Talk:Use of Sarum

Sarum Rite

The Latin name for Salisbury is not "Sarum", it is Salisburium. Sarum is the abbreviation that was used on maps. It became common to use Sarum in reference to Salisbury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementissime (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The Latin name for Salisbury was Sorviodunum. Even if you're talking medieval dog/ecclesiastical Latin, you're looking at Serisberia & al. Sarum's not only a perfectly set alt Latin name for the place (albeit born out of scribal errors well before anyone was drawing maps), it was the official name in English until 2009 and remains the name for the original settlement at Old Sarum. — LlywelynII 09:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Printed sources from the 1490s to the 1530s use the topographical adjective “sarisburiensis, -ense”. This would imply that the contemporary toponym was “Sarisburium / Salisburium”, but I don’t recall ever seeing that word in any primary source. It does appear in some of the Victorian scholarship. The story about deriving the name “Sarum” from maps is not true. MonteGargano (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer

Could somebody write more on the influence on the Book of Common Prayer? You already mention the Advent propers and the counting of Sundays after Trinity; another influence I know about is the Lord's Prayer and the Collect of Purity at the beginning of the Mass. Anything more?--130.133.155.69 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Importance

I can't speak to its accuracy but, if this source is right, a fuller treatment of its argument needs to go into the article.

In fine, even with one its bishops getting the job for having moved through the service so rapidly, it never made sense that Salisbury was the go-to for medieval English services. The linked essay argues (first) that Osmund's book itself was very short and (second and more importantly) that the changes introduced by Osmund and his successors at Salisbury were at the vanguard of converting English ecclesiastical lands and tithes into prebends and cash payments that gave its church's middle management an enviable lifestyle that was (sooner or later) copied by its fellows. The rest of the uses came along as part of the financial reform.

Obviously, today, people usually think of the Sarum Rite as the Antient & Customarie Usages of the Britons from Tyme Immemoriall but it only came to seem that way after the fights of the Reformation. In its own time, it was Norman innovation on top of Roman and Saxon uses; we should do a better job explaining why this particular set won out for a time. — LlywelynII 09:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

edit: From the same set of essays, letters by Peter of Blois explicitly invoke "the constitution of Osmund and of Jocelin" in arguing that they intended that the holders of the largest prebends should be resident while the lesser canons should be free to take their income wherever they might be. — LlywelynII 11:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

LlywelynII:I’m not sure we’ll ever know why Sarum Use became so prominent, but there is no doubt that it did. Even before the Reformation, there was a certain cachet attached to the use, as evidenced by the so-called Great Breviary of 1531. This grand undertaking, printed in France, took as its model the Sarum Use. The title says it’s Sarum Use, and it corresponds to English sources of known Sarum provenance. But it is also full of material that is clearly added from other Uses, indicating that the target market was not Salisbury per se, nor even establishments that had adopted Sarum Use, but rather the entire English market. To some extent, at least for the publisher Chevallon, Sarum apparently meant England. Pfaff’s The Liturgy in Medieval England discusses this at length.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sarum Rite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060716045416/http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk:80/Petroc/sarum.htm to http://www.orthodoxresurgence.co.uk/Petroc/sarum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Use of Sarum/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs citations and references.

Last edited at 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 05:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Sarum Rite → ? – This page should be renamed The Sarum Use because the article itself says "The Sarum Rite, more properly called the Use of Salisbury", which is a contradiction. Every rite is separate, there cannot be a rite within a rite, but there can be a use (variance) in a rite. The Sarum Use is a use because it is a variant of the Roman Rite. SirChan (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and because "Sarum Use" is a made-up phrase. "Use of Salisbury" would potentially be acceptable, except a) it's not the common name, and b) it's ambiguous. Also "more properly" is PoV and should be replaced with "also known as". I'll make that correction myself. It's not WP's place to say what is "proper".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  02:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The Catholic Encyclopedia says other wise: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13479a.htm "(More accurately SARUM USE)"

How could it be legitimately called "Sarum Rite" for short when the proper title is the "Use of Salisbury"? Wikipedia:PRECISION does dictate "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic." Use of Salisbury would be too precise as the Sarum Use is precise enough as indicated in the Mother Teresa example.

It is indisputable that the Sarum Use belongs to the Roman Rite family. After all, England was a Catholic country before the Henrician Reformation. SirChan (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per consistency with Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, Cistercian Rite, etc. The common name of the various liturgical uses of the Latin Church is rite. Google Books shows plenty of reliable sourcing using Sarum rite, and all of it more recent than the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, which is a century old and thus not useful for determining what the common name in English currently is. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request Move Redux

The term “rite” or “ritus” or any variation thereof is not found in the surviving Customaries or Ordinals of Sarum Use, anywhere. The only terms—used over and over and over again, for CENTURIES—are “secundum usum sarum” “ad usum sarum”, i.e., “according to the Use of Sarum”, or “in the Sarum Use”. A “made-up phrase”? Ludicrous. Given the abundance of information available online for this topic, including numerous transcriptions and translations of primary sources, it boggles the mind that hearsay, rumor, and innuendo were the best anyone could provide when discussing this name change. One article from a Catholic encyclopdia from 100 years is sad bit of evidence when faced with so much legitimate scholarship.

Start here for ALL of the surviving Customaries: http://www.sarumcustomary.org.uk/.

Then go here for the (so-far) only full transcription of the so-called Old Ordinal: sarum-chant.ca, tab ‘More Documents’, ‘Ordinale Sarisburiensis’. MonteGargano (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of Sarum Use to the Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, and Cistercian Rite is completely pointless, since those rites legitimately ARE very distinct from each other, with their own components and structures and even their own distinct liturgical years. The Sarum Use is a variation of one of those Rites, the Roman.

Worth noting is that while the mendicant orders and the various branches of Benedictine monasticism have widely varying rites for the office—by far the most numerous and lengthy of the day’s services—most adhere to the Roman Rite for mass. MonteGargano (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

MonteGargano: Sorry, I'm not following. What are you asking?--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Cúchullain:I am referring to the decision NOT to change the name of this article, hence the title of the section, "Request Move Redux". I have placed a “Move Review” on your page. MonteGargano (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

MonteGargano, this is not what Wikipedia:Move review is intended for. The previous discussion did not result in consensus in favor of a move, so no move was made. The interpretation of the discussion when it was closed was correct. However, that was quite a while ago, so if you want to try to initiate another normal Wikipedia:Requested move and have another discussion, please do so. I'd suggest withdrawing the request for a move review. Dekimasuよ! 19:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dekimasu: Per your suggestion, I have re-submitted the move request, which incorporates the points I raised here. MonteGargano (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Use of Sarum. Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Sarum Rite → Sarum Use – A request to change the name of this article to “Sarum Use” was rejected in favor of the recent and poorly-attested term “Sarum Rite”. I was unaware of the discussion at the time, and I am re-submitting this request, this time to be considered in the light of legitimate, academic evidence.

The term “rite” or “ritus” or any variation thereof is not found in the surviving Customaries or Ordinals of Sarum Use, anywhere. The only terms—used over and over and over again, for CENTURIES—are “secundum usum sarum” or “ad usum sarum”, i.e., “according to the Use of Sarum” or “in Sarum Use”. A comment in the original discussion of the name-change referred to this as a “made-up phrase”. Ludicrous. The manufactured phrase is “Sarum Rite”.

Another commenter made a comparison of the Sarum Use to the Roman Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Dominican Rite, Mozarabic Rite, and Cistercian Rite, which was utter nonsense. Those rites legitimately ARE distinct rites, sensu strictu, with their own components and structures and even their own distinct liturgical years. The Sarum Use is a variation of one of those Rites, the Roman. Similarly, other Rites, including many not mentioned here, historically had local variants (not always called “Uses”), most or all of which are now suppressed or forgotten.

(Worth noting is that while the mendicant orders and the various branches of Benedictine monasticism have widely varying Rites for the canonical hours—by far the most numerous and lengthy of the day’s services—most congregations adhere to the Roman Rite for mass. Discussions of the topic of Rites and Uses often demonstrate confusion on this point.)

For reference, ALL of the surviving Sarum Customaries are available in transcription here: http://www.sarumcustomary.org.uk/. Search on “usum” in each of the Latin or Latin-English customaries, and you will readily see how common this term is. Search on “ritus” or “ritu”, and you will find nothing. (English “rite” was used to translated “obsequium”, which is too bad.)

