Talk:Rite

Synonym?

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

Rite: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rite

Ritual: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ritual

82.18.164.15 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

'Rite" vs. "rite"

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

Merger Into "Ritual" Article

@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)

• @1990'sguy: It was discussed; the discussion was on the talk page for Ritual and that page was linked in the merger proposal template on both articles. I allowed months for people to give input. -- Scyrme (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I summarised the rationale for someone while sorting out the links issue:

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.

-- Scyrme (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

There was quite a bit of dissent to merging the two articles above, and I would object that this article is already way too long. This article treats rituals from an anthropological perspective whereas Rite concerns usage in religion, namely Christianity in which rites are distinguished from sacraments. Edits like this one, therefore, do not make sense where you linked "rite" to "sacrament" when it is exactly not a "sacrament" but a "rite."[1] This article and the other article should stay separate. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@1990'sguy: There was a majority in favour and the two objections were not sustained despite my efforts to encourage further discussion. I went as far as to ping random people who seemed likely to actually reply after the original responders did not. I also allowed months for further responses after getting a majority because I expected further objections. I can't be faulted if no-one bothers to say anything.

As for the article topic, as I mentioned in the original discussion, the lead of Ritual mentions emic perspectives but the body previously did not provide any; I therefore think including a section on such views is helpful. I'm not sure I agree that the article is too long with the added content. There are plenty of longer articles that aren't identified as being too long. Is there an objective Wikipedia guideline on this? If not, this is a subjective judgement.

I think at this point, what's done is done. It would be best to undo the merger revert to make sure the links point where they were intended while we discuss a split and any further changes needed:

• As for what to split, I don't think a general article entitled "Rite" makes sense unless both articles are significantly rewritten in order to justify the distinction, and such a thing would require a well-sourced discussion of the distinction to be added. (I don't know where you'd get one; as I argued in the merge discussion, I don't think the English language even has such a clear distinction outside narrow technical cases like the Roman Rite etc.) Without such a thing, the topic of Rite is unclear, how it differs from Ritual is unclear, and the content of Rite amounts to a very wordy informal dab page that just lists various things called "rites". This is most likely why Rite has remained neglected and underdeveloped despite being created in 2003.
• If your main reason for keeping them separate is to put the Christianity section on a separate article, I would suggest it be split to Rite (Christianity) or something like that, leaving this page the dab I created. The narrower title would solve some of the issues of scope/clarity. I think this would be a decent compromise that we could implement quickly.

Regarding cases where I linked Sacrament, I did so with context in mind. Holy orders are a sacrament, and sacraments are a subset of Christian rites; I chose to be specific because I felt it would be more helpful. I don't mind targeting a less precise article instead if you feel strongly about this. -- Scyrme (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scyrme: Alright, Rite (Christian) would be fine. I can create the article and I hope you can help with directing relevant articles there. Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will do so. Thanks for sorting out the split. -- Scyrme (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2022 (UTC)