Talk:Book of Common Prayer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Laud

Err... didn't Archbishop Laud draw up the Book of Common Prayer in the reign of Charles I? What's going on here? john 03:12 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to have imagined that. Carry on everyone, carry on. john 03:17 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Calvinism

Also mildly close are the Presbyterian Church and Dutch Reformed Church whose doctrines are based on those of John Calvin but whose language, at least in their English derivations, come from the Book of Common Prayer.

This doesn't seem correct especially as the Dutch Reformed forms claim to be translation of the 1566 Dutch forms which were based on earlier Heidelberg ones. Rmhermen 03:47 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There may be a link, though: Cranmer drew heavily on the German Reformed theologian Martin Bucer. I know nothing of the Heidelberg liturgies, but it's plausible that they may have drawn on Bucer. 81.79.144.196 22:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bad links

I have deleted the following links as they give me 404 errors. - Cafemusique 23:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anglican Church of Australia

http://www.anglican.org.au/liturgy/

The Anglican Church In Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia

http://www.missionstclare.com/english/nz/

The link to the 1928 Prayer Book is the ECUSA 1928 prayer book - not the CofE prayer book.

ECUSA

Does anyone (else) think that perhaps the ECUSA Prayer Books deserve their own page? 00527 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, either that or this page needs to be expanded to include them. At the moment this page is extremely CofE-centric. --Angr 13:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm otiose.

When two articles have similar names, a link like the one I added is standard wiki practice. There is a matching link on the novel's page.

Useless picture

I have removed the picture of the 1979 US BCP; it doesn't add anything to the article and it is hardly the best choice for the most prominent picture in this article. Surely a better picture would be of the title page of a 1662 Prayer Book.GSTQ 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. I hesitated to do anything myself but felt that no picture is better than the wrong one. Roger Arguile 10:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Religious influence

John Wesley did not 'convert'; he simply carried on his preaching and organisation of groups which eventually formed the Methodist Church. Both he and Charles, his brother, died technically as Anglicans. Methodist worship in both the United States and England now use books much influenced by the Liturgical Movement. The material on the Presbyterian church is about worship books without clear reference to their indebtedness to the BCP. Prebyterians in the UK used the very different 'Book of Common Order' Its relationship to the BCP would need to be demonstrated in detail but in a separate article Roger Arguile 22:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

USA and Canada

I have altered the material for these two for the following reasons. ECUSA existed as a church with a liturgy from 1607 not 1789. The material took no account of the difference between incremental change in the early twentieth century and the considerable changes which took place after WWII when the Liturgical Movement began to make its impact. Whereas in England the government prevented changes which would have put it at the forefront of liturgical development in 1928, these proceeded in the rest of the communion. There should be a section on NZ too, but, liturgically speaking, the new liturgies of the late twentieth century show more evidence of a debt to the Roman Catholic church than they do to Cranmer. I have tried to indicate that the diminution of Cranmer's influence began in 1559 (!) and has proceeded ever since; but the watershed is undoubtedly the 'new liturgies' following Vatican II. Roger Arguile 11:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The treatment of the introduction of the 1979 Prayer Book in the US is very confusing; the changes were more extensive than in previous prayer books, but it is still the Book of Common Prayer in the US, and that's not really all that confusing. It is not a new book given an old name, it is a substantial revision.

There was a claim that the older American prayer books are all canonically authorized. This is not true. Please cite a canon here if you wish to argue otherwise. Tb 16:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate for those who defend the 1979 book as being a descendant of the BCP to show this. It owes far more to the liturgical movement and I think it would be hard to refute this. Does Tb know a lot about the history of the BCP and the influence of the liturgical movement? Roger Arguile 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Having had sight of the 1979 BCP I think that my latest revision is more accurate, but mroe could be done. My apologies to Tb; it is a moot point how much it owes to the English BCP. I think it would be useful for a new article to be produced perhaps with the title of 'Anglican liturgies'. I confess to Tb that I was not aware how conservative the 1979 BCP was in its language. What I would still argue is that Cranmer would have been appalled by it - which is not a criticism of it as liturgy - and that many self-respecting Engolish Anglicans would likewise find it unacceptable. It would never have got through the Church of England General Synod. Roger Arguile 22:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't have. The American church has always been far more Anglo-Catholic in many details, including from the very beginning its use of the Scottish Eucharistic prayer. The US is not Britain: a fact which took George III some trouble to learn, and which +Rowan still seems to have some trouble digesting, and now perhaps you. I would note that the 1979 BCP does *not* represent any change in the observance of saints days over what existed previously in the American church. Talk of a departure "in theology" is nowhere near NPOV, since the position of the American church is that it does not represent any such departure. I see no need for your attempt to lobby pot shots at the 1979 BCP; you seem to want to say it's bad, while not actually being allowed to say *that*. Can we simply try not to pass judgments on it at all? I've made a new change which I think preserves the idea, without trying to diss the book. Tb 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, my capacity for concealing my own views is obviously better than I thought! I am hugely in favour of the 1979 book. However, the article is about the BCP - that which began in 1549 and ended up as 1662. That the Church in the United States moved away from Cranmer early was not known to me and I did not at first trespass on this section. I attempted to improve it with inadequate knowledge and am glad you have corrected it. However, while I am grateful for the corrections and don't have the material in front of me, I should be surprised if the first (P)ECUSA book of 1789 incorporated the insights of the Liturgical Movement which did not get going until the 20h century. You tell me that the Sanctorale was never lost: I never knew that. I must do some work on the Scottish Episcopal church. However, to repeat: either I have expressed myself very badly or you have jumped to a conclusion that my sympathies lie with Cranmer. I consider him a great stylist and his theology dismays me utterly. Roger Arguile 13:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, then all I can say is that I'm sorry, and I'm delighted that I my judgment was a misjudgment. Of course the 1789 book did not incorporate the insights of the liturgical movement; but that doesn't make something radical; the whole point of the liturgical movement was to make plain what had been there all along, if obscured. If "Book of Common Prayer" identifies only an English book, then it does not apply to Scotland, the US, or any of the other provinces which have long not used the English book. In the US, it has long meant the book that is authorized by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church as being such. There may seem to be an abuse of language on that side of the pond that we call our book the "Book of Common Prayer", but we have always done so and aren't about to change. (Now and then people would ask me what the "Alternative Service Book" in England was, and I would reply: It's what they have *instead* of a Book of Common Prayer. I think that the American church, by revising the BCP [whether in little ways or big ones] has kept the spirit far better than those provinces that have more or less moved to storing the BCP on a shelf to be honored but not used, and having some other book for the actual liturgies of the church.) Tb 15:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Tb and I have had a considerable debate on our own pages about this section. In particular there are issues, which editors might regard as not necessary in this article, about the disputes wshich took place between Seabury's consecration in 1784 and the publication of the 1790 US Prayer book, My concern is that just as the prayer book was at the centre of storms blown by liberals and conservatives (to use untechnical terms) in England, so between those dates there were those who wanted to keep the prayer book unchanged apart from the necessary removal of references to the English monarch; there were those who wanted to remove or alter much material (rewriting the psalms, removing the Athanasian Creed, altering words in the other Creeds and removing reference to them in the Communion Service) and there were those who wanted to import 'catholicising' elements form the Scottish liturgy and, with the encouragement of Seabury not to approve what was not approved by episcopal authority. This is of course an article about the BCP not about the history the of (P)ECUSA. I hope we have got the balance right. Roger Arguile 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

TDUDP

Where does the ubiquitous 'Till death do us part' come from? The correct text (1662 at least) is 'Till death us do part', as in the famous television programme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.17.120 (talk • contribs) 12 March 2007

Probably the same source as "Play it again, Sam" and all those other well known misquotations. Dabbler 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Cranmer

I have included some material on Cranmer whose contribution, I now discover, was somewhat different from what I had thought. It can be added to if that seems useful. Roger Arguile 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit including Dix in the argument now makes the sentence a nonsense. Either Bucer did influence Cranmer or he did not. It is clear that Bucer thought his views, which were known to Cranmer before the 1549 book came out, would influence. Dix has also been badly wrong on other matters related to Cranmer's theology. I agree that this won't do but it seems to me that some examination of modern scholarship to which McCulloch makes reference will be necessary. I am fond of Dix but his attempted defence of Cranmer is sometimes shaky. Roger Arguile 12:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

mess

As someone who has contributed to this article I am a little concerned as the use of the above word. Roger Arguile 11:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry Mr Arguile, I think he means me. It is indeed a rather rude comment but while providing some points of substance I am very happy for him to tidy them. I wish I were more efficient. However I greatly admire your article. Frederick Jones

