This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. show |
There is a lot that we could do with the Christian liturgical year. It would be nice to have articles for each Sunday — at least each Sunday has set readings in a lot of traditions. It would be good to link together the calendars of various traditions too. I propose starting from the RCL calendar as it is now the most used calendar in the western liturgical tradition, and building from that. Would anyone be interested in setting up a Wikiproject for the liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 09:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True, the greatest number of churches use the RCL, but the largest number of Christians total still use the calendar of the Roman lectionary, which was represented in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as well (until the General Convention of 2006 adopted the RCL. . . for the time being.) 76.23.69.69 ( talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Cody Unterseher, TEC Priest
I haven't read a lot of the religion articles, but is it considered suitably neutral to do things like say Easter celebrates the day of "His resurrection"? Why not "easter is the date on which Christians celebrate what they believe to have been Jesus's resurrection"? It couldn't hurt...
I removed the following per my understanding of WP:EL:
The first is a subset of a subset of Christian tradition, adequately covered in
Traditionalist Catholic (Wikilinks always preferred to weblinks). The second is a Geocities site, and not an obvious authority. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD?
22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Easter Section needs to be expanded and the timing of the feast explained Japeo 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
When is there ever 34 Ordinary Sundays in the Liturgical Calendar? I thought by definition the Sunday before Christ the King, i.e. two Sundays before Advent Sunday, is the 33rd Sunday of the Year. Is there an example of a year when there were, or will be, 34 Sundays? Arcturus 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Christ the King is the 34th Sunday and labeled as such in the Lectionary. The rest of the week is the 34th or Last Week. Seasonally, Christ the King is part of Ordinary Time, just like Trinity Sunday, even though it's a fixed Feast. PaulGS 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence stating the number of Sundays in the first bit of Ordinary Time needs to come before the one indicating the variability in the start point, otherwise it is simply inaccurate (there may in fact be no Sundays in the first bit of OT in rites which treat Candlemas as the end of seasonal time – the Church of England follows such a pattern). The figure for the number of Sundays is three to eight for the Roman Rite, four to nine for rites which treat the Baptism of Christ as of Ordinary Time, and zero to five where seasonal time extends to Candlemas (there may be yet more possibilities). If this sentence is to have any value at all, it must be clear which rite it is referring to. Vilĉjo 07:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten and expanded the paragraph on Kingdomtide, hoping to show that the basic idea is very widespread (and not restricted to one kind of tradition). In the process, I removed the statement that the United Methodist Church observed Ordinary Time from September to November as "Kingdomtide", as this seemed very surprising, given that all other denominations that I know of only use that term for the last 3 or 4 weeks. Apologies if I have removed correct information (I did check out their website, but couldn't find anything relevant)! Vilĉjo 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of categorization, can anyone tell my the difference between a Christian Festival and a Christian Holy Day? Can anyone give an example of an article that would fit one but not the other? I'm planning on proposing a merge of the two categories ( Category:Christian holy days, Category:Christian festivals), because there is a lot of overlap. However, I want to make sure that there isn't a valid distinction before proceeding. - Andrew c 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a notion: This article says, "Should the Feasts of St. Joseph or the Annunciation fall during Holy Week, they are transferred to the week following Easter." But the article in this link says that "in 2008 the feast of St. Joseph will be celebrated... the day before Palm Sunday, and the feast of the Annunciation will be celebrated... the Monday after the second Sunday of Easter". Can someone fix the article with the link I've described, please? Thank you! -- Angeldeb82 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It may be more proper to use the expression "Roman Rite" rather than "Catholic" in several instances because not all Catholic Churches (i.e. the Eastern Rites) use the Roman Calendar. In that sense, more effort must be made to differentiate between the pre-1969 and post 1969 Roman Calendars. (This can be done without dredging up Traditional vs. Modern Rite animosity just as in the bit about the Feast of Christ the King.) Since I only stumbled across this page and don't have my research materials here, I didn't want to make any changes. I'd rather leave it up to the original author or regular contributors. Mattvsmith ( talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In the Ordinary Time sections, this statement, "Before the Roman liturgical calendar was reformed at the Second Vatican Council" is rather counter-factual. The Roman Calendar was not reformed at the Second Vatican Council, but by the committee that re-worked the liturgy and took effect the First Sunday of Advent in 1969. That's six years later. Chapter V of SC did not get into enough specifics to consider the reform as happening then and there. Mattvsmith ( talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to have a single section with one festival day in it (the Assumption), let alone that it is a festival that has less universal appeal and biblical support than, say, the Annunciation. Even if it stays, I would like to see a citation for the claim that it may be one of the earliest festivals. Preferably, I would hope for either a complete section on many festivals of the sanctoral cycle, or limit this article to the major seasons and central festivals of the church year.
As a liturgical Lutheran, it seems to me that the entire article has a strong Anglo-Catholic prejudice. Mplsbf ( talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As a frequent goer to an Anglican church, as I was looking through the article I found it a little offensive that someone had put in 'mass' instead of Eucharist as 'mass' is Catholic. I have corrected the one I found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjay09 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see some discussion about the history of some of these traditions. When did they start? Who started them? When was the liturgical calender solidified? This seems like a glaringly obvious omission. Rmawhorter ( talk) 19:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In describing the Hebrew calendar, the "Biblical calendar" section states
"Biblical calendars are based on the cycle of the new moon. The year is from the first new moon on or after the spring equinox to the next new moon on or after the spring equinox."
This is simply incorrect. If the spring equinox were the earliest date for that month, then April 4 would be the earliest date on which Passover can fall, which is not the case. Passsover can fall at least as early as March 26 and perhaps as early as March 25 (I'm not sure about the latter.) The section appears to be original research, and inaccurate original research at that.
I suggest deleting the section in its entirety and substituting a "see also" reference to the Hebrew calendar article. The fact is that the term "liturgy" is a technical term for discussing Christian religious ceremonies, and "liturgical calendar" is used only to refer to the calendars of Christian church traditions and is not a broader term referring to religious holiday calendars in general. Bob99 ( talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the Christianity "importance=top" rating.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on the talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). Carlaude: Talk 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There could maybe be an entry on World Mission Sunday, which was created by Pope Pius XI in 1926 as the day of prayer and propaganda of missions. [1] ADM ( talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the recent edits about the use of the Gloria Patri at the Introit: the rubrics (page 80-81 of the reference, [2] say that it is omitted "in masses of the season from the the I Sunday of Passiontide to Maundy Thursday, and in Masses of the Dead". "Masses of the season" (in Latin, de tempore), always refers to the Mass of a Sunday or feria, as opposed to the Mass of a feast, so the edit saying Gloria Patri is said on feasts during Passion Week is correct. PaulGS ( talk) 21:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Since you seem to prefer that I raise questions here, rather than edit the passage directly, here goes:
On what grounds does User:Dwo insist that this encyclopedia should incorporate a page from a blog that provides no information about the liturgical year other than the dates of beginning and ending and the vestment colours of the liturgical seasons of Advent, Christmastide, Ordinary Time, Lent, and Eastertide in a particular year, plus the correct colours for Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Pentecost, plus incorrect(!) colours for Epiphany (which it treats as celebrated everywhere on 6 January, not on the Sunday after 1 January), Laetare Sunday, Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi, Gaudete Sunday, Saint Stephen's Day, the Holy Innocents and perhaps yet more, and that omits all mention of important feast days such as Saints Peter and Paul, the Assumption, Christ the King? What reasons (other than perhaps that the blog is Dwo's own) can Dwo advance for its inclusion in Wikipedia? Esoglou ( talk) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello to all.
I am a Jew, and have been working slowly to upgrade the "Jewish Holiday" article. I came here mainly to see how the lede section of this article was written as a possible analogue. However, I happened to see this section, and wonder why the authors/editors here would have excluded the inclusion of a holiday on 1 Tishrei, which is a biblically-mandated date--the date we now refer to as "Rosh Hashanah," Jewish New Year. It may be a separate question how one would want to characterize it, but the festival date existed during the Second Temple era--during Jesus's life, if you will--so should be included somehow.
