Talk:Book of Common Prayer/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Calvinism

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: WikiProject Anglicanism

message: 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)
thread_title: Useless picture

message: 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)
thread_title: Religious influence

message: 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)
thread_title: USA and Canada

message: 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)
thread_title:  TDUDP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cranmer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Recent revision

message: :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</br>
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).</br>
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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 *  Cheers!  Wassupwestcoast 19:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Handbook

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a neat factoid. Hopefully someone can find a source. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealed Book in the Tower of London 

message: 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)
thread_title: Our dear reader

message: 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)
thread_title: A class?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zwinglian  

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Harvard citations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Prayer Book Socities also. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Context

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title: The parenthetical asides

message: After going through all the sources in detail, the biggest surprise was that no one has consulted the latest book on the topic: . 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)
replies: text: go go, -- SECisek 06:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Oxford Guide to The Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey

message: 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",
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)
thread_title: Wikipedia's motto

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Contents List for BCP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1962 Canadian BOCP Controversy 

message: 79.185.250.60 (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOCP in orthodox communities 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1662 image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Zealand 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Common Prayer Book dated 1789 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cornwall section. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerns about Lead Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about 1604? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes made and pending 

message: 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 .
I may edit it further later. --Jpacobb (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 1604 (and 1662) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1549: Dubious Discuss 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Reformed" vs "Reformation" vs "Protestant" 

message: [I accidentally created a new section: I have now transfered the proposal to this one.Jpacobb (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compress Section Copyright? 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Book of common prayer 1549.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explain Roll-back 

message: :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)
thread_title:  'Undertaking'? 

message: I have reverted some of the recent changes made by User:Afterwriting for the following reasons:
# 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
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, his version of  was wrong but you're not right either. "The 1662 prayer book" and "the 1662 Prayer Book" are both fine. That said, if the  prefer it in caps, probably better to go along with them. — LlywelynII 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prayer Book" vs "prayer book" & "minister" vs "clergy" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken "Griffith Thomas" reference 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Welsh translation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified