Talk:Virgin of Vladimir

[[Category: good articles|Virgin of Vladimir]]

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

feast day

Is 3 June the fast day in the Gregorian or the Julian calender? All other sites seem to put the main feast day in May. Ansat (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Google Translate understands Russian

Here is the translation with Google Translated of the problematic source: Template:Quote

Google Translation

It says neither "done by Stalin" nor "repelled the enemy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop acting irresponsibly. Obviously it is about a procession which celebrate a flight with an icon above besieged Moscow.It is stongly connected with the text and those other links clarifying this information. Not only confirm that a fly took place but there is also a feast that celebrate this event.If no one else doesnt have anything to say I'l restore the reference which is an important link for further, more detailed, information: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/235326.html

See also: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/soviet/13681-stalin-icon-our-lady-kazan.htmlMichael2012ro (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, then you have to show me where it writes "as ordered by Stalin" and where it writes "icon has repelled the enemy". Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Web forums don't count as reliable sources. The problem is the pretense that both claims would be verified by the source, but in fact the source fails to verify any of these claims. So, the source should not belong in the article, since the role of the sources is to verify the claims made in the article. We don't introduce sources just for the fun of quoting websites. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theotokos of Vladimir. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002215233/http://www.vyshgorod-museum.org.ua/index.php?go=News&file=print&id=5 to http://www.vyshgorod-museum.org.ua/index.php?go=News&file=print&id=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Theotokos of Vladimir. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929113705/http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/image/_id/2216 to http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/en/collection/_show/image/_id/2216

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Things to finish

Before GA nomination:

• Citations consistent
• Expand history section from 1512 to present
• Cite last source
• Rewrite lead
• Clean up remaining prose issues

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look much like a GA on a painting to me - lots of history, not too much art history! Johnbod (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re I really didn't know where else to classify it. The instructions page was little help in that regard. Template:\: –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not the classification - obviously it is a work of art, & should be so classified. It's just it doesn't have enough art history to be a GA, imo. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Reorg and expansion

Template:Re For some reason [b][lower-alpha 2] shows up randomly in this article. I have no clue why, and when I remove it; it just comes back. Template:Shrug –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed.

I am done with the first pass of edits, which aim to mainly provide a framework for adding and organizing the contents. I realize that the resultant version has several stubby and/or image-heavy sections but that will become better once we start adding accompanying text. The final image selection, placement and captions can subsequently be adjusted (it's always an iterative process). Let me know if you have any high-level thoughts about the changes I introduced, and of course feel free to edit as you will; as long as we are not blindly undoing each-other's changes, we will hopefully converge to an improved article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re I think the only change I made was that I used Template:Tl and moved the picture of the reverse side of the icon to the right hand side (I think I read somewhere that images on the left hand side are not allowed; if this isn't the case, please feel free to move it back).
Thank you so much for helping me out with this! It was really stressful trying to do this by myself, and I was getting so overwhelmed with how the structure should be that I just felt like giving up. I can add sourced content well enough, but I can't make structural decisions like that. Please remind me to credit you for part of the DYK and GAN! File:Face-smile.svg –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with the changes you made. In fact over the next few days you can assume that I would have seen any further edits you or others make and that, by default, I either am ok with them or that I will make further tweaks myself. That way we don't need to constantly explain each of our edits whose reasoning is obvious or sufficiently explained in the edit-summary. Can, of course, raise any genuine disagreements or questions here on the talkpage. Abecedare (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking much better. Let me know when you think it's ready for a review. Johnbod (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

John, I plan to work on the article over the next few days so that the stuff I have read about the icon doesn't get lost down the memory hole. That may make the page a moving target and unstable in the short term. I will leave the discussion of how to handle the GA review to MJL and you, and can adjust my intended editing accordingly, including taking a pause. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let me know when you both think it's ready. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

How are we doing with this? Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re I fixed it up a bit just now, so on the face of things it appears to have addressed every specific point made thus far. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Description section