On a separate, more technical, note: Shavuot, strictly speaking, comes on the 50th day after the first day of Passover. Normally that is 6 Sivan, and certainly under the current fixed Jewish calendar it is always 6 Sivan. But when the Sanhedrin was still sitting on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem--and for a while after that, too--months were proclaimed by the Sanhedrin, and the calendar was not strictly fixed. So to say that Shavuot was always 6 Sivan would not really be correct.
Be bold? Sure, but I don't feel it is my place to edit this page directly. So may I suggest the following to someone for that entry:
Shavuot ( Pentecost) - fiftieth day following the first day of Passover (usually 6 Sivan)
StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of religions that use a "liturgical year", should those not be included also? 68.13.160.163 ( talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm no good at editing wiki, I'd just like that each page is properly sourced and to see that wiki reach its full potential.
The following are links to or about non-christian religions using the words "liturgical year" http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/courses-exams/course-catalog/religion-1212a-judaism-liturgical-year http://www.sksm.edu/academics/SyllabiS11/SchulmanSp2011.pdf http://www.jewishbrno.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=69&lang=en http://home.sandiego.edu/~lnelson/htrs/pw/svishnu.html http://www.arce.org/events/consortiumevents/2009/03/u117/CAIRO-LECTURE-The-Islamic-Liturgical-Year-in-the-Sermons-of-Ibn-Nubata-al-Fariqi
Liturgy as the basis of "Liturgical year", based solely on the wiki definition points to a liturgical year as being "formal (church) ritual"s across the year, or a churches yearly calendar. Based on this, stuff like the following http://www.sikhs.org/dates.htm should be included, or like Christian liturgy has it's own article, perhaps an article solely on the christian liturgical calendar? 68.13.160.163 ( talk) 05:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been scanning back and forth looking for differences, but it looks to me like the same "Liturgical year of the Catholic Church" info box is repeated six times. PurpleChez ( talk) 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I see that the East Syriac Rite section has been claimed to be plagiarized (infringes on copyright) from this article: https://www.syromalabarliturgy.org/assets/assettt/panchangam%20English%202021%20(1).pdf
I have done the work to check whether or not there was any plagiarism or copyright infringement involved, and I do not believe there was. Firstly, copyright does not apply to dates, names of things, ideas, data, facts, concepts, principles, discoveries, individual words, short phrases, or slogans. So, the only thing that needs to be checked is if the sentences have been plagiarized themselves. This can very easily be done by comparing the text of the two things in question. I have done so for this East Syriac Rite section, and the results are below, for each subsection:
The only thing that is even remotely close to plagiarism is the annunciation section, which only has a 9% match for these 5 phrases:
I think these can easily be rewritten so they are no longer this close of a match. I do not think this warrants the whole section being hidden though. I will link the documents that show the above results here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GgpV3q7v5zqSOdlqjmPjWWwAjtUtvQxe?usp=sharing After doing a report on both texts in full, it came back with under 1% match. This is shown in the "FullReport.pdf" file in the link above. Krixano ( talk) 10:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I also just noticed that the potential copyright violation seems to have never been reported to Copyright Problems page. Krixano ( talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I have used a different site just to make sure I'm right about this. When I compare the revision with the potential copyright violation to the source given in the copyright notice, I get this result: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=993520623&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.syromalabarliturgy.org%2Fassets%2Fassettt%2Fpanchangam%2520English%25202021%2520%281%29.pdf Krixano ( talk) 12:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The mention of the spelling "kalendar" does not warrant being in the lead - there's precisely one modern source, viz. some random parish in America. All the other attestations are at least 100 years old. It's clearly not in common use. Wereon ( talk) 09:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 11 dates. show |
There is a lot that we could do with the Christian liturgical year. It would be nice to have articles for each Sunday — at least each Sunday has set readings in a lot of traditions. It would be good to link together the calendars of various traditions too. I propose starting from the RCL calendar as it is now the most used calendar in the western liturgical tradition, and building from that. Would anyone be interested in setting up a Wikiproject for the liturgical year? Gareth Hughes 09:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True, the greatest number of churches use the RCL, but the largest number of Christians total still use the calendar of the Roman lectionary, which was represented in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer as well (until the General Convention of 2006 adopted the RCL. . . for the time being.) 76.23.69.69 ( talk) 10:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Cody Unterseher, TEC Priest
I haven't read a lot of the religion articles, but is it considered suitably neutral to do things like say Easter celebrates the day of "His resurrection"? Why not "easter is the date on which Christians celebrate what they believe to have been Jesus's resurrection"? It couldn't hurt...
I removed the following per my understanding of WP:EL:
The first is a subset of a subset of Christian tradition, adequately covered in
Traditionalist Catholic (Wikilinks always preferred to weblinks). The second is a Geocities site, and not an obvious authority. -
Just zis Guy, you know?
[T]/
[C]
AfD?
22:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Easter Section needs to be expanded and the timing of the feast explained Japeo 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
When is there ever 34 Ordinary Sundays in the Liturgical Calendar? I thought by definition the Sunday before Christ the King, i.e. two Sundays before Advent Sunday, is the 33rd Sunday of the Year. Is there an example of a year when there were, or will be, 34 Sundays? Arcturus 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Christ the King is the 34th Sunday and labeled as such in the Lectionary. The rest of the week is the 34th or Last Week. Seasonally, Christ the King is part of Ordinary Time, just like Trinity Sunday, even though it's a fixed Feast. PaulGS 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence stating the number of Sundays in the first bit of Ordinary Time needs to come before the one indicating the variability in the start point, otherwise it is simply inaccurate (there may in fact be no Sundays in the first bit of OT in rites which treat Candlemas as the end of seasonal time – the Church of England follows such a pattern). The figure for the number of Sundays is three to eight for the Roman Rite, four to nine for rites which treat the Baptism of Christ as of Ordinary Time, and zero to five where seasonal time extends to Candlemas (there may be yet more possibilities). If this sentence is to have any value at all, it must be clear which rite it is referring to. Vilĉjo 07:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten and expanded the paragraph on Kingdomtide, hoping to show that the basic idea is very widespread (and not restricted to one kind of tradition). In the process, I removed the statement that the United Methodist Church observed Ordinary Time from September to November as "Kingdomtide", as this seemed very surprising, given that all other denominations that I know of only use that term for the last 3 or 4 weeks. Apologies if I have removed correct information (I did check out their website, but couldn't find anything relevant)! Vilĉjo 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of categorization, can anyone tell my the difference between a Christian Festival and a Christian Holy Day? Can anyone give an example of an article that would fit one but not the other? I'm planning on proposing a merge of the two categories ( Category:Christian holy days, Category:Christian festivals), because there is a lot of overlap. However, I want to make sure that there isn't a valid distinction before proceeding. - Andrew c 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a notion: This article says, "Should the Feasts of St. Joseph or the Annunciation fall during Holy Week, they are transferred to the week following Easter." But the article in this link says that "in 2008 the feast of St. Joseph will be celebrated... the day before Palm Sunday, and the feast of the Annunciation will be celebrated... the Monday after the second Sunday of Easter". Can someone fix the article with the link I've described, please? Thank you! -- Angeldeb82 03:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It may be more proper to use the expression "Roman Rite" rather than "Catholic" in several instances because not all Catholic Churches (i.e. the Eastern Rites) use the Roman Calendar. In that sense, more effort must be made to differentiate between the pre-1969 and post 1969 Roman Calendars. (This can be done without dredging up Traditional vs. Modern Rite animosity just as in the bit about the Feast of Christ the King.) Since I only stumbled across this page and don't have my research materials here, I didn't want to make any changes. I'd rather leave it up to the original author or regular contributors. Mattvsmith ( talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
In the Ordinary Time sections, this statement, "Before the Roman liturgical calendar was reformed at the Second Vatican Council" is rather counter-factual. The Roman Calendar was not reformed at the Second Vatican Council, but by the committee that re-worked the liturgy and took effect the First Sunday of Advent in 1969. That's six years later. Chapter V of SC did not get into enough specifics to consider the reform as happening then and there. Mattvsmith ( talk) 02:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to have a single section with one festival day in it (the Assumption), let alone that it is a festival that has less universal appeal and biblical support than, say, the Annunciation. Even if it stays, I would like to see a citation for the claim that it may be one of the earliest festivals. Preferably, I would hope for either a complete section on many festivals of the sanctoral cycle, or limit this article to the major seasons and central festivals of the church year.