In addition, academic writers of the last century or so have used the term “Sarum Use” exclusively, including W.H. Frere, Francis Procter, and Christopher Wordsworth, the foremost scholars on the subject

The claim that the term “Sarum Rite” somehow fits the guidelines of Wikipedia’s "Common Name" is a circular argument, since the only evidence for its widespread use is in Wikipedia’s article, though—ironically enough—not in the article’s own footnotes, where every primary and academic secondary source exclusively uses the term “Sarum Use”. Some of the popular articles use the phrase “Sarum Rite”; but non-academic chit-chats and the popular press are a poor foundation for any genuinely academic article.

Clearly, the correct title for this article is “Sarum Use”, and the decision not to make the change should be revisisted. The first line of the article would then read, “The Sarum Use, also known as the Use of Salisbury or the Sarum Rite, was a variant ("use") of the Roman Rite... ” This acknowledges the popular but rather recent use of the term “Sarum Rite”. MonteGargano (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

One further observation on the arguments mustered against the first attempt to change the name—Mr. Ballioni’s claim that Google Books [1] pulls up plenty of references to “Sarum Rite” is simply bogus. The search turns up far more references to “Sarum Use”; and it is worth noting that the occurrences of the term “Sarum Rite” are in recent books covering many topics OTHER THAN Christian liturgy and worship. The scholarly works that deal directly with the liturgy refer time and again to “Sarum Use”. MonteGargano (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15735a.htm: “It was a received principle in medieval canon law that while as regards judicial matters, as regards the sacraments, and also the more solemn fasts, the custom of the Roman Church was to be adhered to; still in the matter of church services (divinis officiis) each Church kept to its own traditions (see the Decretum Gratiani, c. iv., d. 12). In this way there came into existence a number of “Uses”, by which word were denoted the special liturgical customs which prevailed in a particular diocese or group of dioceses: speaking of England before the Reformation, in the south and in the midlands, the ceremonial was regulated by the Sarum Use, but in the greater part of the north the Use of York prevailed.” MonteGargano (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support moving to Use of Sarum (see below). The above is a major case of WP:TLDR, but "Sarum Use" is more common in Google Books than "Sarum Right". Both are well established in reliable sources, but "Sarum Use" is more common and perhaps more technically correct.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Use of Sarum" is even more widely used than "Sarum Use". That would appear to be the best title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Might I offer a quote from the WP:TLDR page? “Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude.” My discussion rebuts arguments from the earlier attempt to rename this page, and then provides academic references for making the change. Should I simply have written, “Change it because I say so”? MonteGargano (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on Cúchullain's suggested title? Dekimasuよ! 07:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

“Use of Sarum” is as valid as “Sarum Use”, and closer to the Latin. But “Sarum Use” is more succinct and therefore preferable to me. MonteGargano (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

MonteGargano: Just for future reference, being more concise would probably have drawn more comments here. Walls of text often turn people off, especially in community discussions like move requests. I certainly didn't read the whole thing. Additionally, many of your points aren't really relevant to a move request - Wikipedia article titles aren't based on what's ostensibly "correct" or official, as different people have different interpretations of that. For example, it's demonstrably true that various high quality sources do use "Sarum Rite".[2][3][4] However, Wikipedia article titles are based on the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources. In this case, "Use of Sarum" is apparently the most common form. What you ought to have said is what I did, that "Use of Sarum" is the most common form in additionally to being perhaps more technically correct.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cuchullain that "Use of Sarum" is the better name if it is indeed the COMMONNAME, but if "Use of Sarum" and "Sarum Use" were neck-and-neck I should prefer the first because it sounds like what it is, whereas "Sarum Use" sounds odd. I certainly don't agree withMonteGargano that we should choose names here for conciseness, especially when the length is so similar. The present-day habit of constantly inventing shorter names for things just for the sake of it strikes me as a bit juvenile. Moonraker (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Cúchullain: My own experience is academic and analytical. The level of detail that I presented is the minimum expected at a scholarly seminar, or even at a meeting of financial anlysts or board members. If I were to say as little as you recommend—with no supporting evidence or cogent defense of my position—I would be laughed out of the room. Nevertheless, I will bear your advice in mind when dealing with Wikipedia. MonteGargano (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Among researchers and serious scholars that I know, Wikipedia is endlessly attacked as anti-academic. I have resisted that accusation for years, because I see a lot of good work here, and many articles are exceptionally well written. I am endlessly encouraging skilled and knowledgeable people to participate, because—until this week—I was convinced of the value they could add. Maybe I’m a bit daft or a bit slow to accept reality, but the reaction to this discussion here leaves me wondering how right my friends are. The very idea that anyone would refuse to read a valid argument because it has a lot of words is shocking to me. I’ve nearly put my eyes out reading 500-year-old bad handwriting IN LATIN, just to contribute my little piece to the modern work being done on Sarum manuscript sources; I've edited and transliterated thousands of pages for online access; and yet the discussion of this name change hinges on a keyword search in Google books? “Anti-academic” doesn’t begin to describe it. MonteGargano (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

MonteGargano: I know how you feel. I've often found it tough to bridge my discipline (literature) with Wikipedia writing. The way to think about it is that here, you're writing for a general encyclopedia audience, not academics. You're also communicating with people who are volunteers and sometimes don't have the time to read through lengthy statements.

As far as the title goes, again, the deciding guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. A Google Books search is one way to try to figure out what the common name is in the sources. A review of use in the top sources works as well, or if there's a published quote from an expert saying "such-and-such is the standard use in the field". However, it's English reliable sources that matter for Wikipedia; Latin use isn't a determining factor. And so here, all you needed to do to support the move request was show that "Use of Sarum" is the most commonly used name for this subject in English sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm certainly not anti-academic by a long shot (I regularly critique our History of Christianity articles for being all self-published and pop-press sources, and not enough academic sourcing), but the article naming policy isn't about what the technically proper term is, it is about what it is commonly referred among other things, and one of those considerations is the house style of Wikipedia. COMMONNAME is one of the criteria, but consistency with similar subjects is another. In this case, I think it's about a wash in terms of commonness, but as Cuchullain has pointed out, there is a slight preference for use in recent sourcing, but not enough in my opinion, where we can use that as the sole basis under the title policy. In cases like this, I prefer consistency as it helps the reader navigate so long as the name is commonly used (i.e. I'm willing to accept a slightly less common name to aid the reader of this encyclopedia). If there is sourcing discussing the difference between use and rite that can be included in the body of the article, and would actually, in my opinion, be more informative to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as above per WP:CONSISTENCY with other liturgical uses of the Latin Church. Sarum Rite is commonly used in English, and COMMONNAME is not the only consideration. For current usage n-grams comes out about a wash. In the United States, I suspect rite is the most common usage, but I am unfamiliar with other national varieties of English. Wikipedia consistently refers to forms of the liturgy of the Latin Church as rites, and both use and rite are used in the sourcing. When this happens we go with Wikipedia's consistent house style, which is rite. This is in line with the article naming policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is that articles covering different topics should have the same name, to provide consistency (where none exists) and to aid the reader in navigating between topics that are unrelated (and yet are grouped together). That sounds helpful.
The genuinely distinct rites in the West (Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, inter alia) should not be confused with the uses found within each. Use of Sarum and Use of York are two uses within the Roman Rite, but there are others. By applying the term “rite” to something that is a “use”, you introduce confusion, not clarity. And it is indeed worth noting—something I missed until today—that the sister use of Sarum is correctly named in Wikipedia, Use of York. If you want consistency, what more discussion do your need? And for the record, “Use of Sarm” is the long-standing term, as you can see in Frere, Wordsworth, Procter, et al. “Sarum Rite” is new and commonly found in sources that DO NOT deal with liturgical history. MonteGargano (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No: my argument is that sourcing uses both commonly. When both are used commonly, we look to what Wikipedia refers to other similar subjects as to determine which is the best name in Wikipedia's house style. That is what we are discussing, not what the technically correct name is: that can be discussed in the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I further propose these questions: What characteristics distinguish one rite from another? What characteristics distinguish a use while clearly maintaining its membership in a rite? Answer those, and you will see that a change in title is appropriate here. MonteGargano (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Returning to the issue of consistency, consider the descriptions of books of hours in museums and auction houses throughout the English-speaking world: “Use of Bayeux”, “Use of Paris”, “Use or Reims”, “Use of Utrecht”, “Use of Douay”, even “Use of Rome” (to describe the peculiarities of practice within Rome itself), and many others. Google any of these you will see how widespread the general adoption of the term “use” is in several disciplines. Also, see this site (http://manuscripts.org.uk/chd.dk/gui/index.html), the most prominent and important one to deal with books of hours; they identify many uses, including the Use of Sarum. Where, then, is the consistency in singling out Sarum as a rite, while all of its sisters (within the Roman Rite) are called Uses? MonteGargano (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is what Wikipedia consistently refers to similar subjects as when there are multiple common forms in reliable sourcing, not what similar subjects are referred to in other sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Your concern seems to be that the Wikipedia article needs to match the most common term found in all English sources, everywhere. Alright, I’ll go with that. I keep raising instances of the predominance of the phrase “Use of Sarum” in various fields and various sources, you keep NOT offering any evidence aside from a keyword search in Google books. Admittedly, neither one of us can claim to provide the exhaustive research necessary to fulfill your impossible requirement, but at least I am producing legitimate evidence—and a lot of it. So, what sources can you muster to prove your point? MonteGargano (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

