Talk:Preces

Merge

If anyone is maintaining this page, i would like to suggest that it be merged with the Preces (Opus Dei) page seeing as both are technically preces. This would make a good introduction, as well as an exposition of the more traditional uses of the term. Ithillion (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• No Merger - Preces (Opus Dei) discusses the newly written set of preces (prayers) by Josemaría Escrivá 1930. It would be better to have a separate article on those and to have a link to that main article from Preces.Dgf32 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• No Merger - Preces (Opus Dei) Would be confusing. While both Preces, they are distinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitusprime (talk • contribs) 06:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove opus dei preces

opus dei preces is sheer propaganda of this organization. moreover, it is a copyright vio to keep it here. opus dei keeps this prayer under wraps. opus dei preces has copyright. Any copy of the preces has a line that asserts copyright. I should know. Dtnicole (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am rolling back this change. Simply asserting something is propaganda does not make it so. Also - simply saying "I should know" also does not make it so. Since the preces is a prayer (a nice one at that), simply quoting it from a prayer book does not automatically violate copyright. If I quote a Franciscan prayer (Lord make me an instrument of your peace ...), from a particular source, it does not violate copyright. I assert that you have a non-neutral viewpoint, and am rolling back the removal of the preces. WikiWikiNeeWoo (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

the burden of proof is on you. read Wikipedia:Copyright_violations and you will know that -- material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation.

st francis prayer is public domain. od preces is private only for od. there is no permission from copyright holder for od preces. this is not brief quotation but whole thing! Dtnicole (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof observation is reasonable, I will obtain that. Your earlier assertion about sheer propaganda is simply opinion and weakens any argument you make considerably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiNeeWoo (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a reasonable compromise to provide a link to an external website hosting it, or to provide an English language original translation. I believe neither of these would directly violate copyright. I have requested that a link to a specific hosting page on opus-info be whitelisted so that a link can be inserted.

Anothe optin would be this website, giving both the latin and a translation:

http://everything.explained.at/Preces_(Opus_Dei)/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anruari (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The official prayer text in latin can be found in http://www.opusdei.us/art.php?p=45968 Coolsavvyguy (talk) 12:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

copyright claim

Now that Opus Dei's Preces have been published, with commentary, and with an explicit claim for copyright, I wonder whether is it proper to keep a full translation on WP without permission from the copyright holders. Even if they seem to be willing to distribute gratis copies of the original text from their website, I could not find any provision allowing derivative works, such as translations, or redistribution. My qualms come from the fact that this document does not seem to have been published under CC:BY-SA and/or GFDL, as required by WP. Thoughts? — Louie (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The copyright claim is for the manuscript alone. It's true that they're not explicitly making this in the public domain, but that much also ought to be said. (Edit: and apparently of the Latin text, for the Latin-English edition, but the Latin-only version muddies the waters as to what they think they're doing, particularly given the fact that they'v just put it out there… in any case, despite the name "preces" in the OD sense isn't really what anyone else means by "preces" so I'd be fine with removing this)Johnnygoesmarchinghome (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the actual text of the Opus Dei preces. If anyone is interested, he can look them up himself through the link. The Opus Dei preces are far too long for an encyclopaedic article which should just illustrate the most common uses of the word, not give in full the private devotions of a tiny religious group. Steepleman (t) 23:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Preces. 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/20080421192831/http://www.breviary.net:80/ordinary/ordinprim5.htm to http://breviary.net/ordinary/ordinprim5.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I see no reason for Response (liturgy) to have its own page, especially when "versicle" has no corresponding article. Both are fairly slim on content so there's no need for responses to be split off. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

More familiar examples?

I discovered the word "versicle" today on Countdown. Lexico's definition: "A short sentence said or sung by the minister in a church service, to which the congregation gives a response." I see that Versicle redirects here.

Instantly I thought of some obvious examples, none of which are mentioned here.

V: The Lord be with you.

R: And also with you.

V: This is the word of the Lord.

R: Thanks be to God.

V: Lord, hear us.

R: Lord, graciously hear us.

V: Lord, in your mercy.

R: Hear our prayer.

Are the Vs here not versicles? What are they then? — Smjg (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

They are indeed versicles. But they are not really considered preces, which is a litany of versicles and responses. Steepleman (t) 23:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)