![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 12 dates. show |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The names "Purification of the Virgin" and "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple" are alternative names for the same feast, and one should just be a redirect to the other. Only one of the two can be the actual page title. I think "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple", increasingly being the main event celebrated, is the best choice. -- Lambiam Talk 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree because someone may be looking for a reference to the former custom, and refer to the feast by "Purification of the Virgin" as I was. While it is true that the custom has been changing to "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple" this has not been historically the case. Therefore, it is best to leave the link, but not to merge the two pages. Incidentally, "Purification of the Virgin" is still in fact the reality of Mary's being able to "Present Jesus at the Temple" as Orthodox Jewish women must wait apx. 40 days/6 weeks to go to temple. I'd like to see it left as is.
Mldhesg 04:29, 13 January 2007
Mldhesg
04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(UTC)mldhesg.
I disagree, too... I am a native of Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. My hometown's "patron saint," so to speak, is the Virgin of Candlemas. There has been so much historic significance given to the specific date of 2 February that suggesting that the reference for the Virgin Mary not be used when naming the feast is puzzling at least. I do reckon that both names depict essentially the same event. Demf 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree too -candlemas has varied historical and cultural associations in england which should be reflected in the entry. We should be careful not to lose the nuancing of the festival in the past (not simply associated with the purification of women)... there should be more about what candlemas meant and still means to many.
The ease with which items can be cross referenced means that the distinctive titles can be retained - but making sure that the complex uses to which Feb 2nd is put (Candlemas, Presentatation, Purification, Groundhog day, Scottish quarter day etc) can be easily accessed. ~~PJT~~
Well, I'm odd man out it seems. I agree with the proposed move. These titles all refer to one and the same thing, and a single article tracing the historical evolution - including the name - would make more sense than having to jump between two. The modern name of the feast day is "The Presentation of Christ," and it is not so difficult to make "Presentation of Jesus," "Feast of the Presentation," "The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary," the "Purification of Mary," the "Presentation of the Lord," and "Candlemas" - phew! - redirects to a single main article. I urge others to reconsider their votes. Fishhead64 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree on the grounds that they are two different names for the same thing, and therefore should have a single article (Note to PJT - "Groundhog Day" isn't the same thing. It's a different thing that happens on the same day). There seems to be a perception that a redirect somehow diminishes the idea that February 2 is the Purification of the Virgin. That isn't the idea. The idea is to eliminate a redundancy. In fact, I think that "Purification of the Virgin" should be the main article, and "Presentation" should redirect THERE, since that IS the name most people use (Roman Catholicism being far larger than any other group.)
Carlo
19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I merged the material from Purification to Presentation on 2 February, but haven't completely ironed out the edges. — ExplorerCDT 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source for the lead's statement that its "formal name" in the Latin Rite Church is "Presentation of Jesus in the Temple"? Because my breviary gives the name as "Presentation of the Lord". Carl.bunderson ( talk) 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, Misha, what was your reasoning on changing the list of what its called in various parts of the Anglican communion from a footnote to having it in the lead? I liked it the way it was more, as now the lead is largely a long list of bolded titles. How about we create a "Naming" section to put all of this [including the non-Anglican communities] in, if you dislike the footnote? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know exactly where it is recorded that the first production of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night took place on on Candlemas. Logically, if one takes December 25 as the "First Night" of Christmas, then the "Twelfth Night" is January 5. This seems probable, in that January 6 (traditionally the Feast of the Epiphany) was often considered the end of the Christmas season and of its revelries. The argument is strengthened by the fact that Twelfth Night is the only play of Shakespeare's, the title of which bears no relation to its subject matter. However, if a reliable, contemporary source records a first production on Candlemas, then this changes everything. Therefore, could you please let us know where such a record can be found!-- PeadarMaguidhir ( talk) 11:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added footnotes regarding modern Pagan belief and the ancient origins of Imbolc. There are literally thousands of sources about modern Pagan belief. Scholarly material about the ancient Celts is harder to come by on the Net, due to the plethora of fluffy Neopagan sites--but I persevered. Berkeleysappho ( talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have upgraded this article to B class since I think it defenitely deserves it. This is not my area of speciality but I think that if someone fills in the necessary citations it would merit a Good Article rating. Unfortunately, it appears to have been dormant now for two years.-- Tomaterols ( talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone came along and tried to change "forty days" to "thirty-nine days", because if you actually count them all, it's 39 days from December 25 to February 2. I reverted this and added (inclusive) after the counts, because 40 days is the important number and this was the easiest, non-invasive way to explain it. Thoughts? Elizium23 ( talk) 17:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I figured it was best to ask here first. Am I correct that the external links for the Bible verses quoted in this artcle go against the recommended guidelines? Joefromrandb ( talk) 13:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"although there is often a choice made to show only one of this and the visually similar Circumcision of Jesus"
The one of this and the visually similar is unidiomatic and obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2011
I recently edited the gaelic term and quotation in the “Traditions and superstitions” section with
this edit. These changes were reverted with the summary “rv unexplained removal of {{lang}} tags)”.