Template:Reply I plan to work on the Description section next. Is it possible for you to email me the cited article by Henri Nouwen, and (less importantly) the relevant bits/quotes from the Runciman book, if you have access to them? I have access to the other cited sources. Abecedare (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re Email sent. I need you to respond to email you Nouwen. I don't have access to Runciman, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'll expand the "In Russian history" section, but I think I remember finding some information in a Russian language source about obverse painting. It'll give you more content to work with there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have re-written the Description section, so that its four paras correspond to (1) description of physical object/image, (2) associated objects and restorations, (3) religious symbology and interpretations, and (4) aesthetic critiques. Hopefully the revision is self-explanatory but let me know if you have any questions about the content or sourcing. I'll perhaps take a stab at developing the Copies and influence section next, over the next day or two. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re Your edits have been very useful. Are you planning to do more? Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Reply Sorry, got distracted by computer issues and RL. Will finish the additions I had in mind this weekend so that at least the GA process is not kept waiting endlessly. Abecedare (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re I made a comment at the GAN that may interfere with that. Not sure what to do now. Template:\: –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it won't interfere. Meanwhile you have review points not dealt with both here & at DYK, so I suggest you do those. I will probably review what's here shortly - it's looking much better. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Our Lady of Vladimir → Virgin of VladimirVirgin of Vladimir – per WP:COMMONNAME. This is the name normally used in non-Orthodox sources (they often prefer Theotokos of Vladimir) gbooks N-gram shows it has been ahead since the 1970s, sometimes dramatically so. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 02:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. A1Cafel (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The cited evidence purposes to show a common name in Virgin of Vladimir, but in fact it shows that there is none. Additionally, the current title matches that of Our Lady of Kazan as well as the vast majority of the Shrines to the Virgin Mary. Template:Re This is already awkward to say, but I don't think that this RM is entirely appropriate given the circumstances. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Our Lady" is Western terminology, mainly used by Catholics. Eastern Orthodox tend to use "Theotokos" even in English - this is actually much the most common term used in Category:Eastern_Orthodox_icons_of_the_Virgin_Mary. "Virgin" is denominationally neutral, which it is no doubt why it is the most common name. Per WP:CRITERIA "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." I think you might be confusing this concept with the primary name where there is ambiguity. What circumstances? Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

That's all fair. I'm not really planning to argue my points that much in this thread.
The circumstances of this article going through a GAN which you are reviewing? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, but you pointed out above that the article title is out of scope for GAR. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll just post to WT:GAN and ask them about it. I'm not sure exactly if I'm wrong or if not what to say or do. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Support: There is a point to be made, though I wouldn't know what Western readers would expect to search.Jerry (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
• Although I created this page under the current title, I support Theotokos of Vladimir. Both "virgin" and "our lady" are Roman Catholic terms that sound offensive to an Orthodox ear. Ghirla^-трёп- 16:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - the ngram also tested "Theotokos of Vladimir" which received no score at all, so it is a huge fail on WP:COMMONNAME, which should be the main guiding policy here. Claiming "virgin" as a "Roman Catholic term" is simply over the top, and myriad Orthodox sources use it to refer to Mary perfectly happily. "Theotokos" probably means nothing to most of our readers, who don't speak Greek, and the literal translation of "God-bearer" even less. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"God's Mother" is ok. By the way, the best online source for this icon is the Orthodox Encyclopedia. The article has lots of referenced material about its copies, appurtenances, purported miracles, allusions in medieval literature, etc. Ghirla^-трёп- 17:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone currently working on the article speaks Russian. We have a master's thesis (by someone who does) with lots of detail in English. It would be very useful if you could drop back later on and add confirmatory refs to that material where appropriate. The thesis is: Template:Cite thesisJohnbod (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Re Bit of personal background: I'm an Eastern Catholic (Melkite), and we share the Byzantine liturgical rite with the Russian Orthodox Church.
Template:Tq definitely doesn't feel as latinized as Template:Tq to me. That's just my own personal thoughts though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. I think almost all Protestants would feel Template:Tq is mainly a Catholic term, but "Virgin Mary" more neutral. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Ghirla^-трёп- 08:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - the ngram seems to offer reasonable evidence that the proposed title is more common than the current.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arabic name

Why is the name of the painting in arabic included on the page? It has nothing to do with the icon, i think it should be removed.Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)