For an excellent article by an Evangelical scholar on 1552 and 1549 try Google (PDF)Churchman 116-3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick jones (talk • contribs)

It is not apparent to me that evangelical scholars are anything other than scholars, either good or bad. The attribution of epithets to the work of scholarship is in danger of being partisan and is not appropriate for WP, with or without the inclusion of the name of the editor.Roger Arguile 14:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr Arguile surely you are aware that since historical writing is inevitably a process of selection it is therefore helpful to know the stance taken by a particular writer? FJ

Recent revision

The revised introduction has become somewhat idosyncratic. It is not 'part' this, etc. but merely includes, as do many prayer books, additional information such as psalmody and lectionaries. It is not clear to me that any improvement has been achieved by the insertion of information a good deal of which is contianed thereafter. I hope I do not offend my removing the contested and unimportant fact about percentages of biblical quotations. Roger Arguile 13:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-write the Lead per Wikipedia:Lead section. The previous version meant nothing to an outsider. I tried to write it so that an outsider who knows nothing will have some understanding of what the BCP is within a couple of paragraphs. Oddly, the percentage of biblical quotations is more important than an insider might think. One of the 'selling points' of some evangelical Protestant churches is that they are 'bible based'. The percentage emphasizes in a quantitative way that the BCP is very much 'bible 'based'. Literally! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that an encyclopaedia is concerned with selling points. As to which version you are referring to as the previous one, I am not sure. I am happy to rewrite. Roger Arguile 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The content of this rticle isn't so bad as it is. What it needs is citations if we are going to put it up for GA, which we really should if we are going to claim it is an "A" class article. Roger Arguile, I assume you have access to all the sources. It would be a great help if you could start citing as much as possible. -- SECisek 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Reason for the recent changes

So we don't get too bogged down in tussling over the re-write of the lead, I'm sure someone prompted the re-write that occured on 14/08, but there doesn't seem to be anything on the talk page here, nor on the Anglicanism Project talkpage. Can someone find where and what was said, and we can check if we are actually addressing the specific concerns that were raised. David Underdown 15:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been engaged with some discussion about the lead. My view was that the changes added by WUWC were over detailed and, in serious ways, inaccurate. They also duplicated material about the content of the BCP found in a lower paragraph and some of the history. There is an argument about how technical an introduction should be but the wikilinks provide people with access to understanding not available in printed encyclopaedias. As to the inaccuracies, Mass/missal won't do, nor will the relationship between 1549 and 1552 - the former was a temporary expedient as the lower text makes clear. I have tried to improve it by pointing out that the word BCP is widely used across the pond from me to refer to the modern book which is held to be a development from the Reformation book. I confess that I found the use of the expression 'part this' and 'part that' unhelpful: the book was an attempt to provide a unified use within one set of covers according to Reformation principles. The deletion of the section of mediaeval uses deprived readers of a technical expression which would lead them to discover the various forms hitherto available. (I had orginally referred to particular 'uses' - Sarum etc. - but some kind soul saw fit to delete the detail.) I have subsequently been having a dispute over Cranmer's opinions and whehter they matte, and whether the changes to the 1552 book were a development, an evolution or a contradiction of his opinions. I happen to think that Cranmer's opinions matter a good deal as do those of the revisers to inserted prayers for the dead of which he (Cranmer) disapproved.

I hope this helps Roger Arguile 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentions of Sarum and the other roots of the BCP are critical! Find that material and put it back in, Roger!!! Cranmer's opinions do matter when discussing the first two editions, but not when speaking generaly about the prayer book in the lead.

Cranmer's opinion also becomes irrelavent at the time of his death. The fact that Cranmer would have been smoking mad (so to speak) at the 1559 changes is of no consequence. Times had changed, the church had changed, so the prayer book changed. If Cranmer had been around in 1559, things might have beend different. His opinion would valuable, but as it is when discussing the 1559 edition, speculation on Cranmer's reaction is only slightly more relevent than speculation on Thomas Becket's feelings about the prayer book.

Remember, this article is not just about the 1549-1552-1559 books but about ALL the prayer books used everywhere and it need to reflect that.

BTW - FAC does want citations in the lead section now. -- SECisek 17:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And as an overall intro and summary of the article, the lead of necessity duplicates info elsewhere in teh article, albeit without covering all the details which should be fleshed out in the body of the article. David Underdown 17:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. -- SECisek 17:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The lead must explain what the BCP is to a non-Anglican who knows nothing about prayer books and the BCP. The lead should be written for some poor soul who sees a reference in their favourite Murder-Mystery and wonders what the BCP is exactly which was used to bludgeon the poor Vicar. We have to state the obvious first and then worry about history. Anyway, to get the lead to GA or FA status, then the the lead must be accessible to the general reader and avoid jargon. It must have in-line citations and be fairly expansive: up to 4 paragraphs. Also note these guidelines from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles:

• "State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article."
• "The lead section ...should establish significances, large implications and why we should care
• "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject."

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a subtle piont, but I'm not sure "where Anglicanism became established." is good wording, we don't want to imply that it became the established church everywhere. I'm struggling to think of a good alternative though. Thoughts? David Underdown 08:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a handbook. The term is anachronistic and inaccurate. Nor is it a play script. It is sui generis, because people do not play parts but are themselves. It is not a reference work but is intended for use in prayer. As for the biblical content, that is a strange way to describe something which, as the body of the text makes clear, derives from various scholarly sources. The idea that Cranmer's views become irrelevant on his death is remarkable. Had Cranmer been a solitary voice rather than the editor of views held by a large number of his contemporaries and opposed by others, the view might be justified but not otherwise. The agument continues. However, the small consensus seems to like the changes so I shall withdraw. Roger Arguile 09:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about describing it as a handbook, or play script myself to be honest. However, breviary is possibly too technical for the lead. I can see wehre the play script idea is going, the rubric is a little like stage directions. David Underdown 10:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the errors derive from Ms. Careless. Cranmer was influenced by Zwinglian ideas. Calvin does not feature. The introduction did not distinguish between one prayer book and another - the 39 articles are not in 1549. As for drama and handbooks, I am glad to have some support.Roger Arguile 10:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS The long title only comes from 1662, Common Worship is not confined to daily worship, the purpose of the readings is not made clear, it was not made clear that 1559 was not Cranmer's work, the Civil War did not lead to the revision of 1662 (had there been no Commonwealth it is arguable that 1559 would have remained) ..and so on. Roger Arguile 11:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the lead, authorship does not need to be stressed. Should we mention that Cranmer didn't work on the Canadian edition, or the 1979 Ameican edition? Cranmer was not even alive in 1559, again should we make it clear that Cardinal Pole had no hand in the 1559 edition? I love Cranmer, I have spent two months of my Wiki life working almost exclusively on his article. He is critical to understanding the Prayer book, but come off it a bit, Roger. He did what he did, state that and let's move on. This article is not Thomas Cranmer and the Book of Common Prayer.

The Civil war did lead to the Commonwealth which did lead to the 1662 edition. If there had been no Commonwealth, we would probably all be using Laud's 1637 edition right now...an so on.

What is wrong with this lead? Try to be to the point, so we can discuss any issues. -- SECisek 11:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not much wrong with the lead section now, though other deleted material eg. about the Latin uses - needs to be re-inserted. As for the 1637 order, this was proposed for Scotland not England and the petition of Sir Thomas Aston and company was for the retention of the 1559 book. Cranmer's theology was patent in the composition of the 1549 book and was all of a piece. The alterations following his death removed that consistency. Nor was this a matter of individuals but of whole movements of thought. The argument between Protestant and Catholic is one that underlies the history of the BCP and to underplay it is to distort the past. Roger Arguile 09:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will look throught the history and attempt to restore the material on the latin and other uses. -- SECisek 11:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this is what you were refering to?:

"The BCP replaced the various 'uses' or rites in Latin that had been used in different parts of the country with a single compact volume in English so that "now from henceforth all the Realm shall have but one use". "

This is neither very helpful nor correct. Henry VIII had already made Sarum use the only liturgy in England prior to his death. Cranmer's quote is out of context and misleading. -- SECisek 11:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If it is incorrect and misleading, I am sorry. I only draw to Mr. Secisek's attention to the words of Cranmer in the Preface to the 1549 book. "And whereas heretofore there hath been great diversity in saying and singng in Churches within this realm: some following the Salisbury use, some Hereford use, and some the use of Bangor, some of York, some of London; now henceforth all the realm shall have but one use'. Proctor and Frere comment about the Sarum use .'...and finally in 1542 on the eve of the Reformation changes, the Convocation of Canterbury adopted the Sarum Use for saying the Hour offices throughout the Southern province.' I do not know whether Mr. Secisek is referring to the same event. If so there there are clear discrepancies which make my deleted statement less inaccurate. Otherwise, it may be that Mr. Secisek has access to other sources of information about the decisions of the king, via Convocation or Parliament which I, for one, would be glad to know about. Roger Arguile 13:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Handbook

Please, Roger Arguile, consider your readership. Wikipedia is for everyone who wants to know a little more about something. Here is the exact section from the Wiki policy in Leads:

Provide an accessible overview
Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question). It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see news style and summary style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similartitles).

