Talk:Yurodivy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Merge
It would be a good idea. This article postdated Yurodivy by over a year, and the editor who contributed it may not have been aware of the older article. This one presents a peculiar POV ("maverick asceticism"?) and uses a non-standard translation to express the concept; it's usually "Fool for Christ.
However, in the long run both these articles need to be combined as part of something more general. They discuss the Fool-for-Christ as almost exclusively a Russian context, but as this article notes it was known in Constantinople. It is, however, not exclusive to Eastern Christianity, but under the name "Holy Fool" was also known in the West. (Although I have to admit I know of no sainted Western Fools-for-Christ.) It might be best to have an article Holy Fool (now a redirect to Yurodivy) that treats the subject comprehensively. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fool
I don't think it would be appropriate to merge yurodivy (holy fool)with "Foolishness in Christ" because the holy fool as far as I know is a literary archetype present in both Southern and Russian literature separate from this other entry.
- However, it's also a genuine class of saint who manifests Foolishness in Christ, and indeed most of the article talks about them as saints and not literary figures. There's no real reason to have separate articles, especially since Fools-in-Christ are not strictly Russian -- nor, for that matter, are they strictly Orthodox contrary to some claims I've seen. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- On the contrary, since Yurodivy is specifically Russian Christian form of "holy fools", the Foolishness in Christ should be concerned all of them in a general manner (and being about Christianity, it would exclude the Muslim version). This article could include mainly specific yurodivy or details concerned to them. - Skysmith 09:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is no Muslim form of Foolishness in Christ. And your link is inappropriate. This is not the "wisdom of the fool" but a particular type of ascesis. That article misstates the meaning of "holy fool" in the Christian sense, which is how it applies in the Middle Ages, since it's simply the Western Christian name for the same thing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, there is no Christ-related "fools" Islam but that religion has its own version of "holy fools" (some of them sufis). And no, the article I linked to is not the best possible - Skysmith 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is no Muslim form of Foolishness in Christ. And your link is inappropriate. This is not the "wisdom of the fool" but a particular type of ascesis. That article misstates the meaning of "holy fool" in the Christian sense, which is how it applies in the Middle Ages, since it's simply the Western Christian name for the same thing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the contrary, since Yurodivy is specifically Russian Christian form of "holy fools", the Foolishness in Christ should be concerned all of them in a general manner (and being about Christianity, it would exclude the Muslim version). This article could include mainly specific yurodivy or details concerned to them. - Skysmith 09:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
None of you know what the hell you are talking about -- sqwauk, sqwauk -- so shut up and live a little life. its all in your head. :D Yurodivyigoes 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The concept of Fool for Christ is present throughout the Eastern churches, not just Russian Orthodoxy. Shouldn't it be shown as its own article? Majoreditor 03:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- OK, I'm going to set up a separate article for Fool for Christ shortly. Majoreditor 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-