of or use the term Maundy that the confusion of its use would be far greater than a mix up over Holy/Ascension. Any potential mix-up could be dealt with more easily than the Maundy/Holy mix up is: in the lead.LedRush (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went back through the archives and saw that while the discussions seem to favor a move, the last vote does not.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to set the record straight, the official Catholic term in English is "Holy Thursday" http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/holy-week/2009/index_en.htm Of course, this is not a dispositive argument. I am merely trying to get a baseline for impending discussions.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Methodists in the US use "Holy Thursday" in what appears to be an official capacity. http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=258&GID=180&GMOD=VWD&GCAT=H LedRush (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Internationally, Lutherans officially say "Maundy Thursday". http://www.lutheranworld.org/News/LWI/EN/2032.EN.html LedRush (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

American Presbytarians officially use "Maundy". http://www.pcusa.org/missionyearbook/Apr/09.htm LedRush (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Orthodox Catholic Church seems to use "Holy" (or "Holy and Great") http://www.homb.org/calendar-and-daily-readings/church-calendar.php LedRush (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglicans use "Maundy" http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm?mode=entry&entry=A908EEFA-0FA9-AFB6-3632ACDD53A6D8D1 LedRush (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Baptists don't appear to celebrate the holiday.LedRush (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the Names in English section of the article. In the previous consensus on this issue, it was decided to retain the name Maundy Thursday as the article title, especially since Holy Thursday is the alternate name for Ascension Day in some Churches. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read the section and, as I have indicated above, I have read the archive.LedRush (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think the arguments grounded in "confusion" (e.g., Holy/Ascension or "Great and Holy") are unpersuasive straw men. They can be easily dealt with in the lead or in a disambiguation reference at the top of the page, and I think there are excellent reasons to conclude that "Holy Thursday" is both a more generic or generalizable name, as well as less grounded in particular linguistic and religious traditions that are not shared by a majority of English speakers. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So, anyone have any new thoughts? This bothers me every year as the holdiday approaches, largely because the term Maundy Thursday is so rarely used in comparison to Holy Thursday.LedRush (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well my position speaks for itself. "Holy Thursday" is, in my opinion, a more generic or generalizable name and is more appropriate than "Maundy Thursday," which is marked by relatively narrow religious and linguistic traditions which are inappropriate considerations for the article title. Frankly I think that this has become something of a sectarian dispute, as my recollection of the past debates is that Catholics are (by and large) leading the charge to change the name to "Holy Thursday" and Protestants seek to maintain "Maundy." This is unfortunate, as it distracts from the fact that, irrespective of sectarian distinctions, "Holy" is more generic and generalizable and is, IMO, more appropriate. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've always seen this as a more nationilistic dispute, as Catholics throughout the world use the term Holy Thursyday, as do all Americans, regardless of religious affiliation. Really, since this is English Wikipedia, we have only English Protestants seeking to keep the minority name as the title of the article.LedRush (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. In the Anglophone world the day is definitely called "Holy Thursday" more. I think this is especially confusing for Americans because the term is quite literally almost never used here. The disambiguation reference at the top of the page would easily redirect people to Feast of the Ascension and Maundy would properly be used as an alternative name in the first line of the article. Where the confusion engendered by dual use of the term "Holy Thursday" is not ideal, I think that because that conflation of terms exists in areas that use both "Maundy" and "Holy" to refer to the Thursday before Easter there is an anticipation that "Holy Thursday" might be either day (and thus a quick look to the disambiguation reference would be in order), whereas in those parts of the English-speaking world that do not ever use "Maundy" the confusion lacks any context. As was said above, people tend to think they have landed upon the wrong page altogether.Treko (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is only "English Protestants". I am neither English nor Protestant, yet yesterday our church celebrated Maundy Thursday. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is an over-broad generalization (I know Americans who call it Maundy Thursday -- although no American Catholics), but independent of the denominational debate, I feel that "Holy Thursday" is simply a superior, more neutral term less influenced by a specific culture and linguistic tradition. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This issue was already settle in an RfC, where the community decided to retain the term "Maundy Thursday" for this article. Please read this discussion there. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 02:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

--It is absolutely bonkers to have the primary name be 'maundy' - to the vast, vast majority of Christians, it is Holy Thursday. What gives? I cannot believe that "So very few Christians know of or use the term "Maundy Thursday" " as claimed by [[User LedRuth) (above) - to the majority of us in my own country (Great Britain) this is the term that is commonly used for the day in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.1.129 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

50.252.249.155 (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)jpt

passover

This article seems to be more about the naming convention of different sects of Christians, and not on the day itself. How is it that the word "passover" does not appear in this article?LedRush (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the Christian celebration of Holy Thursday, not about the Jewish feast of Passover, which the Gospel of John describes as beginning on the evening of what we would call Good Friday, not Holy Thursday, of the year when Jesus died. See John 19:14, [8] and [9]. That complicates matters. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy Thursday is a celebration of the last supper, which was a celebration of passover, no?LedRush (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy Thursday is not a Passover Meal in John's gospel. Jesus is crucified on Preparation Day in that gospel (Jn 19:14). You are correct that the other three gospels treat the Last Supper as a Passover meal. Only the gospel of John has the story of the washing of the feet and the "mandatum" (Latin, "command") that the disciples should wash one another's feet (Jn 13:14). Martin X. Moleski, SJ (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)