In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar. For example, rather than giving the latitude and longitude of a town, it is better to state that it is the suburb of some city, or perhaps that it provides services for the farm country of xyz county. Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—they should be eased into it.

I'm certain you are a smart dude and I've worked with PhD scientists who have also not "gotten it": when talking to the public, don't talk down but talk to them! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For an example, the lead's first sentence is not accessible.

"The Book of Common Prayer is the common title of a number of prayer books belonging to the Anglican Communion."

My attempt places the subject in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar to quote Wiki policy:

"The Book of Common Prayer is a handbook consisting mostly of biblical texts used in Anglican worship."

My version is both information dense and three of the four nouns (adjectives) - handbook, biblical texts, Anglican, and worship - only Anglican might be new to some people.

The version as it stands now has three noun phrases of which two - prayer books and Anglican communion - are not familiar to the person on the street, and the third - common title - is baffling. Don't all books have a common title if they are the same book? Weird! Again, forget about doctrine and write a lead that speaks to your audience. Worry less about precision and most about the flow of information. This is good expository style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is only a "handbook" in the sense that it can be held in the hand! The Book of Common Prayer is not a manual for conducting Anglican services and it contains much more than Biblical texts. If you talk down to people as well as misinform them in the lead, you are equally discredited. Someone interested in a prayer book will understand what that is. Dabbler 14:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would rewrite the initial sentence(s) as something like this. The Book of Common Prayer is the prayer book of the Anglican Communion. It was initially written in 1549 and was revised a number of times until the 1662 version which lasted almost unchanged until the 20th century. Dabbler 14:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That would ignore the other Prayer books of the anglican communion which redirect here right now. -- SECisek 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the case. One of our difficulties is the fact that simplication often leads to error; as it has done in this case. WUWC is surely able to use the wikilinks to establish, for instance, the meaning the Anglican Communion. Precision, which he apparently, despises, is what we are about. I do not see that anything in that introduction is less than clear. I confess that I very much feel talked down to by him/her. Roger Arguile 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well, how about The Book of Common Prayer is the prayer book of the Anglican Communion. It was initially written in 1549 for the Church of England and was revised a number of times until the 1662 version which lasted almost unchanged until the 20th century. As Anglicanism spread from England, changes were made in other countries to adapt it to local conditions while retaining much of the same structure and content. Dabbler 15:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't. What Dabbler writes increases the confusion. The expression BCP refers to a number of different things. Not all member churches use either the final 1662 English edition, or any book with such a title. The fact is that life is complex. This article is no exception. What is written is, I think it may be agreed, accurate. WUWC contends that it is obscure. Both he and Dabbler want to make it clearer but less accurate. One might wish to restrict the article to the English BCP but life is not like that. This being the case one needs to state the complexity accurately. I think it should be left alone. I don't like everything in it but at least it has got the facts right. Roger Arguile 15:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I am only trying to get a relatively simple (and uncontentious) first couple of sentences which give some basic facts. I am not trying to summarise the article in the first couple of lines. The rest of the article can be given over to explaining the complexity of the topic and the detailed differences between the various versions. What exactly is wrong with my sentence as it stands above? Not what does it leave out but what is actually incorrect? I might change it to read "...a prayer book of the Anglican Communion." Dabbler 16:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks correct to my eyes, what is wrong, Roger? -- SECisek 16:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is A prayer book of the Anglican Communion - perfectly correct - but to but to say so is to say very little indeed. I fear that WUWC has induced us to dumbing down to absurd levels. Our readership, to which WUWC referred me, presumably consists of people paying attention in order to learn. It is not merely A book. In its 1662 from it was THE book for Anglican Churches, as the US convention of 1789 agreed and as most Anglican churches held until the mid twentieth century. That the liturgical movement has raised fresh issues does not detract from that. To play WUWC'S tune, which of the words in the following is hard to understand? "The Book of Common Prayer is the common title of a number of prayer books belonging to the Anglican Communion." Anglican Communion has a link. If it to be improved I would suggest the folliwng "The Book of Common Prayer is the common title of a family of prayer books belonging to the Anglican Communion, of which the most often refered to historically is the edition of 1662" but please save us from handbooks and the idea that the BCP is a collection of biblical texts. Roger Arguile 17:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to irritate ...but the BCP is not just the prayer book of the Anglican Communion, if you desire to be precise. It is also the prayer book of Anglicans who may or may not be in Communion. Culturally, the BCP is greater than that even: it is one of the "things" that contribute to "Englishness" - a cultural marker. Put a vicar and a BCP in a murder mystery and it becomes an "English cosy" to use fandom jargon. By the way, the BCP technically is mostly biblical texts: some scholar figured it out and claims biblical passages represent more than 80% of the content per *Careless, Sue. Discovering the Book of Common Prayer: A hands-on approach (Volume 1:Daily Prayer). Toronto: Anglican Book Centre Publishing. p. 280. ISBN 1-55126-398-X. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Wassupwestcoast has the right idea, but no, I don't like the term "handbook", either. -- SECisek 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No; there is a difference between those who have an emotional attachment to something and those who wrote and publsihed it. I use the RC Divine Office sometimes; it does not make it anything other than a Roman Catholic book. As for the origin of the texts, the same divine office, certainly the Morning and Evening Prayer consists almost entirely of biblical texts. There is nothing remarkable in this. It is something about which christians whose forms of worship are non-liturgical are often surprised, that Prayer Books, as distinct from books of prayers largely consist of quotations from Scripture. The Breviary is no different and the discovery of the unnamed scholar is unremarkable. Roger Arguile 11:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Roger Arguile, when you wrote, It is something about which christians whose forms of worship are non-liturgical are often surprised, that Prayer Books, as distinct from books of prayers largely consist of quotations from Scripture., I thought - yes, we are getting somewhere. People who are not Anglicans are truly surprised by this! We need to include this in the first sentence of the lead. This is a basic part of a definition: "What is the thing?" Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a definition must state the obvious even if it is unremarkable to us, it isn't to everyone. As for possible synonyms to handbook, they are variations on guide and manual. I agree that 'handbook' seems - well - undignified but it is closer to what the BCP is than a 'book of prayers'. Anyway, the lead - and the article as a whole - will no doubt be pulled this way and that as it gets closer to GA status. I hope every one still enjoys doing this. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not clear that the expression 'used' is more precise. Some Anglican churches use the Roman Missal. This is not authorised. 'Belonging to' avoids the notion of authorisation which may be inapplicable in some provinces, though it might be preferable. It seems to me that we have yet another example of simplification creating error. Roger Arguile 13:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sealed Book in the Tower of London

I believe for a long time the 'correct' version of the Book of Common Prayer was kept sealed in the Tower of London, and there was a worry in the early 19th century that printed versions were deviating from this. Does anyone know about this, and if so could they write a section? Proberts2003 17:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a neat factoid. Hopefully someone can find a source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Our dear reader

Since there has been little activity here, I though I'd jump start it by posing the question: who is our reader? My personal philosophy is that a Wikipedia article should provide an overview of a topic while omitting the detail. They are not PhD dissertations or monographs. Picture the reader as a bright and literate twelve-year old. They can read well but not too well. They know more than a fifth grader but less than a university student. Many things are still surprising to them. The Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines has a page on this: Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. The guide is aimed at the math and physics crowd but is applicable to all. To quote the lead:

Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience.

There is a semi-official essay on this topic at Wikipedia:Many things to many people. To quote:

Sometimes, being many things to many people can lead to complications. For whom are we writing this? Are we writing for the college student? The "man in the street"? The "average curious reader", whoever he or she may be?

