Wikipedia

Talk:Tradition/Archive 1

< Talk:Tradition
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Old talk

Christmas trees are only a hundred years old? That wasn't my impression. -- April

Moved this from the article:

Mention traditionalism in Roman Catholic church here.

It's a good suggestion. The Eastern Orthodox Church distinguishes between Holy Tradition and mere traditions; this may or may not be the place to explore that. I expect that the Roman Catholic Church does as well. Wesley 15:07, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Traditionalism doctrine

I have added a couple of sentences about the Roman Catholic Church's Traditionalism doctrine, as I understand it. PatrickDunfordNZ 10:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

vandalism: birthday tradition ?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

vandalism: birthday tradition to shove a broom ... ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.172.144 (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

What is Custom

A hobitual practice or dealing in thing to made

ambiguous?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Would this page be able to change to a disambiguation page? I added the bit up top about seeing other uses of the word 'tradition'. Is there any way to change it so that it is easier for users who are searching for other uses to directly end up on the disambiguation page?

Kerfl772 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

BY:

Justine I. Laserna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.201.2 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

je t'aime ciomme une fleur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.167.254 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Invalid citation

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is original research, no citation was given to prove this statement.

For such acts or practices, once performed, disappear unless they have been transformed into some manner of communicable information.

This citation format is unacceptable. You either provide direct link or if online resources don't have it, you specify the author e.g.

  • Books (ISBN #) author, date of publication, books revision version, publish by what company...etc.
  • If it is legal document, Article #, Paragraph/Section, provider of the article (by what association, consortium, organizaiton (profit or non-profit)...etc authro of article

<ref>p.775, Klein</ref> --Ramu50 (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rejection of tradition

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think this section need work. It's too focused on an interpretation of one particular philosopher's views and it is poorly written. Matt2h (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What's this "Traditions and stylings of the mannerism"?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Someone recently tried to remove the section titled ("Traditions and stylings of the mannerism") (here). I've restored the section, because the removal was without explanation. But I have to admit, I have some doubts on whether the section belongs at all. So I'm starting this discussion topic to get some opinions on it; maybe we can find a consensus on what to do about it. My main concern is that much of it is OR-ey, little of it is sourced, and none of it gives me any idea what the title "Traditions and stylings of the mannerism" is getting at. -- Why Not A Duck 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

kk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.70.4.80 (talk) 10:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Morphology & Origins

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

upon reading this wiki a few months ago, I noticed a lack of information on the web concerning the morphology of the accusative form of traditio. I have tried my best to provide an accurate breakdown of the word traditionem, but must admit, other than a keen interest in linguistics, I have no formal background. Furthermore, as I have already stated, there is NO INFORMATION ONLINE concerning the suffix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources for upcoming collaboration by Ambassadors

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Defining Tradition
Tradition by Edward Shils
Invented tradition
  • https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/6.3.html
  • http://www.history.utoronto.ca/material_culture/rmclean/html/trad.htm (not really a reliable source, but hints where to look)
  • Vlastos, Stephen. (1998) Mirror of Modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan. University of California Press. Not in my local library, but on-line thru NetLibrary.
  • Elliott, Jock. (2001) Inventing Christmas: How our holiday came to be. Harry N. Abrams, Inc. I checked this out of my local library today.
  • Hobsbawm, Eric and Terence Ranger. (1983) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43773-3 Not in my local library, should be in college/university lbraries
  • http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/hobbes.htm
  • http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=myLOFYZ4dQ0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA450&dq=invention+of+tradition&ots=Lv3yi-GtKR&sig=vQ53ldhi-s0gfY7Dh8fxzulJLGY#v=onepage&q=invention%20of%20tradition&f=false
  • http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/sep_oct08/features1
  • http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300136869
  • "The Politics of Discursive Authority in Research on the "Invention of Tradition"" - http://www.jstor.org/stable/656664 Examines the "conflicts between scholars who study the "invention of tradition" and individuals, such as many indigenous scholars, who see themselves as being represented by such works."
In anthropology

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7MRM-4MT09VJ-3NX&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F18%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c6958bfad1a750588d0e32212f4788c3&searchtype=a

In History
In sociology
Tradition and modernity
Local tradition
National traditions
  • Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso, 1991. see [1]
Tradition in non-humans
In law
In science
In music
Some thoughts on organization

The three current section headings are:

  • Traditions and stylings of the mannerism - not sure what this is supposed to be, Mannerism being a fine arts style, while 'mannerism' as a type of behavior isn't "traditional"
  • Traditionalism - in the Roman Catholic church and "Radical Traditionalism"
  • Archaeology - related to Archaeological culture

So, we probably need sections on:

  • origins (broader than just "invented" traditions)
  • in areas of study (philosophy, social sciences, natural sciences, art, literature, etc.)
  • archaeology (linked to Archaeological culture)
  • religion - and we will want solid sources for this
  • crafts and trades
  • costume
  • "folk" ways
  • preservation efforts ("national treasures" in Japan, for example)

Just some suggestions, but if the sections are in place early on it will be easier for collaborators to work simultaneously on the article. -- Donald Albury 13:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job! I added a GBooks link to the The Invention of tradition. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've nominated the article to T:TDYK at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Tradition. I tried to include all ambassadors who made substantial edits; if I missed anybody (which is quite possible), my apologies - and please add yourself to the authors. The template seems to support only three authors? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

B-class

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

I wonder if our recent edits have not improved the article to B-class? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a few more things that I am looking for sources to back up --Guerillero | My Talk 21:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It might also be good to use a consistent ref style; I think the Harvard style would be good here because some books are cited multiple times. However, the article currently uses both Harvard-style cites and repeating {{cite book}} templates with differing page numbers. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that ref standarization would be goodl. As I discussed with Guerillo on his talk page, I think Harvard style is good, provided we keep direct page links to Google Books, and keep the cite templates in "works cited" or a similar section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
A simplified citation format would be ideal, methinks. Also, think the cite templates should remain in a works cited, Sadads (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Form the looks of it everything checks out for B class. I am going to move it up. revert me if you have a problem.--Guerillero | My Talk 06:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Criteria Review

To be official here is an informal review

  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary

  Done While not at GA everything that could be reasonably challenged has a citation

  1. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.

  Done We did this well

  1. The article has a defined structure.

  Done Lead -> Definition -> Creation of traditions -> In discourse -> preservation

  1. The article is reasonably well-written

  Done has been copyedited several times

  1. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate

  Done Images are present

  1. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way

  Done There is background when there needs to be.

cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 06:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Job well done, people :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

we tend to assume that the ability to learn is determinted by such things as haw clever you are — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.23.97 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

difinition of pollution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.102.214.75 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tradition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tradition. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tradition/Archive_1&oldid=1246346959"