Talk:Book of Common Prayer (1604)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Common Prayer (1604) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Book of Common Prayer (1604) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 December 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that use of the 1604 Book of Common Prayer was authorized by the king of England, but later outlawed by Parliament?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1604).

Wikipedia

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Christianity: Texts / Anglicanism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal 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 Religious texts (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

University of Cambridge

This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New article

My beloved and under-appreciated 1604 prayer book finally gets the full article treatment. I hope to expand the article somewhat more, but this is enough to start! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

King James I's proclamation authorizing the 1604 prayer book

... that several copies of the 1604 Book of Common Prayer were annotated to create the still-used 1662 prayer book? Source: The History of the Book of Common Prayer, pg. 316; A New History of the Book of Common Prayer with a Rationale of its Offices, chapter linked
- ALT1: ... that using the 1604 Book of Common Prayer was authorized by the king of England but later outlawed by Parliament? Source: "The Book of Common Prayer: a Timeline: Chronologie du Book of Common Prayer"; Griffiths, David N. (2002). The Bibliography of the Book of Common Prayer 1529-1999. Pg. 106.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Florida Criminal Justice Standards & Training Commission

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 19:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Epicgenius (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why it was objectionable to the Puritans

'The reaction to the 1604 prayer book from the Puritan party was sharply critical of both the newly authorized liturgy, baptismal regeneration, and kneeling to receive Communion.'

An explanation why the Puritans considered these things to be wrong and incompatible with their more general religious principles would be in order here. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

explained in Puritans article

clarify|date=December 2022--Were there any "non-godly" ones? In other words, is the point of the adjective to separate them from another faction? If so, which one? If not, what is the point? And are these scare quotes, which would be prohibited by WP:NPOV? ... this is all explained in the WP article on Puritans, which is linked within this article. It doesn't need explanation here. -HammerFilmFan 2603:6080:2103:3FA2:E589:A3D2:868A:321C (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is explained in the main article is that they all called themselves 'godly', but this means that the phrase 'the "godly" Puritans of England' is tautological and that there *is* no point of the adjective, it's just superfluous. The fact that tautology is normally avoided is what made the sentence confusing. Thus, I've removed the adjective.--87.126.21.225 (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective provides contemporary term, as "Puritan" is something of a later term in some contexts involved. Restoring it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]