The Book of Common Prayer is a religious book but it holds great cultural significance. I think the articel leans to the religious and excludes the secular. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure that a WP article ought not to operate at the level of a twelve year old. Scan the entries on scientific subjects and WUPW will rapidly discover that her view is is not held at all. One reason for there being little activity may be that the article does its job. Roger Arguile 11:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A class?

An article need not be GA to be A class. That said, I agree that we aren't there yet. -- SECisek 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Zwinglian

In the article, the 1552 Book is described as "Zwinglian". This is a contentious description, and tricky in that many High Anglicans would prefer it if were not the case - as in those circles, Zwinglian is a dirty word. Personally, I would prefer the term "Reformed" in the sense of proto-Calvinist. Two issues may be intertwined here: firstly, what exactly Cranmer's Eucharistic theology was at the time of editing the book; and secondly, what is the theology actually expressed within the book? While I would accept that High Anglican historians may have under-stated the degree to which Cranmer was influenced by Zwingli, nevertheless I think there are imprtant differences, and that Cranmer's mature theology is closer to that being formulated by Calvin at the same time. And I think that the Eucharistic formulations in the 1552 Prayer Book are even closer to Calvin's high sacramental theology. TomHennell 15:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is close to GA, but things like this statement need to be sourced or removed to get us there. -- SECisek 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

the material on Parish Worship is entirely unsourced. Since it includes statements such as that there was little or no music - in spite of the fact that we know of John Merbecke's work (see also Adrian Batten) I am not sure it should stay, certainly in its present form. It is also not very specific as to time and refers to the 17th century as if the BCP was in use during that century without noting the dramatic changes which took place then. I am unhappy with the section. I have also had a short interchange with Tom Hennell about Shakespeare. Shakespeare, according to AN Rowse, quoted from the Geneva bible and from the Psalms, but a bland reference implying some connection between Shakespeare and the Bible would need careful sourcing. Roger Arguile 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be bold. You should, too. --SECisek 15:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I shall. Roger Arguile 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vague+unsourced=useless. Well done, Father. -- SECisek 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of being constructive, I went one better. I found 'sources'. It is better to revise and source than to delete the work of other editors. My opinion as a Wikipedian. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry it stil won't do. what period does it cover? The Elizabethan period? The Stuarts?When is MacCulloch talking about? Judith M altby paints a far different picture though she is talking about the reign of Charles I. I am sorry but it won't do. Roger Arguile 17:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my poor style but I was trying to make it refer to the 1552 prayer book. Some of the innovations extend forward in time. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

So are these proper sources for the material at that time or not? -- SECisek 17:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they are 'proper sources' but the sources are discussing explicitly the 1552 prayer book. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is all I wanted to know. If they are about the material in question (which you say they are) and are published by a reputable source (which they seem to be a t first glance) where is the problem? -- SECisek 18:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages the elevation of the Host took place at the Consecration and was followed by that of the Chalice, there was also an elevation of both at the end of the canon. I find some confusion in the account in the article, perhaps we should all attend a celebration of the Traditional Mass to clear up difficulties! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.241.3 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 9 October 2007

What is confused? In the Sarum use that the BCP was based on elevation of the Host took place at the Consecration and was followed by that of the Chalice, and there was also an elevation of both at the end of the canon, as well. This is how it is done where I attend mass,Church of the Ascension, Chicago. -- SECisek 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The confusion is in saying the elevation took place at the prayer of oblation. As you rightly say it took place at the consecration, and that is what the 1549 BCP banned by rubric.

I want to say you are correct. We need a citation. -- SECisek 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Try "The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI" (Prayer Book Soc, London, l999)p 223 Immediately after the words of consecration appears the rubric "The words before rehearsed are to be saied, turning still to the Altar, without any elevation or shewing the sacrament to the people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.192.82 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Parish Worship

I have real trouble with this paragraph as I tried to indicate. No one doubts the Monica Furlong, who was not a historian, got this from a primary source, but we have no idea how common it was. when one looks at the works of Christopher Marsh and Judith Maltby, both scholars of primary sources, they are much more circumspect. No one knows for sure even how often people received communion - once a year in some places according to Marsh, six times according the George Herbert, up to 98% attendance in one Southwark parish according to Judith Maltby. Given that non-attendance was punishable by a fine -doubtless variablh enforced - for non attendance, it seems unlikely that what Furlong writes was the rule. Again, while churchwardens in some places may have complained, if Marsh is right their expense in some places would not have been great.Some people will always be reluctant; the argument was used about the Marian restorations and their cost, but we do not not know how widely this belief was held. Caroline Litzenberger in Patrick Collinson's book on the Reformation in English towns reports enthusiasm for the new liturgical arrangements in Tewkesbury in the 1570s; presumably those who hired carpenters for the new pews around the communion table were also willing to find wine to fill the chalice set upon it.

As for music, again we cannot know what actually happened in so many places but I have to report that, whatever the 1552 book said, John Day's collection of 1560 contained music in three and four parts and in 1565 he produced a book called Morning and Evening Prayer and Communion set forth in four parts to be song (sic) in churches. Proctor and Frere report that the old Gregorian tonesto the psalms when almost without rival to the end of the 17th century. the 1552 book, of course had a life of only a year or less; presumably Furlong was referring to the 1559 book. Merbecke's work, of course is not reliant upon the exact form of the services as any who have sung it to 1662 (as I have) can testify. Holinshed, the chronicler in 1577 does indeed describe a service of Mattins, Litany and Communion which may have lasted two hours but he also describes its music as simpler (he was old enough to remember the pre-Reformation Services) and more participatory. The service could be called a marathon,as MacCulloch does, but Hollinshed - who provides one of the few accounts of an actual service - did not.

Possession of Prayer books is a much disputed issue. I would not be surprised if Monica Furlong got her Flixton story from Judith Maltby, who did the basic research.

For these reasons I am tempted to change WUTWC's insertions. Monica Furlong is a tertiary rather than a secondary source and not altogether reliable. Roger Arguile 08:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonderif WUTWC can esplain why she/he has deleted a large section on the 1559 book and much else. Roger Arguile 09:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Whoops!Humble Apologies: it was I. Roger Arguile 11:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just completed some work on this section, incorporated as it is into the 1559 secton - which had somehow been lost. I have removed the multiple referencing system of WUTWC not least because the refs are all to one page! I have not read Monica Furlong's work so it may that that all the refs.are to a single page, but I think it more helpful to use the less high tech and traditional format. I have also done as above and provided best references from which Ms. Furlong drew and provided counterbalances to her assertions. However, I am less than certain that in an article on the BCP it is appropriate to describe the liturgical life of communities in any detail. One of the common statements by the scholars I have noted (and others like Patrick Collinson) is how little we actually know. As he says, conformists do not tug at the historian sleeve.Much of what we do know arises from parishes where things went wrong - and clergy were taken to court. These were not necessarily typical. I think, in conclusion, that it is not good to quote from pop journalistic books. Monica Furlong was a a good journalist and a vigorous campaigner. As scholar she would never have claimed to be. Roger Arguile 10:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Arguile, I like what you've written and sourced. I did not delete "a large section on the 1559 book and much else". To be pedantic, I deleted:

required that the whole congregation should receive Communion on at least three occasions a year, of which one would be Easter. More frequent celebration of Holy Communion proved very rare. Instead, the normal form of Anglican worship in 16th and 17th Century England consisted of the Sunday service of Mattins (with the specified Sunday Readings from 1559), followed by the English Litany (as the main form of congregational intercession), followed by ante-Communion.

