This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rite page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "rite" just another word for "ritual"? What is the entomology? It is used so much in religious-based works, yet the definition seems to be implied based on context, not universal agreement (a singular definition(explanition) of the/a concept). 76.170.113.192 ( talk) 05:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC) 2008-09-27 T22:55 Z-7
There is a distinction between the capital “Rite” and “rite”. I will show sources. The English translation of CCEO blurs this distinction. I refer to http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_index-codex-can-eccl-orient.html. Please look at the following references Can. 28,Can. 35, Can. 39, Can. 40, Can. 41, Can. 82, Can. 96, Can. 146, Can. 169, Can. 193, Can. 290, Can. 322, Can. 330, Can. 343, Can. 346, Can. 403, Can. 405, Can. 576, Can. 584, Can. 781, Can. 828, Can. 1492. The distinction has been in distinct in Wikipedia and the consistency is missing. Thoughts? Manabimasu ( talk) 04:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Also look at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
@ Scyrme: Your merger of the "Rite" article into the Ritual article is a major change, and it first needs to be discussed, and a consensus created, on the talk page. This should have been done prior to the merger, not after the merger was completed. I was reverting your edits redirecting the article links per WP:BRD but saw the sheer number of articles that had been changed. I request that you revert the others and only implement this (once again, major) change following a talk page consensus. Thank you. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
-- Scyrme ( talk) 08:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)The merge had been discussed before being implemented; I allowed months for people to raise their concerns. Neither article actually made a distinction, and the varieties of "rite" briefly listed in the lead of "Rite" were all already covered in greater detail on Ritual. As for content outside the lead, there was only that section on Christianity and two stub sections on Islam and Freemasonry; that was it, I didn't leave anything out of the merge. There was literally no content in either article making a distinction; simply reverting the merge will not create such a distinction. After considering the issue, I converted "Rite" into a dab rather than a redirect to Ritual precisely because of the concern that the terms aren't always viewed synonymously. [...] As a note, doing so has allowed many unhelpful links to be corrected, such as changing links to "Rite", which had no info on Confucianism (before the merge), to target Li (Confucianism) on relevant articles.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rite page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "rite" just another word for "ritual"? What is the entomology? It is used so much in religious-based works, yet the definition seems to be implied based on context, not universal agreement (a singular definition(explanition) of the/a concept). 76.170.113.192 ( talk) 05:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC) 2008-09-27 T22:55 Z-7
There is a distinction between the capital “Rite” and “rite”. I will show sources. The English translation of CCEO blurs this distinction. I refer to http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_index-codex-can-eccl-orient.html. Please look at the following references Can. 28,Can. 35, Can. 39, Can. 40, Can. 41, Can. 82, Can. 96, Can. 146, Can. 169, Can. 193, Can. 290, Can. 322, Can. 330, Can. 343, Can. 346, Can. 403, Can. 405, Can. 576, Can. 584, Can. 781, Can. 828, Can. 1492. The distinction has been in distinct in Wikipedia and the consistency is missing. Thoughts? Manabimasu ( talk) 04:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Also look at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
@ Scyrme: Your merger of the "Rite" article into the Ritual article is a major change, and it first needs to be discussed, and a consensus created, on the talk page. This should have been done prior to the merger, not after the merger was completed. I was reverting your edits redirecting the article links per WP:BRD but saw the sheer number of articles that had been changed. I request that you revert the others and only implement this (once again, major) change following a talk page consensus. Thank you. -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
-- Scyrme ( talk) 08:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)The merge had been discussed before being implemented; I allowed months for people to raise their concerns. Neither article actually made a distinction, and the varieties of "rite" briefly listed in the lead of "Rite" were all already covered in greater detail on Ritual. As for content outside the lead, there was only that section on Christianity and two stub sections on Islam and Freemasonry; that was it, I didn't leave anything out of the merge. There was literally no content in either article making a distinction; simply reverting the merge will not create such a distinction. After considering the issue, I converted "Rite" into a dab rather than a redirect to Ritual precisely because of the concern that the terms aren't always viewed synonymously. [...] As a note, doing so has allowed many unhelpful links to be corrected, such as changing links to "Rite", which had no info on Confucianism (before the merge), to target Li (Confucianism) on relevant articles.