Talk:Maundy Thursday/Archive 1

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vaquero100 (talk | contribs) at 23:49, 27 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Vaquero100

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)

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)

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)