Talk:Maundy (foot washing)

Applicability and Inclusivity of Various Groups
I would certainly welcome someone from a Catholic tradition reviewing the accuracy of the comments in that section of the feet washing article. Rlvaughn 22:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can this be linked to a section on foot washing in Islam and other religions? It seems strange that it's listed as only a Christian practice, especially given the number of religion projects to which it's linked. Kvcad (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Foot washing vs. feetwashing
Sounds a bit strange to me. A Google search revealed three times as many hits for "foot washing" as for "feet washing." I suggest a name change. Haiduc 03:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, feet makes more sense. 24.83.115.195 02:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what makes more sense. Its name is "foot washing" Google the Church of the Brethren (or any other pietist based denomination).  "Feet washing" is an attempt to change the word to make it more correct in their mind.  Same idea as saying "teethbrush" instead of "toothbrush" user:mbset
 * I have to agree. I think the most common usage by far is "foot washing". Since I think this is well-established as the most common usage, and therefore actionable under WP:NAMING, I'm making the change without waiting for a specific consensus. If there are good reasons someone can think of to make an exception to the general rule, we can always change it back.  CO GD EN  04:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The form I've heard most often is "Washing of Feet" MishaPan 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I ran across this change and discussion of it. As the originator of this article, I do not object to the change of title. But I do find it somewhat objectionable that mbset finds it necessary analyze why the term was chosen, as if it is some kind of affectation. Some groups use one term, some use another. I expect that "foot washing" is more common, though wider research than googling might be useful instruction on the topic. I have one suggestion. Since the name is changed to "foot washing", shouldn't the article be changed to reflect that consistently (with the exception of quotes)? The article starts out with "foot washing", then soon we run into "foot-washing", and later "feet washing". Just a thought on something that might be an improvement. - Rlvaughn (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign the other day)


 * Just to add my two cents: The most common usage (from way back in the days when writers cared about grammar) is either "foot washing" or, more formally, "washing of feet", but never "feet washing". With regard to the hyphen: as I understand, it should only be used when needed for clarity's sake; for instance, if "foot-washing" is a compound modifier. Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * MishaPan, are you saying that "foot washing" is grammatically correct and "feet washing" is not? Or just most common from some period? If so, what authorities would you recommend we look to for guidance on this? - Rlvaughn (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it to be more grammatically correct, and I know it is the form I have seen in print from academic sources. With regard to grammar: an English teacher of mine once recommended that when one is unsure of the proper form to use, try substiting parallel terms. So, if we substitute "washing of hands" for "washing of feet", I think you would agree that "hand washing" sounds better than "hands washing", but we would need someone who is more of an expert in grammar than me to explain why. As for sources in print, over the years I've come across a number of liturgical sources in English, the earliest of which dates from the 1800s, and while most use the form "Washing of Feet", some have said "Foot Washing". But I've never come across any English translation (from Latin or Greek) or liturgy composed in English by liturgical experts which uses the term "feet washing" prior to reading this article and doing specific Internet searches for the term. My experiences are Anglican, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. I know a lot of material on the Internet is self-published, and I don't really expect grammatical precision from it--more's the pitty. But encyclopedic material should strive for a higher standard. As for authorities, in my present situation I don't have access to many. I would recommend searching libraries for official texts from liturgical churches (Liturgical Press, Oxford University Press, etc.). Then again, the whole argument might simply be avoided by substituting "Washing of Feet" throughout the article. MishaPan (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Feetwashing is the primary, although not exclusive, term used in the Church of the Brethren and Grace Brethren, including print sources. Frank Ramirez is also a notable author on Brethren history and identity. I have added the notice of this usage preference in the article and included extensive sources. When I travel in Mennonite circles, I notice the difference in vocabulary; I have always understood this as a difference in preference between the denominations. Notice especially the Anabaptist Network article which makes a point of using "footwashing" for Mennonite articles and "feetwashing" for Brethren ones .Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Maundy
Good Lord! (no pun intended) Can't we call it "Maundy"?? In several articles where the concept appears it has to be piped as that from "Foot washing". Also, "foot washing" outside of the specific Christian religious context simply means "washing of the feet" where as "Maundy" refers to the historical event which is the subject of this article. Why was it not named "Maundy" to begin with?? Is that not a specific and common name for it? And is it not much more specific (and therefore much more helpful) than the simple and vague (and therefore less helpful) "foot washing"?? Was there a discussion somewhere where this was considered and the decision to go with "foot washing" won the debate? KDS4444 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we can't call the article "Maundy", but only high-brow Anabaptists are familiar with the term "Maundy Thursday", and virtually none would recognize "Maundy" as meaning the act of feetwashing. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I myself am of low-brow Presbyterian background and yet have heard the term "Maundy Thursday" many times...  but never knew exactly what it meant.  I am not sure that "few would recognize it" is a valid reason for not naming it "Maundy" in light of the much greater WP:PRECISION that Maundy has.  We already have a disambig page titled Maundy, and would need to move this article over it and create a couple of hat notes, but that is no real barrier.  Given that we are talking about a specific foot washing, "Maundy" comes as an equally specific title (i.e., as precise as necessary) whereas the act of foot washing has taken place all over the world and throughout time for lots of reasons).  If I have convinced you of this (?) I can attempt to perform the page move myself— but let me know, as I do not wish to, er, step on anyone's... toes!  KDS4444 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * After some consideration, I've decided I'm opposed to renaming to "Maundy". I appreciation precision in naming, but am hesitant to name a major religious practice something unfamiliar to most of the practitioners. It's as if scholars had a name for "cross" that wouldn't be confused with crosshairs or crossing a bridge, but Christians had never heard this term. Other opinions? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, hm... Let me think. I am not 100% sure I understand your comparison, but let me know if this responds to it correctly: scholars (and lots of other people) have a specific term for the cross displaying the body of Christ when used as a symbol— the Crucifix— but we also have an article on cross which is the more generalized term for objects shaped like that (but without the Christ).  Crucifix also happens to be a fairly widely known term, though I would argue not as well known as "cross".  As another example, Holy Communion redirects to Eucharist, as does Bread and Wine and Lord's supper: "eucharist" is a more recondite term for the specific sacrament, compared to "bread and wine" (which are basically a pair of comestibles) and "lord's supper" (many an English lord had many a supper, but we are not talking about them, we are talking about the eucharist, which is more specific).  I am not saying that we should use the title which is "most obscure", but rather "most precise" for this specific foot washing moment.  I know, for example, that the washing of feet was done as a routine act of hospitality for thousands of years in the Middle East prior to the arrival of Jesus, and this Internet article discusses how foot washing was used throughout Palestine around the time of Christ for the same purpose (hospitality).  If this article was about the hospitable act of foot washing, then I would have no problem with it...  But it is about the specific lesson taught by Jesus to the apostles about providing service to others, and that is more than just foot washing!  Let me know if that makes any sense to you.  KDS4444 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, I value precision in naming. I wish each religious practice had a universally agreed upon and unambiguous name. Unfortunate, that is not the case. It seems there's two issues here: 1) The term feet washing can refer to other practices beyond the Christian ritual. 2) What shall we call the Christian ritual?. To resolve the first issue, if I thought it were notable enough, I would support creating a new article of "feet washing", and move this to "feet washing (Christian ritual)". However, I think the greater issue is the second one. I don't think it's appropriate for us as encyclopedia editors to change the name of practice in order to avoid ambiguity. I have grown more convinced the more I've thought about it. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I am dropping the idea. Nice to have interacted with you over it, however!  Thanks for being willing to consider and discuss.  KDS4444 (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Classification
I think this article is better than "start" class. If others agree, let's get it changed. --Cromwellt&#124;talk&#124;contribs 01:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ablution
the article should link to the word "ablution", and should say more clearly "in the Christian context" or reference that foot washing has ritual meaning outside of Christianity, rather than seeming to say that foot washing is exclusively Christian. Also, I would think the distinction should be drawn early and often between foot washing as ritual hygiene and foot washing as ritual symbolism or obeisance. 96.224.34.168 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foot washing. 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/20130408063002/http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2013/03/pope-foot-washing-of-females-yes-that.html to http://www.oswaldsobrino.com/2013/03/pope-foot-washing-of-females-yes-that.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031213181034/http://www.panthercreekchurch.org/foot_washing.htm to http://www.panthercreekchurch.org/foot_washing.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329142622/http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/59798 to http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/59798
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630160917/http://66.208.11.17/resources/2007%20Holy%20Thurs%201.jpg to http://66.208.11.17/resources/2007%20Holy%20Thurs%201.jpg

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) 16:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nipter
I added: "Another word for the ceremony, nipter, derives from the Greek word for a basin." Someone removed it as uncited. See e.g. Chambers Dictionary 1908. Equinox ◑ 22:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources, original research
Article lacks required sources; much of it reads like original research. Bluepenciltime (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is moderately well-sourced; none of it reads like OR to me - more like EB 1911. Johnbod (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

NPOV
It lacks also NPOV, without including theological reasons why other Christians don’t practice foot-washing. Bluepenciltime (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Phooey! They don't, and one can easily see that the reasons many/most Protestants don't is not likely to be exactly theological. It's hardly a failure of NPOV to cover what doesn't happen. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Footwashing is the common name, not maundy
I'm not sure why the article was moved as foot washing is the WP:COMMONNAME. Maundy is an archaic name and used only in the term Maundy Thursday, more commonly referred to as Holy Thursday today. There should have been a move discussion and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity should have been advised of the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with the move performed by User:Valoem as this article refers to the Christian rite of footwashing, not washing one's feet in general. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which name I'd favour, but the undiscussed move was wrong & should be reverted. A proper WP:RM discussion should be done. See discussions higher up the page. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant information
Hello fellow Wikipedians! The second half of the section "Background", beginning with the sentence "The foot washing, described in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John, is concerned with the Latin title of Servus servorum dei", cites no sources (other than the Bible itself) and thus reads a lot like OR. Also, most of it does not seem to have any relevance at all to the specific topic of the article. I therefore move that these paragraphs be deleted. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)