Talk:Alternative Service Book

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Anglicanism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

The article is very informative and seems well-organized, but much of the language clearly violates NPOV. Examples: "The facts belie this claim," "so-called," "now illegal 1928 Prayer Book," "mischievous encouragement," "wickedly called," and so on. The point of view of the author is too prominent. With some cleanup of this tendentious language, though, it could be a fine article, although I wonder if it could not be shortened and moved into a subsection of Book_of_Common_Prayer, where more readers would be likely to find it, and more editors could work towards NPOV. SanchoPanza 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response: the facts of the use of the ASB do indeed belie the claim that it was an alternative. The Prayer Book society has often complained about the marginalisation of the BCP. The 1928 book IS illegal, as reference to the Canons of the Church of England and the revokation of the permission to use the ASB make clear. Dix knew very well that his chapter in The Shape of the Liturgy was mischievous - he intended it so as he makes clear. I shall removed the refernce to the Missa Tombola.

The question of balance is a difficult one. Wikipedia contains a huge number of articles which posterity will regard as over long and over datailed. Much worse distortions occur in articles which are currently newsworthy,as for instance, the article on Ruth Kelly, an essentially marginal figure in the world of education. the issues about how catholics or other disident figures in our liberal society can hold office require different treatment. I think that, for the moment, in the history of liturgical change, it merits an article of its own. the seventeenth century Liturgy of Comprehension is in a different position and I included that in the article on the BCP. The ASB could be included in an article on the Liturgical Movement to which I have also contributed, but for the present I think that some detail as at present in warranted. Roger Arguile 19the my 2006

I don't dispute the facts as presented, just the tone, which is argumentative rather than objective. If the facts do indeed belie a claim, then let them do so on their own by stating them objectively rather than punching up the polemic slant for emphasis.

You're clearly competent to write an authoritative article on this subject, but I'm afraid objective readers will question the essay's ethos from its argumentation alone, even if they've never heard of the tractarians.

Here are some suggestions for the first section:

Remove "the facts belie this claim"

Replace "highly Romanized version of the BCP" with "a version of the BCP which draws heavily on Roman Catholic liturgies" -- "Romanized" is polemical

replace "illegal" with "non-canonical"

remove the exclamation point at the end of the 1928 warning quote

Reword the sentence introducing Dix. A possible, more objective version might look like: "Dom Gregory Dix, in his book The Shape of Liturgy, published in 1943, encouraged bishops to formally permit the use of a new rite, and also published his own suggestions for such a rite, which reflected his proposed 'Four Action Shape' for the Eucharist."

Replace "Only in 1955 did the Church set up" with "In 1955 the Church did set up"

"the Dix agenda" with "Dix's 'Four Action Shape'

The following sentence needs rewording and a citation:

"However, the effect of the issue of little booklets was that on Sundays, congregations which had been used to two books, a prayer book and a hymn book which contained every word they would hear or sing or say, other than the sermon, now had a small booklet and no access to the new sets of readings at all."

I would suggest "Some argued that" rather than the declarative "However." Either way, it needs a citation.

The final paragraph needs reworking. "Enthusiasm for Dix" veers into the polemical. The context of the Ramsey quote needs to be clearer, and also needs a citation. The quick interpretation of Ramsey "we cannot give God anything" comes dangerously close to Original Research. Overall the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten to reflect both the catholic and evangelical perspetives, or removed completely.

Overall, it's a great article and very informative. But I suspect that if a number of experienced editors were to look it over, they'd say much the same, that there is a clear slant in the language that can be toned down without losing substance. SanchoPanza 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, do you have objections to any of the above changes? If not, I'm going to add them. SanchoPanza 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; I do. The protocols of Wikpedia mean that you can go ahead. But I think that before you do you should notice that in spite of its mission statement, Wikipedia is a forum for highly charged articles (witness the one on Ruth Kelly) of which this is not one.

You have not answered my point that 'the facts do belie the claim'.

It is quite incorrect to describe the English Missal as you have. It does not draw on 'Roman Catholic liturgies' for the simply reason that there was, at the time only one RC liturgy from which whole sections were imported. You objectivity is no such thing.

'Noncanonical/illegal': That would be splitting hairs were it not for the highly litigious tone of statements which had, not many years earlier, resulted in court actions. Moreover, the actions of some Anglicans in destroying what they disapproved of in parish churches would make interesting reading.

'Dix': absolutely wrong. Dix did not wish bishops to approve his style of liturgy formally. A reading of the Shape would show you that he did not. What he wanted them to do, as he makes explicit, was to say that they could use the service and that they would turn a blind eye to its use but not defend them if anyone else objected. If that is not a form of mischief I do not know what is.

'Only in 1955'. 'Only'because it took so long for people first to recover from the pain of a failed attempt and second to recover from more important events between 1939 and 1945. Booklets: It is not arguable that congregations had no formal access the readings. It is impossible to cite a negative. There was no publication of collects or readings. Tell me that there was if you can. As a parish priest for thirty five years I remember it well. Pelagianism: I omitted reference to Ramsey' Durham Addresses and Colin Buchanon's pamphlet 'The End of the Offertory' and will include them.

Finally, you may be a liturgical scholar. If you are, it would be helpful if you demonstrated how you know what you claim to know. From what I read, you have not read Dix - certainly not carefully - or the English Missal. I may be suffering from author's paranoia, but I like to know what the supports are of criticisms I receive. In fact, I think you may be surprised at my own point of view which you appear to have discerned, probably wrongly. Roger Arguile June 21st. 2.55 pm (UTC)

PS I am not clear about the way Wikipedia works. I disapprove of people using pseudeonyms, but that's up to them. When people adopt an authoritarian tone and do not disclose how they know what they claim to know, it is harder to take them seriously. To criticise statements and substitute clearly inaccurate alternatives does not inspire confidence. Further, to claim to have discovered POV statements is a notorious game. The mere selection of facts constitutes the holding of an opinion. The alternative is dreadful sprawling articles with no shape. I hotly dispute SP's assertion that what I wrote breaches the code. I do attempt to avoid writing dull articles. As for those who have no knowledge of the Tractarians, I could refer them to Wikipedia...... Roger Arguile June 21st. 2006

PPS To suggest that the article needs rebalancing by showing the catholic and evangelical points of view are both represented shows a shortage of knowledge which weakens my confidence yet further. As I have now written, opposition came from both catholics and evangelicals (E.L. Maskell, Graham Leonard, Colin Buchanon, Jim Packer) and support came from a smaller motley selection, including a modest contribution made by me. Most of the latter were catholics but of different flavours (and included Rowan Williams). The trouble is that articles become hopelessly distorted by prolixity if everything has to be cited for the sake of those who are suspicious. As for 'objective readers' show me one. Roger Arguile (again)

I have only editorial concerns, not substantive. I'm not an expert in liturgy, only an interested lay person, and I've stated that I defer to your obvious expertise in this area. I'm well aware of authorial sensitivity, having had a number of my own printed essays mangled by overeager editors. I still wince. But you'll notice here that no edits have been made. You'll notice I asked before making any, and then waited for a response. I'm surprised you would describe my tone as "authoritarian," since I clearly gave you a list of "suggestions," and have not actually disputed any matters of fact as presented. Do I have to say again that I like the article?

I will reiterate: my concern is with attaining an objective "encyclopedic" tone, which, while perhaps boring, serves the purpose of creating a sense of confidence in the reader. I have not tried to discern your own perspective, I have only noted that things like exclamation points and descriptive words like "mischevious" undermine reader confidence. Ethos is a subtle thing, and "boring" is preferable to "polemical" if it means the reader understands and accepts a substantive, well-cited article, rather than wondering where they should go to get the "other side" of the story, whatever that may be. The dichotomy you present between conciseness and effectual citation is a false one. You can acheive both.

If my editorial suggestions do violence to the facts, as you seem to imply my "Dix" and "Missal" suggestions do, then is there another way of restating, to shore up objectivity without loss of substance?

