Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:56, 3 January 2009

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hello

Hello my friend; are you visible today? Scirocco6 (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Various things relating to Daily Office

Hi, I saw your recent edits in the Morning and Evening Prayer articles and that got me to thinking about them myself. First of all, isn't it sort of stupid to have Evening Prayer be a disambiguation page, but Morning Prayer be specifically Anglican? Particularly since the Vespers article talks about non-Roman Catholic forms of vespers and includes Evening Prayer as one of them? Secondly, have a look at the way I re-sorted the headings in Evening Prayer, grouping them into the pre-liturgical renewal forms, which have 1662 as their model (why the 1928 BCP should be more "traditional", when it omits the Phos Hilaron and is more Puritan-Reformed-oriented, is not clear to me...don't you think that heading is problematic?), and those forms which reflect the liturgical renewal movement (Common Worship, BAS/ASB, 1979). Shouldn't we do something like that with Morning Prayer, too? The problem there is that the section about Common Worship is just so long that it is hard to integrate with the others. But it would have the added advantage of not specifying the 1979 BCP be particularly American. Three hours ago, I just completed an Evensong service done in the 1979 BCP form in the Federal Republic of Germany. Similar things will take place in Colombia and other parts of the world (Province IX) outside America. The whole ECUSA, TEC, etc. abbreviations are pretty problematic, I agree, but spelling out the word "American" doesn't help much, except to make clear we are not talking about Scotland.--Bhuck (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do like your recent change, but I would love something further reaching. I agree with your concerns expressed in this note as well. I think it's silly to have the Anglican and RC and Orthodox pages separated. Indeed, now that RCs use the terms "Morning Prayer" and "Evening Prayer" it's particularly silly. Detailed service outlines are not really that helpful in my opinion, but regardless, some unification and so forth is needed. As for "liturgical renewal", I think that's the wrong place to pin this. Indeed, despite the protestations of some, the 1928 BCP office is very similar to Rite One, which (aside from language) is virtually identical to Rite Two. Notice that the "service in tradition of the 1662 prayerbook" is almost a perfect description of the Rite Two office in the 1979 BCP! Tb (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I could easily live with a merger of the Anglican, RC, and Orthodox versions of Morning and Evening prayer all being in one article. We would have to figure out what to do to differentiate between Mattins and Lauds, though, if both are Morning Prayer. Or is Matins Compline if it is in the night watch?--Bhuck (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Compline is Compline. :) Matins is the same as Vigils; Lauds is the same as Morning Prayer. Anglicans came to call Morning Prayer "Matins" (or "Mattins"), because "matins" means morning--though it was always the *early* morning office, the same as monastic "Vigils", sung about 2am traditionally. Tb (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In light of that clear explanation, I find the "this article..." blurb at the top of the Morning Prayer article particularly confusing.--Bhuck (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"a page" or multiple pages?

While I can live with this edit, and the IP who provoked it might learn an important lesson from it, the IP's argument that "Anglican America" "must point to a page" about Anglicanism in America is a bit short-circuited. It could also point to multiple pages about Anglicanism in America. British North America (now known as Canada) would be another likely target for such a page, so maybe if problems persist, we should set up a disambiguation page, where churches of the Anglican Communion figure prominently (Mexico has one, too, and that is in America as well--and even the Southern Cone is in America, though the very southern part of it). The disambiguation page could also list the various and sundry schismatic groups, or if there already is such a list somewhere else, the disambiguation page could incorporate such a list by reference. Just an idea, since you seem to be the one who is awake and editing at the times the IP is active (probably you are in a more similar time zone than I).--Bhuck (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A slew of these were all created at once, at the same time as the "ACNA" was formed out of the CCP. I don't mind a disambiguation page, I thought of doing that myself but didn't have the time. It's really quite pointless; these redirection links were created, in my opinion, purely to drum up points at ACNA, but now they're here, and a redirection page seems good. Tb (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

REC

Thank you for cleaning up that business about the REC and FCE/ECFCE. Man, that article is a "wreck" indeed, with anonymous editors on POV missions. Hey: I remember you from soc.religion.christian in the 1980s! Feliz Nav. Chonak (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to finesse the UK fractiousness by adding the disambig header. Sent the guy a note requesting clarification. I've never dealt w/the 3RR before, so will need to refresh memory.Chonak (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dec 2008

History2007 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Augustus Wise

Hey sorry about that but when I first added the section you must have removed it very soon after because I thought that it simply did not save properly. I did not realize your action. Concerning the section in question, I admit, I added it somewhat hasty and I understand your reasoning. Thanks for contacting me. Daytrivia (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Chief of Protocol

Hi, I'm not trying to be a pain or do anything wrong here. The article as it stood was simply not accurate hence my additions. I'm new to Winkipedia and trying to learn the best way to source. I work at the State Dept. in the Protocol Department. All I can say is the website is NOT up-to-date and changes to certain sections can take months to be updated. The changes are formal and HAVE taken place and will be carried forward in to the next administration. The interview for the Washington Diplomat was the place this was announced and the quote is accurate. Hope this helps. -- 71.206.91.252 (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)