Jump to content

Talk:Ora et labora

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Pray and work)

Notability

[edit]

The phrase "Pray and work" is not notable; "Ora et labora" is. It is the traditional motto of the Benedictines and has been widely adopted by a variety of other entities. It is also the original title of this page when first created. Am submitting a Move request, as the redirect from 2011 precludes a simple move. Manannan67 (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have nothing that indicates Ora et labora's notability either... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands now we would just be redirecting to Benedictines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can see how nothing's notable now that you've gutted the page. This boarders on vandalism. Manannan67 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What has changed? None of the sources removed contributed to WP:NOTABILITY in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either you don't understand notability or you don't understand Ora et Labora -or maybe both. Manannan67 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources removed could be used to determine notability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created in 2011 and has been worked on by literally dozens of editors who apparently felt it was sufficiently notable for their time -but you know better. Manannan67 (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is you who doesn't know how notability works: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:GNG Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main work of the Benedictines is the Divine Office which is described in the Rule as the Opus Dei, the "Work of God". The quote from Hopkins expanded on the concept of work -and was from the Bruderhof on balancing prayer and work in Ordinary Life, indicating yet another religious tradition that embraces Benedict's idea. Yet you found this "undue"? Manannan67 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please review WP:DUEWEIGHT. You are aware that none of the sources you've added count for determining notability, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
g:Please review WP:DUEWEIGHT. I think you've misread it. There is nothing here re minority viewpoints. Manannan67 (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without a WP:RS its undue, those sources are not independent of the subject. Now what does all this have to do with reliability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another guideline you've misapplied. "What matters for independence is whether they stand to gain from it." There is no conflict of interest, no financial gain, it's not promotional, etc. Who better to explain a phrase than the people who came up with it in the first place? "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." This article is about a phrase/motto over 1,000 yrs. old. There is nothing particularly controversial or exceptional about it. Manannan67 (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective." I'm confused, how can a religious order which follows a particular concept cover the topic from a disinterested perspective and have no vested interest in it? Common sense says that a random post on a Benedictine Monastery's blog or website is not a WP:RS. Literally none of the sources we have on the page right now count for WP:GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you're confused. Manannan67 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then enlighten me, which of the sources currently on the page counts towards WP:GNG? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inappropriate in using sources from various religious traditions (Catholic, Anglican, Bruderhof, etc.) to indicate how they incorporate the concept into their practice. Such "sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." The fact that a number of different traditions utilize a concept over 1,500 yrs. old is itself an indication of notability. Manannan67 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing in this category that can indicate notability is in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources (see WP:GNG). Which we currently have none of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the bar set by @Horse Eye's Back is for sources from those who neither pray nor work; that is, sources which are non-Catholic, non-Benedictine, non-monastic, and non-religious. IMHO, this is a restriction which was not foreseen by WP:IRS and it's laughably absurd to say that to be "independent", a source must be wholly divorced from, or even opposed to, whatever subject matter it's reporting on. Elizium23 (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you getting stuck up on independence? These sources meet none of the other standards "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Monastery websites and catholic blogs aren't in general going to be reliable or have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: You removed the notability tag with the edit summary "frivolous" [1] but you have participated in the talk page discussion so you know thats not true. You know that sources which satisfy WP:GNG have not been provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your stance is indefensible and ridiculous. Ora et labora is a phrase that's been used for two millennia by millions of Catholics and non-Catholics alike; it's attested in the very mottoes of Benedictine communities worldwide; it's an integral part of the Benedictine Rule used by Benedictines and non-Benedictines alike; it's a way of life. You have absolutely no basis for objecting to its notability. It'd be like objecting to "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave". Elizium23 (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of that have to do with our notability policy? Land of the Free and Home of the Brave does not have a wikipedia page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well yeah, it's clearly not notable then! Nobody ever says that! Elizium23 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't based on what people say, its based on our notability policy which is explained at WP:NOTABILITY. For what its worth "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" does not appear to be notable, coverage appears to be about the verse in the star spangled banner rather than the stand alone phrase. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pray and work → Ora et labora – Originally created Oct 2006 as Ora et labora; 2 sentence stub subsequently redirected to List of Latin phrases. Recreated June 2011 with English translation by user who felt it still deserved its own page. This is the traditional motto of the Benedictines and has been widely adopted by others. Most common usage; nobody uses "pray and work". Manannan67 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). – robertsky (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Latin phrase is the well-known and common term, worldwide. It is well-attested in thousands of years worth of WP:RS. The English translation, while correct, is less recognizable, and less used even by English-speaking Benedictine religious institutes. Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Horse Eye's Back's objection is based on Notability, which is both a completely separate issue -and a red herring. The redirect was moved to here in June 2011 by the editor who first created this page with the edit summary "Notable enough to need a page." He apparently used the English translation because of the pre-existing redirect. Agree with Elizium23 that the phrase is both well-known and well-attested, and has been for over 1,000 yrs. Manannan67 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The phrase seems well known as primarily a Latin phrase. It seems more used in Latin than as an English translation. My rough impression is that it is sufficiently notable for an article, although I have not tried to deeply research the question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: it is a very well known phrase associated with almost anything Benedictine. The English translation, while accurate, simply isn't commonly used - even in English speaking countries.Dcheney (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The English will never displace the Latin because the Latin rhymes and we love rhymes. Srnec (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to the Latin, which is the common name even among Anglophones. Jdcompguy (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Such an obvious one that I'm surprised it took any time at all for it to happen. Can confirm this is the preference among Anglican historians and academics and certainly within Catholic contexts; never seen it translated outside of parentheticals. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most other language Wikipedias also use the Latin.Jahaza (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Historical Reevaluation

[edit]

This is an interesting source that suggests some historical reevaluation of the topic may be underway: Oliver J. Kaftan, OSB, "Ora et labora – (k)ein benediktinisches Motto Eine Spurensuche," Erbe und Auftrag, 90 (2014), 415–421.Jahaza (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ora_et_labora&oldid=1195099219"