And here's another. Manuscripts at the British Library are labeled “Use of Sarum”. http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/results.asp I can add more of this stuff, clearly demonstrating common use and consistency. But just how much is needed to confirm HERE what is obvious everywhere else? MonteGargano (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni: You need to clarify for me your statement, “what Wikipedia consistently refers to similar subjects”. What similar subjects? Are you again raising the incorrect association of various uses with legitimate rites, such as Ambrosian, Mozarabic, etc? If so, I can understand your argument; but it is based on a falsehood. You might as well argue that New York City is an independent state because so many people think it is. But no, there is a New York state, and NYC is ONE of its cities. Similarly for this liturgy, the rite is Roman, one of its uses is of Sarum. The “similar subject” here is the Use of York. For consistency, are you proposing we change that to “York Rite”? Good luck finding that term in common use, outside of Freemasonry. MonteGargano (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Different usages of the Latin Church across Wikipedia are referred to as rites consistently on Wikipedia, they may be different in some technicalities (I am aware of the distinctions), but that is the consistent usage and what people are familiar with. Additionally, based on the sourcing in this article and searches in Google Books and Google, it appears that the usage appears biased towards rite in Catholic sourcing and use in Anglican sourcing (which would also make sense in terms of just linguistic patterns between the two religious communities, though both usages are found in both communities). My argument is essentially that despite your claims, it is abundently clear that reliable sourcing (including academic sourcing), uses both "use" and "rite". When the two are used commonly in reliable sourcing, we look at things beyond just the most common name or the technically correct name. What we're looking for is what would be easiest for readers to find and understand. That is, in my opinion, unambigiously rite. If you want examples of reliable sourcing using rite (from both traditions and secular sourcing), here is just the first two pages of Google Books: 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7,8,9, 10,11.

This usage of the Roman Rite is unambigiously called "rite" in sources, even if the technical name is "use". We look at how we generally refer to similar things on Wikipedia, which is clearly rite (the York Use is never called a rite, whereas the Sarum use/rite is.) We look at the totality of the naming policy, not just one aspect. The totality here is not in favour of a move. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni: I never stated that “Sarum Rite” was not found in academic sources. I said it was not used by scholars of the Sarum liturgy. In fact, I referenced a number of those sources, and the response here was “I certainly didn’t read the whole thing”. This was followed by, “the article naming policy isn't about what the technically proper term is”. Well, that’s a revelation. I’ll have to remember in the future that I should avoid using technically proper terms. Then, in defense of the most “common” term, I pointed out that Use of Sarum is the ONLY term used to catalog manuscripts in English-speaking libraries and the ONLY term used by the auction houses Christie’s and Sotheby’s. The response was that only Wikipedia’s circular references were valid, “not what similar subjects are referred to in other sources.” Then I pointed out that Wikipedia itself is internally INCONSISTENT, by grouping the Use of Sarum with other legitimate Rites, and by separating it from its sister liturgy, the Use of York. The response was, “Different usages of the Latin Church across Wikipedia are referred to as rites consistently on Wikipedia”—and yet, no surprise, absolutely no such articles were cited. In fact, nothing has been cited other than a keyword search from Google Books—a keyword search that would turn up just as many references to “Use of Sarum”.

So, given that the terms are equally common, one might expect that a decision would be based on

1. the original term used for hundreds of years (see sources above),
2. the most common term used by scholars of SARUM LITURGY (and not subjects peripheral to the liturgy) (see sources above),
3. the term used by the world’s major libraries (see sources above),
4. the term used by the world’s principal auction houses (see discussion above), and
5. the term that most satisfies the goal of internal consistency in Wikipedia (see discussion above).

