Talk:Latin Mass Society of England and Wales

COI
This article has had some COI editing over the last couple of weeks, as discussed here. The article has been tagged for COI. Someone should review the contributions made by the conflicted editor for NPOV and VERIFY, and once that is done, a note of that should be made here, and the tag removed. Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have read through the article but do not see any issue regarding COI or NPOV. Even though Mr. Shaw is the chairman of the organization and is conflicted, his contributions are factual/verifiable. I've added a few additional references, but everything seems both accurate and neutral as aforementioned. Are there any particular concerns? I have no connection to the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales--I live in the United States--but would be willing to further expand and assist with the article. GeorgeDouglass (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * your review left a load of unsourced and promotional material. Rather than edit war over the tag I just stubified the article.Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good grief! Everything is gone. :) I have a few questions regarding your "stubifing":

GeorgeDouglass (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The aims of the society enumerated from its 2012 revised constitution explain the scope and mission of the LMS. It is hardly promotional but rather explains their multiple purposes and works. I included a direct citation to their constitution. Including these are important as the LMS does not merely work to make the Traditional Latin Mass more widely available but involves many other activities (i.e. promotion of Gregorian chant, promotion of Latin language in Church worship, education and teaching seminars, publication of licitly celebrated Mass schedules, etc.).
 * 2) The inclusion of the "promotional lavish quotation. meh." is neither promotional nor lavish. It is historically very important as the LMS was extended the very first permission to use the older liturgical books at a time of sweeping changes in the Catholic Church. Many argued the older books were abrogated and were not to be used at all; this proves this was not the case. That this came directly from the hand of Paul VI and Annibale Bugnini is also very relevant as the two were directly responsible for the implementation of the new liturgical books. This section was hardly a boast about having received a letter with the pope's autograph. As the article stated: "This was the first explicit confirmation that the older books could continue in use, not only by older priests celebrating in private, but for the benefit of the lay faithful." A very big deal, and an historical one indeed, in Traditionalist Catholic circles.
 * 3) The activities and structure of the organization--two sections you removed as well--are also important. That the LMS publishes a quarterly magazine is verifiable and not promotional; it is a simple fact that the organization publishes material in an official organ of the organization. Many other articles for organizations include this information. The structure of the board/committee of trustees and its regional representation throughout the Diocese of England and Wales is also an important fact that explains how the LMS organizes and goes about its work.


 * What editors with a COI do, is treat Wikipedia like it is their own website. They copy/paste long and non-encyclopedic things (like the very detailed mission statement that was in the lead) and they just write whatever narrative they want based on their own authority - again, like it is their own website. If you want to put the work in, to build an actual encyclopedia article that complies with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:VERIFY and that is built from independent sources, let me know. Do not try to recreate their website here in WP.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607092200/http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/articles-on-the-mass/the_english_indult to http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/articles-on-the-mass/the_english_indult

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latin Mass Society of England and Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109092645/http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/lms-constitution-as-amended-2012 to http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/lms-constitution-as-amended-2012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Julian Chadwick for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julian Chadwick, a former Chairman of the Latin Mass Society, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Julian Chadwick until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)