To be clear, I :-
"added italics for a non-english term" as non-english terms should be italicized, per
WP:MOS#Italics, and
"added italics" and "deleted redundant templates" because they don’t appear to be doing anything (and there’s nothing on
this page to say what they do, either).
A further explanation of the revert would be welcome.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{lang-gd|latha}}
renders as "
Scottish Gaelic: latha". But {{
lang}}, taking a language code as its first parameter, doesn't put its contents in italics, thus {{lang|gd|latha}}
renders as "latha". The reason is that only the Latin alphabet should ever be written in italics at Wikipedia (and in the real world, only the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets should be). And since {{
lang-gd}} specifies which language it's for, we already know that italics are OK, but {{
lang}} doesn't specify what language it's for, so users have to say explicitly whether its contents are italicizable or not. As I said, I have no objection to italics here.
Angr (
talk)
17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that there was an old rhyme that went as follows:
Candlemas Day, if you be clear It shall betide a happy year
The rhyme then said something about Candlemas Day being wet and drizzly was a portent of a bad year, so I wonder whether this should be put in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence strikes me as wrong. "The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus that is celebrated by the Church on the holiday of Candlemas." In the RC Church there is no such thing as "the holiday of Candlemas". And isn't this backwards? Doesn't the word "Candlemas" come from candles held during the celebration of the Mass on the liturgical commemoratin of the Presentation? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there an awful lot of material here that should be in the article about "Candlemas"? Especially since the article starts with an explicit distinction. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it La Chandeleur in French?
MG3207 MG3207 ( talk) 10:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"The Presentation of Jesus at (or in) the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus, describing His presentation at the Temple in Jerusalem, to be redeemed by the parents' sacrifice from His birth-state of sanctity, i.e. and predestined by His firstborn status to serve as a priest." Is this a traditional, sourced, Christian interpretation, because it includes two [understandable] confusions: between the sacrifice which would have related to his mother's status (not his) and a misunderstanding of how pidyon haben worked, and indeed still works today. -- Dweller ( talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"The Presentation of Jesus at (or in) the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus, describing his presentation at the Temple in Jerusalem, for his redemption as a firstborn son. This is described in chapter 2 of the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament. Within the account, Luke's narration of the presentation in the temple "combines the purification rite with the Jewish ceremony of the redemption of the firstborn (Luke 2:23–24). The Feast of the presentation of Jesus Christ, that is celebrated by many churches 40 days after Christmas, is in the vernacular often called Candlemas."