Alternatively, we could rely on unsubstantiated claims, such as

1. “I suspect rite is the most common usage” (no evidence),
2. “Wikipedia consistently refers to forms of the liturgy of the Latin Church as rites, and both use and rite are used in the sourcing” (where?),
3. “we look to what Wikipedia refers to other similar subjects as to determine which is the best name” (keep looking, I haven’t seen any actual evidence yet),
4. “Different usages of the Latin Church across Wikipedia are referred to as rites consistently on Wikipedia” (where? What other uses could you possibly be referring to?),
5. “that is the consistent usage and what people are familiar with” (no evidence),
6. “ it appears that the usage appears biased towards rite in Catholic sourcing and use in Anglican sourcing” (no evidence),
7. “We look at how we generally refer to similar things on Wikipedia, which is clearly rite” (again, where are you seeing this? I cannot find one single “Use” in Wikipedia referred to as a Rite, other than this one), and
8. “What we're looking for is what would be easiest for readers to find and understand” (because you know what’s easiest to understand—and seriously, you think the title affects a search for this topic?)

I have presented an endless array of logical reasons WITH EVIDENCE for making this change. I am countered with opinions and broad claims, but no links to anything beyond a keyword search on Google books. MonteGargano (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop bludgeoning this process. I've already provided evidence, in the previous RM and this one. You might disagree with it, but I also have susbtantially more experience in the naming conventions on Wikipedia in general and in Christianity and History of Christianity in particular: this does not make my views better than yours, but it does mean that I am likely arguing from a place that understands how we balance all of your concerns with other concerns, and not a place of trying to drive my particular POV. I'd appreciate an understanding of that, and an assumption of good faith on your part.

You are misinterpreting my arguments, taking quotes out of context, and obviously aren't looking at our policy on article titles, but rather what you think is right. For the statements that I have not provided links to, I have told you the process by which I arrived at them (namely looking through Google sourcing, Google books, and Google scholar). The sourcing I provided was reliable, academic, and some of it was academic study of the liturgy. Your argument being that we would be the only source doing so and are anti-academic are simply false.

Again, I would highly recommend that you disengage with this RM and let other uninvolved editors comment. Your actions discourage people from participating in the process and the more you right, the less likely your arguments are to be taken seriously. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I will not write again on this topic, but I do have one final question. Could you please post links to the specific Wikipedia articles where the different usages of the Latin Church are referred to as rites? Not the rites themselves, but their various Uses. I cannot find any such articles, and I am curious to read them. MonteGargano (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sure: Franciscan Rite, Friars Minor Capuchin Rite, Servite Rite for the orders (redirect titles). Aquileian Rite is also referred to as both a use (of the Roman rite) and a rite in sourcing, as is the Durham Rite. We do have other articles that use "use" as you pointed out, but these tend to be ones that are less commonly known as rite in English. Where sourcing exists for rite, that is typically what is used because that is what most people are familiar with (outside of the small circles that are liturgical history academics). We can explain that these are more properly uses of the Roman Rite in the article, but the title we try to make consistent. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It deeply pains me to break my word, but I must answer your request for “a published quote from an expert saying ‘such-and-such is the standard use in the field’.” Peter Beal does exactly that in his Dictionary of English Manuscript Terminology: 1450 to 2000, p. 48, which is luckily available here, 12; and p. 26 here 13, where he gives “Use of Sarum” as the correct term. This was published AFTER the “Sarum Rite” article was written, which gives his dictionary more weight, according to the rules. And the dictionary meets this guideline, “In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias [e.g., Beal’s dictionary], geographic name servers, major scientific bodies [e.g., the British Library, as noted above], and notable scientific journals.” So even Wikipedia’s own precious rules give the advantage to the scholar who literally “wrote the book” on the subject. MonteGargano (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support "Use of Sarum", per Cuchullain. Moonraker (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support "Use of Sarum", per Cúchullain and Moonraker and against my own original proposal—which was not, however, made-up or juvenile, but fully attested and what I thought was more in accord with Wikipedia’s rule. I hope I am not out of place in registering “support” here; please delete this if I am. MonteGargano (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.