On the other hand, I added a good chunk of sourced text. Oh well, I won't quibble because truly I know not an iota more than I read. Roger Arguile, I enjoyed reading the new stuff you'd sourced. It was new to me and interesting. Thank you for taking the time. The article is getting better. By the way - re the Shakespeare debate and the BCP - did everyone notice that Shakespeare is an FA article and was featured on Wikipedia's main page yesterday/today? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 11:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Harvard citations

Comment. I figured it out. In the text use Template:Harvard citation and in the reference section use Template:Citation. The two are linked. Click on the Harvard reference in the text and it takes you down to the reference. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm well past the half-way point in standardizing all the in-line references to Harvard citations. This is a much easier method. And much easier to copy edit. I've done quite a bit of copy editing too. We may actually be close to a GA nomination. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They want something, but the verdict seems to be out on what they want. Go with what is easiest, yet accepted. -- SECisek 07:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I really do object to the chasing of GA status and doing whatever is required. What we need are good articles, whatever their status and I resist the idea of changing a proven and helpful system which computer buffs may like but which disenfranchise those who don't want to learn how to use them and are more interested in substance. Roger Arguile 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

By definition, a good article is one that has reached GA status. This is not much different than doing ones MA thesis or writing a piece for a magazine. It isn't good enough to say here is the text ...yea, I read alot ... those are the books ... don't bug me. More than half the battle is conforming to the approved style. Tough but ... And, I am trying to find the least disruptive in-line citation style that Wikipedia has to offer. Unfortunatly, I've spent 27 minutes defending Wikipedia policy and haveing to re-do some of my work. I'll complete the task sometime today. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I've completed revising to the Harvard referencing system. Just to note, this isn't my favourite system but it was fairly easy to use. On the other hand, the old system that was in use was not a system at all. It was inconsistent and citations were not complete. I had to consult Amazon.com, two university libraries and a theological library to flesh out the citations. They are all now complete. Not all citations have page numbers because page numbers were not in the text originally. Before changing the system, please read Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability as these represent Wikipedia policy - and it does change. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Context

Is there really no room in this article for this bit of text:

It was used for nearly 100 years, thus being the official prayer book under the Stuarts as well as being the first Anglican service in the British North American colonies. This was the prayer book of Queen Elizabeth I, John Donne, and Richard Hooker. It was also at the core of English liturgical life throughout the lifetime of Shakespeare.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we cite it? I know it to be so, but I did not revert since there was no cite. -- SECisek 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to look for a cite. We probably also need to expand sections on Influence and Criticism. More pop culture references as well as literary references would help. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Prayer Book Socities also. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it since it was one of those rallentandos which sound grand but which merely interrupt the flow and add little - it is partly plattitudinous. That it was the prayer book of Elizabeth does not need repeating. It is also wrong: 'official' is anachronistic; it ignores the slight inconvenience of the Commonwealth interruption or more than a dozen years; Shakespear is marginal to the issue since, having asked for references to the BCP I have been served up with a single one. Roger Arguile 08:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

References

We seem to now have a mixed economy of referencing. Is it asking too much that the system, inaquate thought it may seem to some, which was in place uniformly until recently, could be adhered to? It seems courteous.Roger Arguile 10:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure WWC will complete the task when he next ahs time - I'm not too familiar with the particular brand he's gone for. I was never entirely happy with the use of Ibid and so on - the problem is if someon else inserts additional referenced text, it becomes far from clear precisely what the Ibid is supposed to refer back to. people may also not read through the whole list of references, but merely check on a point which seems surprising to them, so the listing of ibid then means they have to work their way back up the list to fully understand where the reference is from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I rather hope he/she will not do anything of the kind. (ibid.) by itself may be unhelpful; but it can be improved rather than creating a complicated new system. We have a mixed economy in WP and it is scarcely courteous to impose a new system on an existing article, thus, by the way, disenfranchising those of us who are more concerned with content than its support system. It may be of no significance that WWC is very happy to write on matters in which he/she relies on sources rather than having any background knowledge; everyone is welcome to the party - but some consideration should be given to those who work from a considerable library and don't very much want to be burdened with technical questions which have, in the book trade, been fairly settled for some time. It does WP not good.Roger Arguile 10:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is it's not a book, and once you've made an edit, you've no control over what happens next. Each reference needs to stand reasonably well by itself becuase we've no way of telling what additional referencing will go in in the future. The only reall alternative is to expand to full details each time the reference is used, use named references where the same page range is actually being used, or switch to different system. Let's have a look at the results of the harvard system when it's finished (which is widely used in certain areas of publishing I understand) and see if it improves the usability and clarity of the article. If not we can always switch back later. David Underdown 10:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an alternative. That is to have a conversation beforedoing anything. We can't easily switch back. Frankly I am pretty made that these guys are engaged in a secondary exercise thus delaying my work and introducing a mixed system and, into the bargain, putting in stuff which has been taken from books of tertiary scholarship (and borrowing from other articles) thus, I fear, reducing the standard of scholarship. I am now having to work on the Elizabethan Settlement to bring it up to some kind of standard. Afre you willing at least to advocate a moratorium,before these guys have too much fun (as they call it? ) I shall cease operations until I hear. Roger Arguile 11:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Each edit that's been done can just as easily be undone. Elizabethan Settlement would have been just as much in need of work, even if it hadn't been brought to your attention by events here. Borrowing from other articles is not a problem, providing the information there is also properly referenced. Yes to some extent the referencing system used is a distraction, the main thing is making it clear where the information has come from. Wihtou experimenting a bit we cannot work out which system is going to work best forthis article. Harvard does have its advantages as we are largely using the same basic sources to support a number of points, each relying on a different set of pags from a source. It is tiresome to have to type a large amount of information each time, - it can eaisly be seen from the number of bytes added or removed in an edit that you are having to type considerably more each time than was the case for Harvard style references. Ibid and so on are deprecated by the house style guides here, largely for the reasons I have explained previously - they don't work so well with hyperlinks and so on. Fine, if we're getting hung up on form, you just add the content, and let others worry about that side of things. David Underdown 11:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I really am trying to make things a lot easier. The ibid problem is real. When I was working through the list I found examples where the main reference came after an ibid because someone moved a sentence. The informal style also meant half-completed citations. I've spent sometime at Amazon.com just completing citations. The informal style did not handle page numbers well. Using Harvard referencing, it has become obvious we are using only a few sources. Also, for editors who don't want to fool around with 'computer things', Harvard referencing has eliminated a lot of futzing with mark-up code within the text. I found it to be a lot simpler to implement and de-bug/fix. I apologize for being too bold but we can't write an eccentric article. Recently I have read a number of articles in the mainstream media about Wikipedia. It has become de facto the main source of info for a great number of people. This article may very well be the single most important article on The Book of Common Prayer simply on the number of times it is / will be consulted. To me, it is absurd ... but it may be true. So it should have great content, great style and great formatting. Thanks to everyone who has worked on it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The ibid problem arises because of the insertion of material by editors who take no account of the effect of their edits. In that sense it is real. If it is real, we nevertheless have to consider other effect, one of which is the elimination of narrative footnote material. I am not sure whether you have lost any such material by your actions, but I will check. It is possible to have both inline citations and footnotes but this is to create a double system. With respect, your view on 'great formatting' may not be shared. there is another problem which can be mended: that is the lack of convention as to what comes first in a citation. In my view it should be the surname of the author or editor. I regret that your cheerfulness is not universally shared. Roger Arguile 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you mean by 'surname', the 'last' name ...well, I don't get your point. Harvard Referencing places last name first and cites by last name. The problem as always are corporate and anon. works. No 'narrative footnote material' had been lost. But everything should be in the body of the text. This is not a printed source. Info is either in the body or at a wiki-link. Separating it out is 'so yesterday'. Roger Arguile this is my hobby. I do this 'cause it is fun - ergo the cheerfulness. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes can co-exist, and arguably should where we are truly inserting a footnote, rather than a reference. On the other hand, perhaps we should be asking ourselves if material can be better incorporated into the main article, or it the footnote is baiscally just a quote from the source, is it actually required, readers still have to rely on our honesty or check the source for details in any case? Surname first is fairly standard, but is fairly easy to fix. Precisely because we have no control over what else someone adds, we need a referencing system which is not broken by other's insertion of new material. David Underdown 12:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thank you everybody. All the narrative elaborations in the footnotes have been lost from the current edition was a result of WUWC's work. 'Bold' is his word for it. Mine is different. Can we please call an admin to prevent what is simply vandalism. I am sure that some kind of compromise is called for but since, as WUWC acknowledges, this is not his specialism, his trashing of important elaborative material calls for something drastic. As the writer of much of this material I have a vested interest, no doubt. I am concerned that the many who use WP can, if they want, go to a serious level of research using footnotes, which are clearly not the same as citations, whilst clearing the text for a straighforward account.

Itis not my hobby. It is part of my work. Roger Arguile 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Roger Arguile but how on earth can Wikipedia be part of your work? It seems to me that I've read a Wikipedia policy for anyone to be 'professionally' editing Wikipedia but I can't say for certain. And nothing is ever ever lost in Wikipedia. And, implementing Wikipedia approved methods of in-line citation can hardly be called 'vandalism'. Please, take a very deep breath and count to ten. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger, nobody has been having a bit of "fun" about the citations. I don't like them, either. They have become essential in a GA article, and yes, it is the goal of several of us in the Anglicanism wikiproject to see our top articles reach GA and that means in-line citations with templates. If you will absolutely not learn to use them (which I said myself at one point but later relented) you will have to understand that they are standard and allow those of who want to advance the article to GA to do so. As for the Eng. Ref. article, it has plenty of in-line cites and frankly will probably need more when it come up for GA review. If you "don't feel obliged to obey" the in-line requirement (which like it or not it is) I suggest you work on articles which do not require them yet:

• De-stub articles to the "Start" class
• Advance "Start" class articles to "B" class:

You are an important part of the team, but if you "don't have the patience to learn how to use the electronic system", you will hold back GA articles that should pass. It take minutes to learn, please don't give up on this. I reposted this response on the BCP talk page.

NO admin would confuse citations with vandalism. Please, relax a bit about this all and lets see where this is goes. Vandalism is an edit made without good faith. What nefarious, disruptive, purposes do you thin whatsupwestcoast has for adding cites to the article? Please, we all want this article to be the best it can be...why be so confrontational? -- SECisek 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Best, -- SECisek 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The parenthetical asides

The following are the parenthetical asides that appeared in the References section.

• A committee was set up at the King's will with a remit to abolish 'the names and memories of all saints, which be not mentioned in the Scripture' D.Wilkins Concilia (1737) in F Proctor & W.H. Frere, A New History of the book of Common Prayer (Macmillan 1905) p31. Cranmer was glad to oblige.

• A bill was, at the same time going through Parliament to the same effect

• it remains difficult to know how much of 'Cranmer's Prayer Book' is actually Cranmer's personal composition.

• Cranmer's letter to Queen Mary September 1555 in Proctor & Frere (ibid) p.47 n2. The discussions at Chertsey left intact the practice of adoration and the doctrine of oblation; these were jettisoned as a result of evangelical pressure by the time of the Windsor meeting

• Cranmer was also a great plagiarist; even the opening of Preface (above) was borrowed. It came from the 1536 Breviary of the Spanish Cardinal Francisco de Quiñones: Cranmer (ibid) p.225

• At the time many Cornish only spoke their native Cornish language and the forced introduction of the English Book of Common Prayer resulted in the 1549 Prayer Book Rebellion. Proposals to translate the Prayer Book into Cornish were suppressed and in total some 4,000 people lost their lives in the rebellion.

• Cranmer (ibid.) p. 505 but see Gregory Dix, Dixit Cranmer Et Non Timuit (Dacre Press 1948) pp.38–43

• *Cranmer (ibid p. 615) MacCulloch adopts the proposal by Brian Gerrish, that Reformed theologies of the Eucharist can be classified into three categories: symbolic memorialism” where the bread and wine remind the worshipper of Christ's sacrifice (the view of Zwingli), "symbolic parallelism” where the worshipper's body receives the bread and wine while the worshipper's spirit feeds on Christ (the view of Bullinger), “symbolic instrumentalism” where the bread and wine are the means by which the worshipper is brought into the presence of Christ and receives his promised grace (the view of Calvin). MacCulloch considers Cranmer's mature theology as close to "symbolic parallelism”; but believes the 1552 Book of Common Prayer also allows a theology of “symbolic instrumentalism”, while taking great care to exclude the form of

• Quiñones had been entrusted with the work by Pope Clement VII, but its reformed character and the fact that, contrary to the original intention, it had come to be publicly recited in church, caused its printing to be stopped in 1558: Proctor & Frere (ibid.) p.27

• Cranmer took up Quiñones's principle that everything should be sacrificed to secure continuity in singing the psalter and reading the bible. His first draft, produced during Henry's reign, retained the seven hours, but in his second draft, produced either at the very end of the reign or during the first months of the reign of Edward VI: Proctor & Frere (ibid.) p.34

• The process by which a compromise was reached between Puritans and Catholics is suggested in Proctor & Frere (ibid) pp.94-101, but see also D. MacCulloch in "Transactions of the Royal Historical Society"XV 2005 p 88, who regards talk of concessions to Catholics as "absurd" and sees them as aimed at conciliating Lutheran Protestants at home and abroad

• MacCulloch (ibid) p 527. It was so called because its introduction was agreed only at the last moment - and could not be printed in red ink like the other rubrics - though it was not actually a rubric at all, but a declaration.

• Judith Maltby Prayer Book and People in Elizabethan and Early Stuart England(Cambridge 1998) p.123, reports 80% to 98% reception of communion in one parish in Southwark

• Monica Furlong CofE: the State It's In(Hodder & Stoughton 2000)isbn=0340693991 p.418. What the authorities who required personal attendance thought is not recorded

• George Herbert was however, not alone in his enthusiasm for preaching which he regarded as one of the prime functions of a parish priest.Maltby (ibid.) p. 67

• Christopher Marsh (ibid.) p.31ff.; Merbecke's Book of Common Praier Noted was published in 1550; John Day in 1565 produced music for Morning and Evening Prayer and Communion; Gregorian chant was used for the psalms until the end of the 17th century: Proctor and Frere (ibid) p. 125

• The work was primarily that of the two Scottish Bishops, Maxwell and Wedderburn: Perry ibid

• The ecumenical liturgy of the Church of South India (1950) was followed by the Liturgy for Africa (1958) which was taken up in East Africa (1966) and Nigeria (1966); others were to follow - see below

• The Scottish liturgy itself derived from Archbishop Laud's 1637 revision of Cranmer's first book of 1549: The Scottish Liturgy - Its Value and History W. Perry (Mowbrays 1922

• An Historical Account of the American Book of Common Prayer W.McGarvey D.D. The General Convention of 1785 proposed, inter alia, that the Psalms be freely revised into sixty centos, the Nicene Creed removed from the Holy Communion, and the Apostles Creed altered, and removed from the Baptism Service. Adherence to the liturgy of the Church of England was 'disgusting to many of our Communion who neither like the doctrines held by the Church of England, nor the liturgy as it now stands'- Revd. W. Parker of Boston in a letter to Dr. White, later bishop of Pennsylvania.

Comment. I don't think any of them are necessary. Either they can go into the main body of the text or they should be discarded. Personally, I don't know of any print encyclopedia that has extensive footnotes/endnotes. My opinion of footnotes is much like Wikipedia's policy on the Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also". That is info that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. For example,

• Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
• Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont

On the other hand asides like "What the authorities who required personal attendance thought is not recorded." has no place in the text or footnotes. It is an authorial opinion and thus WP:OR. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford Guide to The Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey

After going through all the sources in detail, the biggest surprise was that no one has consulted the latest book on the topic: Hefling, C. (2006). The Oxford Guide to The Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey. ISBN 0-19-529756-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |origdate= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Some very obscure references were included in the text. It would be better if someone got hold of this book to see what could be added to the article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

go go, -- SECisek 06:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's motto

A modest proposal. made with tongue-firmly-in-cheek, that Wikipedia's motto should be taken from Thomas Cranmer's first sentence in "Concering the Service of the Church",

“ There was never any thing by the wit of man, so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted. ”

All those poor GA and FA articles suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune of the aggrieved, or the twelve-year-old, or the anonymous IP editor seem to be reflected in that one ancient sentence. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents List for BCP

It would, I think, be appropriate to add a Contents List similar to that printed in a recent Book of Common Prayer (with an indication of any significant changes that may have from time to time occurred), and also a Contents List for the Preface (likewise).

There is no mention in the Page of the Date of Easter Sunday, which for non-churchgoers is perhaps the most relevant part of the Book. Clearly, that section of the Preface will have changed significantly in about 1752.

82.163.24.100 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Which BCP, CofE, Church in Wales, The Episcopal Church etc etc. There are also potential issues of copyright in actaully reproducing content of the book in that manner. David Underdown (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

BCP, unqualified and in a neutral context, means that of the Church of England, in a current edition. There should be no copyright problem in giving a small part such as the Contents List of the Preface. It's elsewhere on the Web (and so could be linked to from here). Great detail is certainly inappropriate; but its existence can reasonably be indicated.82.163.24.100 (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true. There is no "neutral context" which to evaluate. In England, it means C of E, but that's no more neutral than saying that in the USA it means something different--or has no determinate meaning. Moreover, this article is about all the BCPs, not just one of them, and so giving only one ToC is a pointless exercise. (And too much detail, as Wassupwestcoast points out.) Tb (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Book of Common Prayer" - the title of this Article - is that of the Church of England. To cover all books of common prayer, including other books which the C of E now often uses, there should be a new Article "Books of Common Prayer"; and, for clarity, there should be two more new Articles : "Prayer Books of the Church of England" and "The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England". Then, after distributing its content into those Articles, this Article should be removed. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Far too much detail. A Wikipedia article is supposed to be an overview of the subject without the detail: see Wikipedia:The perfect article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

1962 Canadian BOCP Controversy

Is there a reliable source explaining the rational for omitting specific Psalms from the 1962 Canadian BOCP? That was my reasoning for originally slapping a [cite] tag. What I didn't do, and should have, was elaborated on that request on this talk page.  :( jonathon (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

After the update to the ref, detailing just which verses of which psalms were omitted (thank you!), the question remains in my mind: "Why these particular verses?" I think I am probably not alone in the readership in this regard, so if anyone knows anything about the reasoning, it would behoove us to fill that lacuna in the article.--Bhuck (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

BOCP in orthodox communities

79.185.250.60 (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC) wester rite eastern orthodox communities also use the Book of Common Prayers in their prayers http://www.westernorthodox.com/western-rite

Ireland

Book of Common Prayer#Ireland is confusing (to me), so I added a {{clarify}} tag. It seems to refer in part to translations into the Irish language, and in other parts to English language updates of the BCP for the Church of Ireland. It would merit some attention from someone with access to a history of the topic.

1662 image

On closer examination, the image used here has a date of MDCC... i.e. 1762. Is this a mistake? 128.232.241.211 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) This is the 1762 Baskerville printing of the Book of Common Prayer. The Book was originally published in 1662 and had not changed in 100 years, but it is not the original title page from 1662. Dabbler (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

Is the title of the prayerbook used in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia also "Book of Common Prayer"?--Bhuck (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Common Prayer Book dated 1789

I have the above mentioned prayer book, which was passed on to me by my Mother in Law. here's how it reads inside (The Book of Common Prayer, aand Administraton of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church) According to the use of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the united state of America, Together with The Psafter or Psalms of David Oxford University Press (American Branch) 35 West 32nd Stree, New York

Then the Certificate is signed by Samuel Hart, Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer. Jan 1 1898. The Ratification of the Book of Common Pray. Dated Octobeer 1789. I was born 1944, was Baptisted in St. Johns Baptist Church, in Bromsgrove England. I have never seen a prayer book this old. I'm sure their are other ones.

Thank You, Ann Elizabeth McNeal 68.62.131.221 (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Methodist book

The Methodists also use a book of common prayer, made by John Wesley and based of of that of the Church of England's. Should this not be added? Tarheelz123 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to have a separate article on the Methodist book? +Angr 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not sure, considering that the Methodist book is a revised version of the Anglican one. There is no page on wikipedia explaining the book, so I figured I would ask here. Tarheelz123 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am an United Methodist, and we don't have a revised Book of Common Prayer. Now, yes, John Wesley did make a revision of the BCP, but it is pretty much no longer in use. Present day Methodists do in fact use the United Methodist Book of Worship which finds its inspiration with the BCP (using several collects and orders of service from the Book, the Revised Common Lectionary, and arranged in a very similar order,) and the United Methodist Hymnal also is majorly influenced by it. Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 16:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall section.

Should be changed to "Devon and Cornwall" also, the section should be expanded to included Devon. --85.211.120.17 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Content

History and influence are certainly an important thing to look at talking about a book, but I think the content is more important, and the content lacks its own section. The rites included within the Book of Common prayer should be described, and the differences and similarities to other liturgies, the principles that guided the authors, and so on--Hannesde Correct me! 13:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points. What is probably needed is a tabulated presentation of the content of the four versions of the English text of the Book of Commona Prayer 1549, 1552, 1559 and 1662; with a brief note in each box as to the source of the rite or text. Much of this is already within the History section, but it would be clearer in this form.TomHennell (talk)

Is it proper to reference only the Book of Common Prayer when quoting parts of it that were taken directly (or mostly) from the Holy Bible? For instance the blessing in Numbers 6:24-26 of the bible is included as a prayer in the Book of Common Prayer, but often the book is given as the source for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about Lead Section

I feel this section needs a bit of tidying up, there are a number of minor errors and perhaps the English could be polished. I'll list the concerns:
1)to say The book included the other occasional services in full implies that MP EP Litany and Holy Communion are also occasional services. This is incorrect (see the entry "occasional offices" in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, for a reference);
2) The verb included is overworked here.
3) The Psalms/Canticles were to be "saied or sung" see the rubric before the Venite. Most of the succeeding rubrics say "used" and this keeps the option open.
4) The 1552 revision was used for a short time (Procter and Frere - p.85 in the 1902 ed)
5) How far is it true to say the changes in 1559 were "from 1549"? The only specific one I can think of is putting the 1549 words of administration before those of 1552. The majority of changes were minor. The omission of the Black Rubric and the inclusion of the Ornaments Rubric may be interpreted as moves towards the spirit of 1549, but are not from it.
6) How about a mention of 1604? The alterations in the catechism are significant.
7) The phrase The Book of Common Prayer appears in many variants feels awkward to me. Perhaps "Locally revised versions of the English books ..." (We must not forget the 1549/1637(Scotland) influence)
--Jpacobb (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects within the next few days, I will start to edit along the lines as suggested--Jpacobb (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What about 1604?

The 1604 Revision is more important than the Article implies. I suggest it be given a section to itself, based on the last long paragraph on 1559 which starts "On the Queen's death ...". It should be noted that the 1604 revision replaced 1559 as the legal Prayer Book. The legal mechanism was that James I "explained" the 1559 book with the advice of ecclesiastical commissioners as provided in the 1559 Act of Uniformity and the exercise of his ecclesiastical jurisdiction and sanctioned by the Convocations (P&F-1902 p.141) P&F also list the changes which affected far more than the Catechism.

This also affects the section on 1662. While the process of revision was complicated it is clear from both P & F pp 204,5 and Dix (The Shape of the Liturgy pp688ff) that 1604 served as the basis for the revision despite the initial attempt of the House of Commons to start from 1552 and the text should be emmended accordingly.

Two other details concerning 1559 and 1662 are: (1) The treatment of the Ornaments Rubric is misleading in that its interpretation has been questioned and it is perfectly clear that, at the time it was a dead letter in that the Bishop's spent their time trying to enforce the surplice as opposed to not using any vestment at all; and (ii) the reference to the Prayer for the Church Militant and the thanksgiving for the faithful departed (included for the first time in 1662 - P&F 197) gives the impression that they were prayed for: in fact God was thanked for their lives and examples and the petition was for the living that they might follow their good example.--Jpacobb (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Changes made and pending

I have done a certain amount of editorial work on the Edwardine BCPs and general presentation (breaking up the long sections with some sub-headings) along the lines indicated in my previous posts here. There is an addition about Morning Prayer in 1552. I hope they are all non-controversial. In the near future I shall work on the MARY, 1559 (where I have already inserted a link to the "Ornaments Rubric" and a qualifying clause (at least until the Queen gave further instructions under the Act of Uniformity of 1559)) and 1604.

However, returning to 1552, the statements about "regeneration" need some careful thought and behind this lies the problem of the meaning of the adjective "reformed": does it refer to the varied reformations of the 16th Century in general (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, ¿Zuinglian? and Radical) or to the theology emanating from Geneva (and, if the latter, from Calvin himself or from Beza?). The observations on the burial rite are also open to question. The initial rubric says to go either into the Church or to the grave. More important though are the comments on the theology of the service.--Jpacobb (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing 1604 (and 1662)

The following text has been removed from 1604 and inserted in tye 1662 section, since it corresponds to P&F's description of the Savoy Conference and does not fit any account of Hampton Court.

The objections of the English Puritans were; firstly, that it was improper for the lay congregation to take any vocal part in prayer (as in the Litany or Lord's Prayer), other than to say "Amen"; secondly, that no set prayer should exclude the option of an extempore alternative from the Minister; thirdly, that the Minister should have the option to omit part of the set liturgy at his discretion; fourthly, that short Collects should be replaced by longer prayers and exhortations; and fifthly, that all surviving "Catholic" ceremonial should be removed (Harrison 1982, p. 53).