The Gregorian/Julian date in the infobox was not incorrect, but it was confusing: 2 February on the Gregorian calendar currently falls on 15 February for Revised Julian calendar users. I've simplified it to Gregorian only; Julian users can apply their own current calculation, and the infobox won't require perpetual updates as the date shifts throughout coming decades. Elizium23 ( talk) 07:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 12 dates. show |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The names "Purification of the Virgin" and "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple" are alternative names for the same feast, and one should just be a redirect to the other. Only one of the two can be the actual page title. I think "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple", increasingly being the main event celebrated, is the best choice. -- Lambiam Talk 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree because someone may be looking for a reference to the former custom, and refer to the feast by "Purification of the Virgin" as I was. While it is true that the custom has been changing to "Presentation of Jesus at the Temple" this has not been historically the case. Therefore, it is best to leave the link, but not to merge the two pages. Incidentally, "Purification of the Virgin" is still in fact the reality of Mary's being able to "Present Jesus at the Temple" as Orthodox Jewish women must wait apx. 40 days/6 weeks to go to temple. I'd like to see it left as is.
Mldhesg 04:29, 13 January 2007
Mldhesg
04:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)(UTC)mldhesg.
I disagree, too... I am a native of Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. My hometown's "patron saint," so to speak, is the Virgin of Candlemas. There has been so much historic significance given to the specific date of 2 February that suggesting that the reference for the Virgin Mary not be used when naming the feast is puzzling at least. I do reckon that both names depict essentially the same event. Demf 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree too -candlemas has varied historical and cultural associations in england which should be reflected in the entry. We should be careful not to lose the nuancing of the festival in the past (not simply associated with the purification of women)... there should be more about what candlemas meant and still means to many.
The ease with which items can be cross referenced means that the distinctive titles can be retained - but making sure that the complex uses to which Feb 2nd is put (Candlemas, Presentatation, Purification, Groundhog day, Scottish quarter day etc) can be easily accessed. ~~PJT~~
Well, I'm odd man out it seems. I agree with the proposed move. These titles all refer to one and the same thing, and a single article tracing the historical evolution - including the name - would make more sense than having to jump between two. The modern name of the feast day is "The Presentation of Christ," and it is not so difficult to make "Presentation of Jesus," "Feast of the Presentation," "The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary," the "Purification of Mary," the "Presentation of the Lord," and "Candlemas" - phew! - redirects to a single main article. I urge others to reconsider their votes. Fishhead64 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I also agree on the grounds that they are two different names for the same thing, and therefore should have a single article (Note to PJT - "Groundhog Day" isn't the same thing. It's a different thing that happens on the same day). There seems to be a perception that a redirect somehow diminishes the idea that February 2 is the Purification of the Virgin. That isn't the idea. The idea is to eliminate a redundancy. In fact, I think that "Purification of the Virgin" should be the main article, and "Presentation" should redirect THERE, since that IS the name most people use (Roman Catholicism being far larger than any other group.)
Carlo
19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I merged the material from Purification to Presentation on 2 February, but haven't completely ironed out the edges. — ExplorerCDT 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a source for the lead's statement that its "formal name" in the Latin Rite Church is "Presentation of Jesus in the Temple"? Because my breviary gives the name as "Presentation of the Lord". Carl.bunderson ( talk) 19:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, Misha, what was your reasoning on changing the list of what its called in various parts of the Anglican communion from a footnote to having it in the lead? I liked it the way it was more, as now the lead is largely a long list of bolded titles. How about we create a "Naming" section to put all of this [including the non-Anglican communities] in, if you dislike the footnote? Carl.bunderson ( talk) 23:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know exactly where it is recorded that the first production of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night took place on on Candlemas. Logically, if one takes December 25 as the "First Night" of Christmas, then the "Twelfth Night" is January 5. This seems probable, in that January 6 (traditionally the Feast of the Epiphany) was often considered the end of the Christmas season and of its revelries. The argument is strengthened by the fact that Twelfth Night is the only play of Shakespeare's, the title of which bears no relation to its subject matter. However, if a reliable, contemporary source records a first production on Candlemas, then this changes everything. Therefore, could you please let us know where such a record can be found!-- PeadarMaguidhir ( talk) 11:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added footnotes regarding modern Pagan belief and the ancient origins of Imbolc. There are literally thousands of sources about modern Pagan belief. Scholarly material about the ancient Celts is harder to come by on the Net, due to the plethora of fluffy Neopagan sites--but I persevered. Berkeleysappho ( talk) 15:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have upgraded this article to B class since I think it defenitely deserves it. This is not my area of speciality but I think that if someone fills in the necessary citations it would merit a Good Article rating. Unfortunately, it appears to have been dormant now for two years.-- Tomaterols ( talk) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone came along and tried to change "forty days" to "thirty-nine days", because if you actually count them all, it's 39 days from December 25 to February 2. I reverted this and added (inclusive) after the counts, because 40 days is the important number and this was the easiest, non-invasive way to explain it. Thoughts? Elizium23 ( talk) 17:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I figured it was best to ask here first. Am I correct that the external links for the Bible verses quoted in this artcle go against the recommended guidelines? Joefromrandb ( talk) 13:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"although there is often a choice made to show only one of this and the visually similar Circumcision of Jesus"
The one of this and the visually similar is unidiomatic and obscure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk • contribs) 19:34, 8 December 2011
I recently edited the gaelic term and quotation in the “Traditions and superstitions” section with
this edit. These changes were reverted with the summary “rv unexplained removal of {{lang}} tags)”.
To be clear, I :-
"added italics for a non-english term" as non-english terms should be italicized, per
WP:MOS#Italics, and
"added italics" and "deleted redundant templates" because they don’t appear to be doing anything (and there’s nothing on
this page to say what they do, either).
A further explanation of the revert would be welcome.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{lang-gd|latha}}
renders as "
Scottish Gaelic: latha". But {{
lang}}, taking a language code as its first parameter, doesn't put its contents in italics, thus {{lang|gd|latha}}
renders as "latha". The reason is that only the Latin alphabet should ever be written in italics at Wikipedia (and in the real world, only the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets should be). And since {{
lang-gd}} specifies which language it's for, we already know that italics are OK, but {{
lang}} doesn't specify what language it's for, so users have to say explicitly whether its contents are italicizable or not. As I said, I have no objection to italics here.
Angr (
talk)
17:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that there was an old rhyme that went as follows:
Candlemas Day, if you be clear It shall betide a happy year
The rhyme then said something about Candlemas Day being wet and drizzly was a portent of a bad year, so I wonder whether this should be put in the article. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence strikes me as wrong. "The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus that is celebrated by the Church on the holiday of Candlemas." In the RC Church there is no such thing as "the holiday of Candlemas". And isn't this backwards? Doesn't the word "Candlemas" come from candles held during the celebration of the Mass on the liturgical commemoratin of the Presentation? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there an awful lot of material here that should be in the article about "Candlemas"? Especially since the article starts with an explicit distinction. -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 16:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it La Chandeleur in French?
MG3207 MG3207 ( talk) 10:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"The Presentation of Jesus at (or in) the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus, describing His presentation at the Temple in Jerusalem, to be redeemed by the parents' sacrifice from His birth-state of sanctity, i.e. and predestined by His firstborn status to serve as a priest." Is this a traditional, sourced, Christian interpretation, because it includes two [understandable] confusions: between the sacrifice which would have related to his mother's status (not his) and a misunderstanding of how pidyon haben worked, and indeed still works today. -- Dweller ( talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"The Presentation of Jesus at (or in) the Temple is an early episode in the life of Jesus, describing his presentation at the Temple in Jerusalem, for his redemption as a firstborn son. This is described in chapter 2 of the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament. Within the account, Luke's narration of the presentation in the temple "combines the purification rite with the Jewish ceremony of the redemption of the firstborn (Luke 2:23–24). The Feast of the presentation of Jesus Christ, that is celebrated by many churches 40 days after Christmas, is in the vernacular often called Candlemas."
The Gregorian/Julian date in the infobox was not incorrect, but it was confusing: 2 February on the Gregorian calendar currently falls on 15 February for Revised Julian calendar users. I've simplified it to Gregorian only; Julian users can apply their own current calculation, and the infobox won't require perpetual updates as the date shifts throughout coming decades. Elizium23 ( talk) 07:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)