I'm not gonna die on this hill. I stand by the intent of my suggestions, although I concede any points of fact you want to make regarding specific wordings. I've tried to make my suggestions tentative, amicably and in good faith. If you find no merit to them, leave the article as it is, and I won't lose any sleep over it. It is a great article as it stands, but it could be better. All the best, SanchoPanza 23:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your edits from June 23. I like it much better, for what it's worth. I still think that although "mischeivous" may accurately describe Dix's action, the average reader will only intuit a POV in the article. It's too strong, and not encyclopedic in tone. Can you support that Dix had truly "mischeivous" intentions? SanchoPanza 15:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; in The Shape of the Liturgy, Dix adverts to the fact that there was deadlock. Parliament, which had, at that time, not only the final say in liturgical reform but also could amend the detail, had twice thrown out the prayer book. There was no way forward save by illegality. Dix is explicit in his suggestion that a group of bishops, large enough in number, he says, to prevent anyone of them from being victimised, small enough, he says, so that this would not be perceived as a rebellion by the church against the state, should devise a liturgy - on the lines he has set out - which they would for use in their own dioceses, not recommending it nor offering any protection against legal action by anyone who wanted to do so. All this he makes clear in the book. I would not live or die by a word, but his action was plainly an encouragement to illegality. It was, in his view, the only way out of the impasse, but since it was encouraging the effective defiance of Parlaiment it warrants the epithet 'mischievous'.

Now I could set ou the terms of his chapter in detail but I often think that WP fails by its prolixity. It also gets hung up on the issues of POV. Unsbustantiated assertions, unbalanced details which makes prominent what should be less so, rudeness are out, but POV cannot be avoided. Take one example: I use BC/AD. That has been conventional. Some people would say that it should be BCE/CE. The latter, in an article on Christian history is anachronistic to past periods and might be conceived as critical of the Christian faith. (If I were writing about Islamic history I might use the Muslim dating system and then in brackets the date according to the CE reckoning. Anyways, I am glad you approve of the changes. Roger Arguile Trinity 4(!) 2006

Much better, a few things could still (I reckon) do with sorting.

The section on "The Book" could perhaps be split into subsections for each service, then for the lectionary and the last couple of chpaters perhaps moved into a new section "After the ASB" or something like that.

On readings, the first sentence doesn't make much sense to me:

The two year cycle of Readings was ordered to which thematic titles were given.

I suspect something's got accidentally removed in editing, but I can't work out what (I could trawl back through the page history I suppose...)

 These proved not very hardwearing and it was not long before priests if not
 parishioners noticed that in spite of the huge increase in the amount of
 Scripture heard - there were now three readings, Old Testament, New
 Testament and Gospel, much was missed out. When the reading aloud of the
 Bible at home and Scripture as the basis of Religious Education were the
 rule, this may not have mattered. Now that both had disappeared it did.

There's still an element of POV here, I'm not sure hardwearing is the right description, or if the comments on RE and personal reading of the scripture really have a place here (or at least not phrased in this way). I'm also not convinced by the use of bowdlerised in realtion to the prayer of oblation elsewhere in the text

 There was a good range of Prefaces to the Eucharistic Prayers, including
 one for St. Michael and All Angels. This went in 2000 as well.

It's not clear to me why this preface in particular is regarded as worthy of comment

 General Synod learned not to repeat the time-hungry debates though which
 it had been born.

I assume this is referring to the process by which Common Worship was put through Synod, but this could probably be made more explicit. David Underdown 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time's ticking on, chaps, and this is still highly opinionated. --81.103.144.55 04:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to be opinionated and still be NPOV. This article uses vibrant, interesting language to present the different points of view (which are in the documented debates which are sourced.) Interestingly, it attracted attention because the first contributor used the most colourful language to support the opposing view to his own (just ask him what his own POV is if you don't spot it in the Talk page.) Perhaps he overcompensated for a conscious personal bias, and since then others have come in and collaborated with him to tone it down. There is no need for it to be bland to be neutral. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the above. I have tried hard not to be boring. I also object to lazy use of the expression POV without justification. However, I shall do something about the tortured sentence on the Cycle of Readings. 'Hardwearing' ( or not): because it proved difficult to use the themes in preparing sermons year after year, but I will improve it. Bowdlerised: absolutely as a comparison btween the prayer in its original BCP form and its new form will make clear. St. Michael etc: ah, well I will expand but there is in CW no possibility of using the preface for saints for Michaelmas as it refers to exemplary lives - St. Michael was (is) an angel.

I am torn between assuming some level of knowledge and spelling everything out to a tedious level. My own view is that WP articles are, on the whole too long and lack cohesion. Roger Arguile August 1st. 2006

I do think there is a problem with people whose energies are devoted to seeking out POV sentiments but who know little about the subject. I have just had to repair an article where a well-intentioned revision completely mistook the character of the problem ie. the inability of the church to change its liturgy in the 1940s. Gregory Dix was not making a serious suggestion but 'mischievously' drawing attention to the inability and unwillingness of anyone to act. He might have thought that someone would follow his advice but he was being more subtle (and mischievous into the bargain). Can I plead with people to read the literature before making changes which may well satisfy the NPOV lobby but which mess up the accuracy of an article. Roger Arguile 10:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to tone down some of the language in this article without falling (as someone who has not "read the literature") into the trap Roger describes above. I hope this helps our ongoing process. Carolynparrishfan 19:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This just silly. It is kind of Ms. Parrish to admit to not having read the literature, but it is also trasnparent. She has fallen into the trap of misusing words and misunderstanding history. I propose to revert to my previous editing. I am willing to give reasons but there are so many changes with so little evidence and so little justification. Just a few examples: liturgical book is wrong; it's the wrong jargon and is obscure; translation in the English Missal - the prayers are in Latin! Dix's reforms: they wen't reforms, they were proposals. Forgive me but I really think that people shouldn't interfere who have not read the literature. I can give more examples if you really want. Roger Arguile 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having been around Wikipedia for a few weeks now, it seems to me that Wikipedia's NPOV policy is unique in publishing, and seems to lead to a style of writing that is sometimes bland or even stilted. I think that is what makes it toughest on experienced writers like Roger, who are not used to their work being "edited mercilessly" by allcomers. Roger, don't give up on Wikipedia, but also consider publishing a copy somewhere else where your article won't be contaminated by everyone's opinion of what the house style is, and by those who are offended or are afraid of causing offence. Sadly, with only one million regulars in the Church of England, and only a few of those paying attention to its liturgical changes, Roger may be the only expert here. (Most Anglicans active on the encyclopedia are North Americans, it seems.)

Although it may be considered rude to quickly revert someone's edits to your work, it can be better if someone else reverts it. Therefore, I am hitting the revert button, as a kind of vote for accuracy and good prose, over neutrality. I think that since the ASB has now been withdrawn from active use, and the main reasons for doing so documented in Synod records, it is unlikely that the article will offend anyone.

Hopefully, you can work through each of User:Carolynparrishfan's edits in turn, as I think some of them will improve the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Roger has done a partial revert while I was writing this explanation. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, it seems a little agressive to simply revert the changes, yes the stuff on the English Missal was wrong, but many of the other changes linked to other relevant articles which can only help general understanding and uch of the other wording introduced was less obvously partial. Since I was only born in 1977 i clearly do not the original changes, but I have at least read much of the Church Times coverage of the debates on the introduction of Common worship which puts me way ahead of the average reader of this article - which is not for a specialist audience after all. David Underdown 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok everybody. If you will be patient, I shall offer explanations for each of Ms. Parrish's alterations with which I disagree. I am sorry if I was aggressive. I suppose I find it hard when in no other field are alterations of substance made by poeple who have no particular knowledge of the subject. I think I would prefer it if people asked questions on Talk rather than making changes if they have no specialist knowledge. Specialists can be wrong of course as well as careless. The level of explanation will never be right for everyone. Just give me a chance. OK? Roger Arguile 17:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, when you read some of the article as "obviously partial", don't forget what Roger said at the outset "I think you may be surprised at my own point of view which you appear to have discerned, probably wrongly." I (personally) don't think there are big NPOV concerns with this article; its not the Anglican Mission in America. It is fairly uncontroversial that there were failings with the ASB, or there would have been no need for Common Worship. But, collaborative encyclopaedia editing is a funny old hobby, isn't it? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the latest edits Roger, probably a very minor thing but I really don't like th phrase "rolled back", so I've changed that to "drew back", though i must admit I'm not 100% convinced by that either. I think the article could also do with a first header somewhat higher up, we seem to have an incredibly long lead at the moment. Perhaps something like "Earlier attempts at liturgical change" following the first paragraph would make the article a little more readable? David Underdown 09:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]