As a liturgical Lutheran, it seems to me that the entire article has a strong Anglo-Catholic prejudice. Mplsbf ( talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As a frequent goer to an Anglican church, as I was looking through the article I found it a little offensive that someone had put in 'mass' instead of Eucharist as 'mass' is Catholic. I have corrected the one I found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanjay09 ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see some discussion about the history of some of these traditions. When did they start? Who started them? When was the liturgical calender solidified? This seems like a glaringly obvious omission. Rmawhorter ( talk) 19:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In describing the Hebrew calendar, the "Biblical calendar" section states
"Biblical calendars are based on the cycle of the new moon. The year is from the first new moon on or after the spring equinox to the next new moon on or after the spring equinox."
This is simply incorrect. If the spring equinox were the earliest date for that month, then April 4 would be the earliest date on which Passover can fall, which is not the case. Passsover can fall at least as early as March 26 and perhaps as early as March 25 (I'm not sure about the latter.) The section appears to be original research, and inaccurate original research at that.
I suggest deleting the section in its entirety and substituting a "see also" reference to the Hebrew calendar article. The fact is that the term "liturgy" is a technical term for discussing Christian religious ceremonies, and "liturgical calendar" is used only to refer to the calendars of Christian church traditions and is not a broader term referring to religious holiday calendars in general. Bob99 ( talk) 17:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the Christianity "importance=top" rating.
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list for the list of Top-importance Christianity articles. As of 1 April 2009, there are just 80 articles on the list. If you would like to remove one or add one, start a discussion on the talk page first (the list is designed to be smaller than 100 articles). Carlaude: Talk 19:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
There could maybe be an entry on World Mission Sunday, which was created by Pope Pius XI in 1926 as the day of prayer and propaganda of missions. [1] ADM ( talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the recent edits about the use of the Gloria Patri at the Introit: the rubrics (page 80-81 of the reference, [2] say that it is omitted "in masses of the season from the the I Sunday of Passiontide to Maundy Thursday, and in Masses of the Dead". "Masses of the season" (in Latin, de tempore), always refers to the Mass of a Sunday or feria, as opposed to the Mass of a feast, so the edit saying Gloria Patri is said on feasts during Passion Week is correct. PaulGS ( talk) 21:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. Since you seem to prefer that I raise questions here, rather than edit the passage directly, here goes:
On what grounds does User:Dwo insist that this encyclopedia should incorporate a page from a blog that provides no information about the liturgical year other than the dates of beginning and ending and the vestment colours of the liturgical seasons of Advent, Christmastide, Ordinary Time, Lent, and Eastertide in a particular year, plus the correct colours for Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Pentecost, plus incorrect(!) colours for Epiphany (which it treats as celebrated everywhere on 6 January, not on the Sunday after 1 January), Laetare Sunday, Trinity Sunday, Corpus Christi, Gaudete Sunday, Saint Stephen's Day, the Holy Innocents and perhaps yet more, and that omits all mention of important feast days such as Saints Peter and Paul, the Assumption, Christ the King? What reasons (other than perhaps that the blog is Dwo's own) can Dwo advance for its inclusion in Wikipedia? Esoglou ( talk) 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello to all.
I am a Jew, and have been working slowly to upgrade the "Jewish Holiday" article. I came here mainly to see how the lede section of this article was written as a possible analogue. However, I happened to see this section, and wonder why the authors/editors here would have excluded the inclusion of a holiday on 1 Tishrei, which is a biblically-mandated date--the date we now refer to as "Rosh Hashanah," Jewish New Year. It may be a separate question how one would want to characterize it, but the festival date existed during the Second Temple era--during Jesus's life, if you will--so should be included somehow.
On a separate, more technical, note: Shavuot, strictly speaking, comes on the 50th day after the first day of Passover. Normally that is 6 Sivan, and certainly under the current fixed Jewish calendar it is always 6 Sivan. But when the Sanhedrin was still sitting on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem--and for a while after that, too--months were proclaimed by the Sanhedrin, and the calendar was not strictly fixed. So to say that Shavuot was always 6 Sivan would not really be correct.
Be bold? Sure, but I don't feel it is my place to edit this page directly. So may I suggest the following to someone for that entry:
Shavuot ( Pentecost) - fiftieth day following the first day of Passover (usually 6 Sivan)
StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There are a lot of religions that use a "liturgical year", should those not be included also? 68.13.160.163 ( talk) 21:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm no good at editing wiki, I'd just like that each page is properly sourced and to see that wiki reach its full potential.
The following are links to or about non-christian religions using the words "liturgical year" http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/courses-exams/course-catalog/religion-1212a-judaism-liturgical-year http://www.sksm.edu/academics/SyllabiS11/SchulmanSp2011.pdf http://www.jewishbrno.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=69&lang=en http://home.sandiego.edu/~lnelson/htrs/pw/svishnu.html http://www.arce.org/events/consortiumevents/2009/03/u117/CAIRO-LECTURE-The-Islamic-Liturgical-Year-in-the-Sermons-of-Ibn-Nubata-al-Fariqi
Liturgy as the basis of "Liturgical year", based solely on the wiki definition points to a liturgical year as being "formal (church) ritual"s across the year, or a churches yearly calendar. Based on this, stuff like the following http://www.sikhs.org/dates.htm should be included, or like Christian liturgy has it's own article, perhaps an article solely on the christian liturgical calendar? 68.13.160.163 ( talk) 05:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been scanning back and forth looking for differences, but it looks to me like the same "Liturgical year of the Catholic Church" info box is repeated six times. PurpleChez ( talk) 16:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I see that the East Syriac Rite section has been claimed to be plagiarized (infringes on copyright) from this article: https://www.syromalabarliturgy.org/assets/assettt/panchangam%20English%202021%20(1).pdf
I have done the work to check whether or not there was any plagiarism or copyright infringement involved, and I do not believe there was. Firstly, copyright does not apply to dates, names of things, ideas, data, facts, concepts, principles, discoveries, individual words, short phrases, or slogans. So, the only thing that needs to be checked is if the sentences have been plagiarized themselves. This can very easily be done by comparing the text of the two things in question. I have done so for this East Syriac Rite section, and the results are below, for each subsection:
The only thing that is even remotely close to plagiarism is the annunciation section, which only has a 9% match for these 5 phrases:
I think these can easily be rewritten so they are no longer this close of a match. I do not think this warrants the whole section being hidden though. I will link the documents that show the above results here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GgpV3q7v5zqSOdlqjmPjWWwAjtUtvQxe?usp=sharing After doing a report on both texts in full, it came back with under 1% match. This is shown in the "FullReport.pdf" file in the link above. Krixano ( talk) 10:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I also just noticed that the potential copyright violation seems to have never been reported to Copyright Problems page. Krixano ( talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I have used a different site just to make sure I'm right about this. When I compare the revision with the potential copyright violation to the source given in the copyright notice, I get this result: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=993520623&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.syromalabarliturgy.org%2Fassets%2Fassettt%2Fpanchangam%2520English%25202021%2520%281%29.pdf Krixano ( talk) 12:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The mention of the spelling "kalendar" does not warrant being in the lead - there's precisely one modern source, viz. some random parish in America. All the other attestations are at least 100 years old. It's clearly not in common use. Wereon ( talk) 09:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)