|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chasuble article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Phelonion and Chasuble articles SHOULD be gathered in one. 1. If you don't, then you should write another article pilon for the Armenian one, and so on. In all iconography there is one chasuble: that you've called "modern", wore by the Anglican priest in the photo. 2. In most languages, you haven't, but one word for it. 3. Old Eastern rite books use "chasuble" also for Byzantine and Armenian rites. - Waelsch 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. I've been writing little bits about Syriac and Coptic vestments and adding them to the articles under each vestment's Greek name. Although there are substantial differences between communities, there is a unity of eastern vestments and of western ones. The phelonion is quite different from the chasuble in style and cut: a difference that most probably extends back to first few centuries. The Syriac phayno is even more open at the front than the Byzantine phelonion. --Gareth Hughes 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm! What about this - it would appear to be a modern one, according to the article. Actually AD548. Johnbod 15:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- As the article already says, this was the original style; it evolved into the 'scapular' style for ease of use; then the older style returned in Roman Catholic churches after Vatican II (I'm not sure about other churches - I think that the Church of England had been using the older style for some time). That image might make a good addition to the article, though it would be nice if it focused more on the bechasubled chap. TSP 15:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- ?!? Well it doesn't say that at all: "The chasuble originated as a sort of poncho, with a round hole in the middle through which to pass the head, falling to the feet on all sides. It had to be gathered up on the arms to allow the arms to be used freely." - when in fact the earlier one leaves the hands more free than the "modern" one illustrated, whilst still coming well over the shoulder, and failing to fall to the feet on any side.
There is a more straight-on image at Commons Cat Byzantine mosaics which could be cropped - plus there are other examples. But I think the origins bit needs a good going over. Johnbod 17:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
An article on a blog
What seems to be quite a good article on the history of the chasuble appears on the blog Rorate Caeli. I do not think it appropriate to quote a blog as a source for a Wikipedia article. Does anyone know whether this article, or something like it, appears in a more quotable form? Lima (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Violation of Wikipedia guidelines?
ARSREGIA is a company that makes and sells liturgical vestments. Doesn't the use of their actual ads. violate the Wikipedia guidelines against citing commercial websites as sources? Whoever edited these ARSREGIA into this article even when so far as to edit out the previous more historical illustrations, which, of course, were more appropriate for an encyclopedia article than some ads. for recently manufactured commercial goods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In addition to making the article look like an advertisement, the Arsregia pictures don't illustrate the subject any better than the previous ones. I'd say they actually take something away from the older version by narrowing the examples to one company's version of current and historical garments. Let's change the pictures back to the pre-Arsregia edit. Chap0120 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Too many Photos?
Who else thinks there are too many photos for such a short article? Maybe we could get rid of two of the Fiddleback pictures and add a Gothic Chasuble, which seems to be the most common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylpickleh8 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Too many? Perhaps no. But by all means replace the initial picture with a better one of any kind of chasuble whatever. Esoglou (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)