Talk:Hagiography

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Too much gloss)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
: Agreed.  I don't think we necessarily need to have an "adapted from Wikipedia" template.  After all, the original articles themselves are likely to be changed subsequent to our adaptation of them.  I think it's probably save to keep such attribution in the comment in the editing history and/or in a "Sources" header at the bottom.  --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 16:11, 18 Jan 2005 (CST)
 
: Agreed.  I don't think we necessarily need to have an "adapted from Wikipedia" template.  After all, the original articles themselves are likely to be changed subsequent to our adaptation of them.  I think it's probably save to keep such attribution in the comment in the editing history and/or in a "Sources" header at the bottom.  --[[User:ASDamick|Rdr. Andrew]] 16:11, 18 Jan 2005 (CST)
 +
 +
== Too much gloss ==
 +
 +
I must object to the "desecularization" of this article. I applaud placing the mythologizing character of hagiography into an ecclesial context, but a great deal of information that has been excised in recent redactions was very beneficial to me. I think it would probably be beneficial to others, as well. Specifically, I think people would be refreshed by an honest appraisal of the role of legend and miracle story in hagiography; also, I think people need to know that hagiography, as a genre, underwent a process of "gradually departing from the actual facts of the saints life." This was like a breeze of fresh air when I read it. Being honest with hagiography may have the effect of giving people a healthy way of integrating these stories into their life. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 13:44, 29 Jan 2005 (CST)

Revision as of 12:44, January 29, 2005

It's not fully adapted yet, but I do think we should leave in something about the Bollandists and the modern study of hagiography. FrJohn

Agreed. I don't think we necessarily need to have an "adapted from Wikipedia" template. After all, the original articles themselves are likely to be changed subsequent to our adaptation of them. I think it's probably save to keep such attribution in the comment in the editing history and/or in a "Sources" header at the bottom. --Rdr. Andrew 16:11, 18 Jan 2005 (CST)

Too much gloss

I must object to the "desecularization" of this article. I applaud placing the mythologizing character of hagiography into an ecclesial context, but a great deal of information that has been excised in recent redactions was very beneficial to me. I think it would probably be beneficial to others, as well. Specifically, I think people would be refreshed by an honest appraisal of the role of legend and miracle story in hagiography; also, I think people need to know that hagiography, as a genre, underwent a process of "gradually departing from the actual facts of the saints life." This was like a breeze of fresh air when I read it. Being honest with hagiography may have the effect of giving people a healthy way of integrating these stories into their life. --Basil 13:44, 29 Jan 2005 (CST)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox