Talk:Vatopedi Monastery (Athos)
A good article, but there are some discrepancies for instance: According to the article the "name of Vatopedi is derived from the flora of the surrounding countryside (‘‘vatos = shrub, ‘‘pedion = plain or ground)." well this is entirely incorrect!
The monks at Vatopedi attest the name is derived from the discovery of a child ('pedi' in Greek means child) found under a vatos (could be shrubs or a large rock or such but I am not sure of this). The way it was explained by the monks themselves is that the child was the lost son of a nobleman who prayed for his safe return, once miraculously found alive a monastery was built in dedication to the mother of God at the place where the child was found named “Vatopedi.
- Kai omos, an old publication from this Monastery (written in Greek) for one of its icons describes the history/origin of the name as "OR" ... you can also refer to the "citation" within the body of the article ...Vasiliki 12:05, September 3, 2008 (UTC)
Both names are correct, because it is not sure about the correct story of the name. The official book of the monastery (published 2004) suggests as first option "βατοπαιδίου" with "αι", that means child (the miraculous save of the Theodotius child, Arcadius). As second option, but not incorrect, the word "βατοπεδίου", with e, means field of vatos. Sorry about my English, I hope that the problem declared after this.--Θεόδωρος 12:39, September 3, 2008 (UTC)
The Vatopedi Monastery has over than 100 monks today. And i am sure about that because i recently visited.--Θεόδωρος 08:53, September 3, 2008 (UTC)
- On various subjects, especially 'ancient' ones, we run into varying bases, traditions, or conflicts on events. When this happens the text of the articles can be edited to note the various stories. It is not uncommon. If there are citations for sources of the variances, all the better. If you have adequate information, as it seems from the above comments, I suggest preparing and making an edit that provides the different 'stories' noting, in this case, the different traditions concerning the monasteries name. Wsk 13:29, September 3, 2008 (UTC)
- No, not really ... the only problem "we" have (that is the Anglo-Saxon) is that we MUST always have something written down for it to be "correct"... a lot of these "ancient" stories are what have kept Orthodoxy alive and they hold truths in them ... I trust very much the "stories" that have been passed down through the Greek culture ... not because of my ethnicity but because the Greek people and their "stories"/"cultures"/"traditions" are what have kept the Orthodox church alive and what have enlightened a LOT of the OTHER churches :-) Vasiliki 22:40, September 3, 2008 (UTC)
An encyclopedia by its nature is based on outside research, not on things that the editors might have once heard someone say. A vast quantity of the information on OrthodoxWiki is, of course, based on oral traditions, but they're oral traditions that someone (often a saint!) chose to write down at some point. Once it's citable in a published work, then it's reliable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This limitation is what keeps OrthodoxWiki from merely turning into a repository of rumors and half-truths. Once we open it up to anything anyone's ever heard some yiayia or babushka or taita say to them, then we might as well delete the whole site.
Let's keep it reliable and representative. What Wsk is saying here is exactly the OrthodoxWiki standard, especially since there are often mutually conflicting local oral traditions on various things. We represent whatever seems to be the most widespread accounts, noting where they conflict appropriate and citing published sources whenever possible. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 22:56, September 3, 2008 (UTC)