Talk:Revised Common Lectionary: Difference between revisions
John Carter (talk | contribs) Start class for Bible |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The section entitled "Lectionary Controversy" was problematic on several levels, it was cealry copied from elsewhere, albeit it with the asertion that the author of the text had given permission. However, it is far from clear exactly what level of permission had been granted, and whether this was sufficient to cover the requirements of the [[WP:GFDL|GFDL]] under which Wikipedia operates. The issues of trying to cover the entirety of scripture during Sunday services are already alluded to, and I don't think there's any need to go into the full detail in this article. I will re-insert a link to the website so it is avialble to those that are interested. [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
The section entitled "Lectionary Controversy" was problematic on several levels, it was cealry copied from elsewhere, albeit it with the asertion that the author of the text had given permission. However, it is far from clear exactly what level of permission had been granted, and whether this was sufficient to cover the requirements of the [[WP:GFDL|GFDL]] under which Wikipedia operates. The issues of trying to cover the entirety of scripture during Sunday services are already alluded to, and I don't think there's any need to go into the full detail in this article. I will re-insert a link to the website so it is avialble to those that are interested. [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
I have corrected the "Denominational Practices" section to state the the R.C. Church uses the Ordo Lectionum Missae, on which the RCL is based; and have also included the LCMS among the churches in the US which have adopted/adapted the RCL for their own use. --Wolf Paul |
|||
Revision as of 05:29, 16 September 2007
 | Bible Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
The fact that different sides of the argument are provided does not make this a balanced article. The argument that a Sunday lectionary with 156 Sundays and three readings cannot present the whole bible is a matter of common sense. It would be more useful for any critique to point out the serious omissions or the positive developments. It is not encyclopaedic to reproduce extreme views, even if these are balanced by others. Serious liturgical scholarship alone qualifies for inclusion. I am proposing to rewrite the whole section but would prefer to seek consensus first. Roger Arguile 09:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC) I have had a stab at revising it but I crave patience to check out some of my statements. Roger Arguile 17:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Recent changes to the article
I've reverted the recent changes for a variety of reasons. Much of the History section was already included in the lead, and discussion of the wider history of lectionaries in general doesn't really belong in this article.
The section entitled "Lectionary Controversy" was problematic on several levels, it was cealry copied from elsewhere, albeit it with the asertion that the author of the text had given permission. However, it is far from clear exactly what level of permission had been granted, and whether this was sufficient to cover the requirements of the GFDL under which Wikipedia operates. The issues of trying to cover the entirety of scripture during Sunday services are already alluded to, and I don't think there's any need to go into the full detail in this article. I will re-insert a link to the website so it is avialble to those that are interested. David Underdown 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the "Denominational Practices" section to state the the R.C. Church uses the Ordo Lectionum Missae, on which the RCL is based; and have also included the LCMS among the churches in the US which have adopted/adapted the RCL for their own use. --Wolf Paul