I may edit it further later. --Jpacobb (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

1549: Dubious Discuss

The text is unclear as to whether the reasons given for infrequent communion are found in primary sources and referred to in secondary ones, or they are secondary interpretations as to possible causes which are unsubstantiated at the primary level. I cannot recall any primary sources and, if my memory serves me rightly, the secondary sources say "perhaps" or "possibly".--Jpacobb (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Reformed" vs "Reformation" vs "Protestant"

The adjective "reformed" appears at least 9 times in the article. Lead, 1552 x 3, 1559, Scotland, 1662, plus a couple of times in the later part. According to McGrath (Reformation Thought (3rd Ed - Blackwell, 1999: pp7-9) the current tendency is to restrict the range of "reformed" to what used to be labeled "Calvinist" and to keep "Calvinist" for the theology etc. of Calvin himself. I consider that the usage of the article should be brought into line with this and therefore in some cases at least "reformed" ought to be replaced with "protestant" or perhaps a reference to "reformation thought" (or "theology") My tentative suggestions for replacements are in order of appearance:

1) The 1549 book was soon succeeded by a more obviously protestant revision in 1552 under the same editorial hand

2) but that he intended the Prayer Book to be acceptable to the widest range of acceptable Eucharistic belief,

3) and 4) PENDING rewrite is not easy "In other respects, however, both the Baptism and Burial services imply a theology of salvation that accords notably less with Reformed teachings than do the counterpart passages in the Articles of Religion. In the Burial service, the possibility that a deceased person who has died in the faith may nevertheless not be counted amongst God's elect, is not entertained. In the Baptism service the priest explicitly pronounces the baptized infant as being now regenerate. In both cases, conformity with strict Reformed Protestant principles would have resulted in a conditional formulation." [Part of the problem is that Cranmer was writing before Calvin's Institutes reached their definitive form and reformed principles had clearly gelled, and he gave a very clear but idiosyncratic slant to the term regeneration" ("Baptisme doeth represente unto us oure profession" Stephen W. Sykes in Thomas Cranmer ed Margot Johnson pp.129ff)]

5) No change

6) Under Elizabeth, Protestantism was reestablished (as it turned out in a more permanent form) and the 1552 book was republished in 1559, .... [Rewritten to separate the fact of the reestablishment from its by no means certain at the time consequence: permanence.]

7) 1662 Prayer Book marked the end of a period of just over 100 years, when a common form of liturgy served for almost all public worship in England; and the start of the continuing division between Anglicans and Nonconformists (Edwards 1983, p. 313)

["reformed" is redundant here.]Jpacobb (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Compress Section Copyright?

[I accidentally created a new section: I have now transfered the proposal to this one.Jpacobb (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC) ]
The current text is both verbose and contains material which is not directly relevant to the Book of Common Prayer. I suggest it be compressed in the following way. As the Book of Common Prayer is long out of copyright, it can be freely reproduced in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the Crown holds the rights as part of the royal prerogative and as such, they are perpetual in subsistence. Publishers are licensed to reproduce the Book of Common Prayer under letters patent which prohibit anyone other than than the holders (and those authorized by them) from printing, publishing or importing the Book of Common Prayer into the United Kingdom.

Letters patent for England, Wales and Northern Ireland are held by the Queen's Printer, and for Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for many years, with the earliest known reference coming in 1577. Other letters patent of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Book of Common Prayer independently of the Queen's Printer. The Queen's Printer is currently the Cambridge University Press as from their takover of Eyre & Spottiswoode (which had been Queen's Printer since 1901) in the late 20th century. The protection that the Book of Common Prayer and the Authorized Version enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom. This prerogative should not be confused with Crown copyright, or copyright in works of the United Kingdom's government.

The Episcopal Church's book is always released into the public domain. Trial use and supplemental liturgies are however copyrighted by Church Publishing, the official publishing arm of the church.

Perhaps some of the material I have removed should be relocated in Crown copyright or {Queen's Printer]].Jpacobb (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Jpacobb (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Explain Roll-back

When used without another date, a reference to "The Book of Common Prayer" is usually understood to indicate the 1662 edition which leads to a false statement. Even if referred to the 1549 book it would be misleading in that there were official primers in English as from 1534 and unofficial ones were circulating some years earlier. The statement about the BCP's influence is probably true but unsourced. Jpacobb (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

'Undertaking'?

There was widespread opposition to the introduction of regular congregational Communion, partly because the extra costs of bread and wine that would fall on the parish[dubious – discuss]; but mainly out of an intense resistance to undertaking in regular worship, a religious practice previously associated with marriage or illness.

What is meant by "undertaking" here? 82.112.132.32 (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Prayer Book" vs "prayer book" & "minister" vs "clergy"

I have reverted some of the recent changes made by User:Afterwriting for the following reasons:

1. Phrases like "the 1662 Prayer Book" are to all intents and purposes a "short title" which name a specific work, so the 'P' and the 'B' should be capitalised
2. The works cited use the noun "minister" not "clergy" as did the 1660 "Act for the Settling of Ministers".

(Perhaps I can speculate here that the word "minister" was used because in the eyes of the strict high churchmen they were not clergy!) Jpacobb (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that questions about when to capitalise or not can sometimes be difficult. Wikipedia does, however, have its own style principles on these questions which sometimes conflict with the "house style" of organisations or the personal preferences of individuals. In general only the full name of things are normally meant to be capitalised. So I'm not sure whether your edits conform with this principle. When I find the relevant style information I will post it here for further consideration and discussion. Afterwriting (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at MOS:CAPS and it seems that its relevant points can be summed up as follows. The lead section states that "words and phrases which are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". I have checked out references in standard academic authors such as Davies, Spurr and Procter & Frere to the "Directory of Public Worship" all write "Directory" for short and exactly the same must be said for the use of capitals from a wider range of authors with "Prayer Book" and even "Common Prayer" when used of the liturgy. At two later points in the article, it gives examples of a common noun being capitalized when it is used as a shortened reference to a specific person or event. These are: (i) if one is referring to a specific monarch (Queen Elizabeth II) one should write "the Queen" and (ii) to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, "the Exodus". All this seems to me to point to the use of capitals in these circumstances. Jpacobb (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, his version of MOS:CAPS was wrong but you're not right either. "The 1662 prayer book" and "the 1662 Prayer Book" are both fine. That said, if the RS prefer it in caps, probably better to go along with them. — LlywelynII 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Title's wrong

Either this is an actual italicized title—in which case that title is The Book of Common Prayer, or this is a descriptive name in which case we shouldn't be italicizing it. (Hint: The second one is the correct way to fix this. Worth noting that out of 25-odd uses on this page, exactly 0 of them—before me—italicized this name in the fashion of a standard title.) — LlywelynII 18:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: It's neither an actual title nor a descriptive name. As the article explains, the full name is The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites etc. This makes the Book of Common Prayer a shortened form of the actual title, and such cases should be italicized. You wouldn't leave italics out of [The] New York Times either, would you? Or from A History of Western Philosophy [and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day] (see WP:SUBTITLE).

A descriptive name would be something like "the book used in Anglican service" (compare with cases at MOS:TITLE#Neither).

Broken "Griffith Thomas" reference

In the "1662" section there is a reference "(Griffith Thomas 1963, pp. 508–521)". Clicking that link doesn't take you down to the "References" as it should, because there the work by Griffith Thomas has the date 1930. A search at Abebooks.co.uk confirms that 1930 is the date of the first edition. But changing 1963 to 1930 would only be valid if someone can check that the stated page numbers are correct for the 1930 edition. Does anyone have a copy of this book, in any edition? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Welsh translation?

When was the Welsh translation made? I ask this as it was obviously early on, and it was a major language back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.219.6 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The full Prayer Book, translated by William Salesbury was published in 1567. Salesbury had earlier (1551) made a partial translation of the key texts of the 1549 Prayer Book. TomHennell (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Book of Common Prayer. 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/20090622115607/http://pbsusa.org/PBLinks.htm to http://anglicanprayerbook.nz/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622115607/http://pbsusa.org/PBLinks.htm to http://www.prayerbook.ca/bcp/psalmstables.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622115607/http://pbsusa.org/PBLinks.htm to http://www.prayerbook.ca/bcp/psalter.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://pbsusa.org/PBLinks.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lightight.com/GGP/mem_images/Mem3P02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019093217/http://www.kings-chapel.org/history.html to http://www.kings-chapel.org/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Search from Search Wikipedia box points to wrong section

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Search from Search Wikipedia box points to wrong section Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Common Prayer. 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/20090622115607/http://pbsusa.org/PBLinks.htm to http://anglicanprayerbook.nz/

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) 10:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1