Talk:Anointing

message: Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available:  in the HTML does the job. 
Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought.  A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles. 
A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s
The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Distracting blank spaces

message: In the introduction to the "Religion" subsection of "Purpose", the sentence "In religions like Christianity where animal sacrifice is no longer practiced, it is common to consecrate the oil in a special ceremony" leaves itself open to some oddly wide and loose interpretation.  While I suspect the intended interpretation is "among religions that do not practice animal sacrifice, e.g.  Christianity, it is common to consecrate the oil in a special ceremony", my initial reading of this sentence was such that Christianity used to practice animal sacrifice but does not do so any more and thus "it is common to consecrate the oil in a special ceremony."  If the intent is to point out that the oil is consecrated during a special ceremony, it would be better to first remove the existing sentence and to then add a sentence to the "Christianity" subsection indicating that "it is common to consecrate the oil in a special ceremony".  Miles Montgomery (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of "Purpose" in "Religion"

message: I've broken this section down into subsections and added a bit more about modern Pentecostal usage. The section marked "Other" originally started "In the Christian religion" but I've changed that to "In some denominations." I'm not sure exactly which denominations it refers to though, or how accurate it is, so I've just left it. Perhaps someone could clarify it a bit? Jammycakes 09:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Sacramental Usage 

message: This section needs to be looked at again.  The Merovingian kings were thought to be descendents of a Roman or even a "Sea Monster".  Thus they were of a rare bloodline that was thought to stay in power.  It is the Carolingian kings who are the first to get annointed so as to justify their rule since they are not of this rare bloodline of the Merovingians.
:Yup. See below. — LlywelynII 06:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Monarchy 

message: The first lines of this section  ['ANTECEDENTS']   read:
"Abhishek has done a target of nearly 1cr in one month during his 15 days tenure in DBS chola. 
believed [sic] that the virtues of one killed could be transferred to survivors if the latter rubbed themselves with his caul-fat. 
So the Arabs of East Africa anoint themselves with lion's fat in order to gain courage and inspire the animals with awe of themselves." . . . etc.
 
Numerous problems here.
Does this represent a cut-n-paste error?  Are numerous hyertext-links missing?
This opening reads like it's been copied from another source which the copier didn't fully understand.
If this is the case please recall this remains the ENGLISH version of Wikipedia.
Non-english proficient editors are advised to write in native-language wikis for best sense,
Then request translation into English, for inclusion into English-language Wikipedia.
Please do not try to distort natural processes- nor ENGLISH wikipedia.
Will one who understands this entry above &  the intended meaning please render it into English.... 
Please? Otherwise being nonsnese however poetic it's rilly gotta go, "with awe of themselves" or no.
Thanks in advance 8-) Hilarleo (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANTECEDENTS  

message: The correct spelling of the word is "Anointing."   "Annointing" is a common mis-spelling and should be a redirect to the correct version. 81.157.133.102 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is correct and someone recently changed the spelling of this article without establishing consensus. —Whig (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can somebody move it back to the correct place then? (IIRC you need to be an administrator to do this properly, preserving the page's history) 81.157.133.102 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a request at WP:RM. —Whig (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks Station1. Of course in this case we couldn't move it directly because there was a redirect page that needed to be removed. —Whig (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I think to put a 'who?' [weasel words] after Christians in the following sentence -'Distinct from the Jewish view, Christians believe the "anointed" one'- is a bit over-zealously pernickety. CHRISTOS is Greek for 'Anointed One'.  So I deleted the query.  Mens Sana (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a snotty edit but that was a bad way to phrase the idea anyway. Fixed. — LlywelynII 06:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Messiah 

message: Perfume not needed.Longinus876 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on what you're talking about. Isn't necessary but isn't wrong. — LlywelynII 06:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfumed oil 

message: Passages "it can also be seen as a spiritual mode of ridding persons and things of dangerous influences, as of demons (Persian drug, Greek κηρες Keres, Armenian dev) believed to be or to cause disease" and "The title Christ is derived from the Greek term Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one"; covered in oil, anointed, itself from the above mentioned word Keres"  indicate a linguistic association between Χριστός and κηρες which is uncited, and so far as I (and my translator, who helps with ancient Greek) is not supported by any credible linguistic theory. To quote his assessment,"I don't see how that could be the case. If the consonant was kh // then it'd have more support (but the vowels would still not make sense). It sounds like a false concord made by people who don't understand Greek phonology".
Are we missing something? Is this citation found elsewhere in credible form?
Google searches using keywords (in English and Greek context) turn up only the same sentences copy and pasted on various Christian websites.
Where is this information coming from?
:It's from the EB11 article and was being mishandled. Fixed.
:Also, kindly remember to sign your posts — LlywelynII 06:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keres Citation? 

message: There was a mass of (offline) cites for the Merovingians being the first to anoint their kings "in the 7th century". I can't check them directly but they certainly seem to be wrong (inter alia, see the Cambridge Medieval History Series, which pointedly states that there's no evidence of anointment in France prior to Pepin), so I've replaced them with the actual first king per coronation and more sources. If there was some new manuscript discovered or sth, lemme know and go ahead and fix that bit of the article here and at coronation and whatever the "coronation in European monarchies" article is titled. — LlywelynII 13:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Visigoths

message: Given their very closely related subjects, someone wanting to bump this up to  status should probably take an hour or so and sort things properly between anointing and chrism. The entire present #Catholic section here probably belongs there, along with most of the #Orthodox section, since it's focused on the specific forms and treatment of the oil and not its ritual use. — LlywelynII 13:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: SCOPE

message: A previous editor reformatted the treatment of Mormonism in the article with a smattering of policy cover. Just to reply:
*  says that mentions of "the Church of Latter-day Saints" should include the article. It does not support the idea that we should follow their ing over sensible  treatment. It's only "The Church" to its adherents, which most of our readership still isn't. (See also:  and )
*  says that mentions of specific churches should maintain clarity by listing its full proper name and linking to its proper article. In this case, however, afaik we are not referring to a belief/practice of a single sect but rather to something shared by the entire movement. In that case,  has (almost) no problem with using "Mormon". It does note that some sects of the Mormon movement object to the term; it does not support the idea we should care very much or vitiate  s on their behalf.
There's nothing wrong with using Mormon and it is preferential to using only a single sect's name in exclusion of other members of the movement. At the same time, a sensible compromise is to use the generic term "Latter-day Saints" which is inclusive, fairly clear (it still needs a clarifying mention of "Mormon" in the text), and apparently not objected to by anyone. If the practice is restricted to the particular denomination, we can restore its specific link but it's still no call for the unsightly and -violating section name. — LlywelynII 12:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormons

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anointing. 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/20030301104732/http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8420.asp to http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8420.asp
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) 11:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can anyone comment on when this originated within Hinduism? I cannot guess what might be meant by "late Vedic". StephanNaro (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins?