Talk:Western Rite Orthodoxy

message: I am suggesting that this article be merged with the new article Western Rite Orthodoxy.  The latter is much more comprehensive and already incorporates or expands a significant portion of the material in this article.  If there are no objections, I will go ahead and place the redirect on 04 May 2007.
jackturner3 20:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I'm reverting this article because I feel the sections on the WR in the nineteenth century and the EOCF no longer make much sense.  Overbeck's life doesn't need to be parred down because Overbeck's life is the WR in the nineteenth century.  And, while it is my hope that some day the EOCF will warrant a full scale article, I haven't done enough research on the history of the ECOF (or even Overbeck) to justify that at present.  In my opinion, more skillfull editing is necessary if these two sections are to be shortened, so to that end, I'm restoring the sections as they were to allow someone (the original editor, myself, or someone else) to do that.  -- jackturner3 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not going to do any major editing any more, but I do think that this article is seriously overplaying Overbeck and the ECOF.  JASpencer 22:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it's possible to overplay Overbeck since his biography really is the history of Western Rite Orhtodoxy in the nineteenth century.  Additionally, while the section on the ECOF is given significant press, it's not more than is being paid to the AWRV, which is what most people think of when they hear "Western Rite Orthodoxy."  If the articles need to be cut down, I can go with that, but they need to be done in a bit more sophistocated manner. -- jackturner3 15:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  28 September Revert 

message: It seems to me that the recent edits adding "Antiochian" in front of every instance of "Western Rite Vicariate" created some  redundancies in the text.  Personally, it would seem to me we only  need to say “Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church”  or “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate,” but not “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church” since it really is cumbersome.  The internal literature of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese doesn’t designate a name for the vicariate other than “Western Rite Vicariate.”  However, is someone would prefer that every instance read “Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate” rather than “Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church,” they are free to change it to the former (without the redundancies).  Personally, I don’t care either way, just so long as “Antiochian” doesn’t show up twice in the same name. -- jackturner3 13:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Rite Vicariate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church 

message: Hi, I'm initiating the article's GA review. I will complete my initial assessment prior to 2/19. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the article is big enough for two reviews. Gimmetrow 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er ... I assume that you're providing advice as part of an informal review -- which is great that you're providing feedback. The nomination list at GAN indicated that the article had been nominated but still needed a reviewer, so I followed GAN review process and signed up to evaluate it. If it was your intention to initiate a proper GA evaluation, please let me know and I'll be happy to step back and let you handle the evaluation. Either option is fine with me. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there's some doubt about who's conducting the GA review for this article, I'm going to play it safe and resign from the review. I'll make the appropriate changes at GAN and then  Gimmetrow or another reviewer can sign up to undertake the GA evaluation. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that's fine. You do it. Gimmetrow 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That would be pointless.  Most Western Rite Orthodox are a congregation here, a congregation there.  It's estimated anecdotally that there are only 20,000 canonical Western Rite Orthodox in North America (a number which, in my opinion, is probably vastly inflated).  That being said, there are nearly 6,000,000 Orthodox of all jurisdictions in North America.  Thus, canonical WRO only account for 0.33% of all Orthodox on this continent.  You can't put that on a pie chart or show it on a map, in my opinion.  Of course, if you have such a map, please upload it and I'll be glad to add it to the article. -- jackturner3 (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  After the confusion it appears nobody is reviewing this, so I guess I'll say something. Of 11 online references, three are to a closed blogspot site, and one is to OrthodoxWiki. Another two are to the geocities page of a church in the Orthodox Church of France, which might be OK as a self-published source, but it isn't ideal. The article in the "unofficial" parish newsletter is a similar concern. Another four references are to unpublished Master's theses, and another one to an unpublished paper. The Anson and Ward/Persson/Bain references are fine, but probably fairly limited in content. I believe the article here is probably accurate, but I don't think it is verifiable at present. Let's see what other sources can be found, and you can resubmit the article later. OK? Gimmetrow 00:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not "verifiable" right now, then it's not going to be ever.  The reason is that there has been little scholarly treatment of the subject aside from a few articles specifically considering the merits/dismerits of the two AWRV liturgies.  There was one article published in 1958 which treated the history of the subject to that point, but there has been nothing of significant note published in the last forty plus years.  Personally, I don't see why two masters thesises are to be denigrated as a source.  Yes, they are not as ideal as a scholarly monograph or journal article, nor even as ideal as a doctoral dissertation, but they are better than self-published web sources becuase they have at least been evaluated by academics.  However, if the problem is simply the sources, and thier lack of acceptbility is the issue, then we need to go back through and remove a large number of GA for referening similarly problematic sources.  I don't think this article should have been failed; put on hold for additional sources perhaps, but not failed.  However, if you really, truly have a problem with the sources of the article's sources (which are the only ones available), will never get to GA becuase the only significant scholarly source is going to be my dissertation on Western Rite Orthodoxy, and I'd feel kind of funny citing myself (considering, of course, that it apparently wouldn't be an acceptable source becuase it would be unpublished), not to mention the problems with OR.  So, unless there is any other reason to let this nomination slip beyond the (I'm my opinion, unfounded or at least excessive compared to other GA articles) concerns over verifiability, the nomination should be reinstated in it's original position. -- jackturner3 (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen, I'm willing to help here. I may have some other sources. I have no problem at all with citing a master's thesis, but with citing an unpublished master's thesis. It's obvious you've already put a ton of work into this article; if someone else (like Majoreditor) wants to OK the article, I won't complain. But I would like to look up what I can find about the subject. Are you on a deadline, or will a few weeks matter? Gimmetrow 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to do so, that's fine with me...I just don't know where you'll be able to find the sources you're looking for.  I've worked pretty hard at digging up sources for the past year, and while I've obviously found more than what are used in this article, it's not a lot more, and some of them are of considerably worse quality.  But, I'm kind of giving up on this one becoming GA for a while, I guess. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was thinking Le Soufre & L'Encens would have something on ECOF. Gimmetrow 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I'm aware of, though I suppose I could have eaisly missed something there; I would assume any reference to ECOF would have been brief. -- jackturner3 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if brief, it would be an indepedent reference. Gimmetrow 19:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Le Soufre & L'Encens has two pages on ECOF. Unless you think that book is biased, I can add a couple refs to the book in the appropriate section. Gimmetrow 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you think it's ready now? Gimmetrow 19:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My humble opinion is that it's not quite ready but it's close. Jack has done a solid job gathering content. The building blocks are there, it's primarily a matter of arranging and packaging the existing material. I share your concern about citing blogs, but most of the other source material is serviceable, if not ideal.  Majoreditor (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add some material and citations. Please feel free to tell me if I make some boneheaded edits. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Somercet expressed concern about on of the paragraphs, which I have trimmed from the article:
. Feel free to add part of all of it back if you can provide an in-line citation. Thanks Majoreditor (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimming a paragraph

message: I believe Arnold Harris Mathew and the Old Catholic movement in England 1908-52 is WP:SELFPUBLISHed. See www.lulu.com/shop/john-kersey/arnold-harris-mathew-and-the-old-catholic-movement-in-england-1908-52/paperback/product-21136431.htmlwhich is found on Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business. I marked the content () with  and references with . —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book is self published 

message: When  in 2007, the following text was included:It , in part, on content was copied from 2007  at OrthodoxWiki which says:
OrthodoxWiki:Western Rite does not cite a specific reference for this. The Wikipedia article René Vilatte () does include specific references about this detail. From  ():
An  asks 
The René Vilatte article contains links to both a French language text and a translation into English from that French language text. The René Vilatte article states that Henry Brandreth noted, in Episcopi vagantes and the Anglican Church, that "there exists no evidence that this is a genuine document and, indeed, its phraseology at several points argues against its genuineness". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vilatte parish as first Western liturgical rite parish in America 

message: WorldCat metadata shows that the group was using the name Old Catholic Church in America and not using the name Holy Synod of Milan when parts of the series was first published as "Old Catholic missal & ritual Sarum rite series".
The publisher name changed over time, e.g. Saint Hilarion Guild Press, Old Catholic Monastery of Saint Hilarion, St. Hilarion press.
Some were contemporary revisions of circa 1909 works by Arnold Harris Mathew and not true translations from Latin. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  St. Hilarion series name 

message: The vast number of abbreviations are confusing every reader who is not a proffessor in western rite orthodoxy. Is it really necessary to use abbreviations????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Informationskampagne (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can hover over the abbreviations, e.g.  and , to see what they abbreviate and they clarify differences that many readers may not be familiar with, like Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Abbreviations 

message: The lists of parishes, missions, monasteries, and hermitages have problems. I have removed the inline external links which are not used in articles. Both sections are wholly without references or citations, which means we have no way to verify information about the communities mentioned, particularly about their status as having Western Rite liturgies. The formerly embedded external links could be added as citations, for a start, but deep links to "About Us" type pages would be preferred, and these are WP:PRIMARY sources; reliable secondary sources are always preferred on Wikipedia. Also, apparently none of the organizations listed are notable, this would be a good inclusion criterion for the list if some were, and had articles, but as it is, we have to be careful about violating WP:NOTDIR. Elizium23 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  List inclusion criteria and sourcing 

message: I have observed, and been messaged, that there are some editors wishing to use language that would not be encyclopedic in style. For example, I edited the intro and removed the phrases "___ are blessed to use (liturgy)" or "__ some congregations are blessed to use (liturgy)." While as clergy and a faithful catholic Christian myself, I absolutely believe that these congregations are blessed to use these liturgies, that does not conform to the standards of NPOV. I encourage editors to find other ways to express any peculiarities in terminology. For example, if the Western Rite refers to their liturgical authorizations from their hierarchs as "blessing," a quote from RS can be added to explain that, or, in the section on liturgics and history, it can be added with an RS that blessing is the term used for authorization. I noted that in the section on liturgy it is already addressed to an extent and says that liturgies have to be blessed for use in worship. I think that, then, already accomplishes that need and, therefore, it is not needed in in the intro. However, if it is really important to some editors, I wanted to share that here. That could satisfy NPOV. Oned editor with whom I spoke said they may have some good ideas for how to honor the terms used by the Western Rite in accordance with NPOV. I certainly think that would be great. SeminarianJohn (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:NPOV