Talk:Rosary/Archive 2

Recitations?
People pray Hail Mary, they do not recite it. Big difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomy108 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring back to GA status
I would love to see this brought back to GA status. Anyone else like to help on this project?

Also, I noticed this talk page is really long. Anyone disagree if I archive it?--DizFreak talk Contributions 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to help. And please do archive this page. Dgf32 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now archived the page. Dgf32 (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosary and Chaplet meaning
Chaplet also means a wreath for the head, and 5 decades of the Rosary. 1.	a wreath or garland for the head. 2.	a string of beads. 3.	Roman Catholic Church. a.	a string of beads, one-third of the length of a rosary, for counting prayers. b.	the prayers recited over this. Dictionary.com Also, Catholic Encyclopedia says Rosarius means bouquet of roses, so I think Rosarius should be in the article as well as Rosarium. --Maria Bernada (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"As regards the origin of the name, the word rosarius means a garland or bouquet of roses, and it was not unfrequently used in a figurative sense—e.g. as the title of a book, to denote an anthology or collection of extracts. An early legend which after traveling all over Europe penetrated even to Abyssinia connected this name with a story of Our Lady, who was seen to take rosebuds from the lips of a young monk when he was reciting Hail Marys and to weave them into a garland which she placed upon her head. A German metrical version of this story is still extant dating from the thirteenth century. The name "Our Lady's Psalter" can also be traced back to the same period. Corona or chaplet suggests the same idea as rosarium. The old English name found in Chaucer and elsewhere was a "pair of beads", in which the word beads (q.v.) originally meant prayers." --Maria Bernada (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me have a look into this. I'll get back you shortly. Dgf32 (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a look through a variety of sources, and the etymology of the English word "rosary" looks like this: Latin rosa (rose) + Latin arium (room) = Latin rosarium (rose garden). The Latin Rosarium enters Middle French as rosarie, which is used figuratively to mean a "garden of prayers". Dgf32 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your question more directly, in Classical Latin, rosarius was either an adjective (rosey) or a noun (rose garden). According to Lewis and Short, rosa, not rosarium was used to refer to wreath or garland of roses. The Catholic Encyclopedia is a wonderful reference for all subjects related to catholicism. However, it's not necessarily infallible, especially when it comes to matters of linguistics and etymologies. Dgf32 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, do you think the etymology of "rosary" comes from a garland of roses? I can see the relationship between giving a bouquet of roses in prayer or a wreath of roses in prayer, but I'm not aware of any linguistic evidence to suggest that. And the idea of a "garden of prayer" seems to be quite a common theme running through the devotional literature of the period. Dgf32 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposing changes
Current introduction: The Rosary (from Latin rosarium, "rose garden"; from Middle French rosaire, "rose garden" used figuratively as "garden of prayers")

Proposed: The Rosary (from Middle Latin rosarium, "garland of roses"; from Middle French rosaire, "rose garland") --Maria Bernada 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * None of your references have anything to do with the Middle French rosaire, so why do you now think that it means "rose garland"? I mean, if you want to make a point about the Latin that's fine, but you just can't make up new words in Middle French to fit with your proposed etymology. While a section on etymology would be good for the article, you can't propose multiple etymologies in a parenthetical phrase in the first sentence. I suggest you refocus your efforts on developing a etymology section to explore the subject more fully. Dgf32 (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The last citation is etymological French Dictionary. Possibly not Middle French, sorry about that. Do you have a suggestion as to how the etymological section would look like?--Maria Bernada 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can get a good idea of how etymology sections are written by looking at those in other articles. Dgf32 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed all of the sources you found were published in the 19th century, except for one, which was published exactly 100 years ago. You should consider using more current references. A great deal of progress has been made in philology and comparative linguistics since the 19th century. Using more current references would make your task much easier. Dgf32 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of making it complicated, how about just change it something to this effect: The Rosary (from Latin rosarium, "rose garden"; from Middle French rosaire, "rose garden" used figuratively as "garden of prayers," but understood as "garland of roses" widely for a long time) --Maria Bernada 04:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Simpler is almost always better, so about about the following?
 * The Rosary (from Latin rosarium, meaning "rose garden" or "garland of roses" ) Dgf32 (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I will go ahead and provionsally insert that version into the article. I assume you'll be ok with that version. Dgf32 (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself to be a devout Lutheran in the LCMS (a relatively conservative Lutheran Church body). In the Lutheranism section, I think it is an overstatement to say that the Lutheran Church encourages the use of the rosary. Yes, a Lutheran version of the rosary does exist, but I think it's safe to say that those pastors that do are confined to a rather small minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.166.21 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

moving section on alternative forms into an article
There is another article on Rosary based prayers already with alternatives. Makes sense to me to merge this section into that article, to make the article on the mainstream Rosary shorter; or maybe the other way around, to keep all info centralized. Prudencio Clemente (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge The Rosary page is inherently about Marian prayers. The Rosary based prayers page also involves Christocentric prayers. Hence the 2 pages need to exist separately and refer to each other. That was the reason I started that page separately, rather than make a new section in the Rosary page. History2007 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite so: here one of the original "Paternoster" versions is mentioned; following your reasoning, that version should go to the other article. Prudencio Clemente (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, it should move out there. Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By your criteria the section on non-christian forms of "Rosary" (prayer with beads) should also go elsewhere, perhaps into another article. What do you think? Prudencio Clemente (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

moving section on other christian traditions into its own article
Hello! I think the section on rosaries in other christian traditions could be moved into a separate article. That way this article would focus on the mainstream catholic marian rosary, with relevant links to other forms or traditions. Prudencio Clemente (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Could, yes. But it is probably too small for its own page. In either case, no major difference to Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Got no feedback but yours.-- The article on other forms of catholic "rosary" seems inappropriate, but the section for christianity in the prayer beads article may be the right place to move this material, if we want the Rosary article to stick to the mainstream catholic devotion. What do you think? Prudencio Clemente (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The real question may be: "For the given effort, what additional benefits do Wiki-users get from any changes?" I think if you just move it into Rosary based prayers as a section that will be the simplest, cleanest and least effort-consuming way. The Rosary based prayers page itself is yet to be structured based on its talk page, so if you/we move this short section there and then restructure that page, there will be two nice pages on the rosary:


 * A general page on other forms, and other traditions


 * A mainstream rosary page.

Then any additional effort can go into improving the content of said pages. I really don't know what else can go into the rosary page itself for it has been stable for many months and all that gets done is reverting the never ending stream of vandals. However, there are many other rosary related pages such as Lourdes apparitions that need help and if I have any additional effort, I would spend it there, not here, for this page seems in good shape. Cheers History2007 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Performed the merge as you suggested. I'll get an eye to the pages you mention some time later. Cheers. Prudencio Clemente (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Shaky external site
Some anon IP keeps adding this site:. I think it adds nothing to the Rosary article and is an invitation for other donation seeking sites to promote themselves in Wikipedia. Please add comments as to whether we should keep it or delete it. The anon IP that adds it seems to be the anon-site owner him/herself! I think it should not be in the rosary page. Please add votes below. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As you indicated before, a major part of the site is to solicit donations. If solitation of funds or the sale of products is incidental to a site, which otherwise significantly contributes to the subject matter of an article, then linking to it might be appropriate. But that is not the case for this site. I vote that it be deleted. Roesser (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I am torn on this one. I agree that the site has contribution and sales information presented in a way that makes it look like a sales site.  But after seeing History2007 delete it and then it get readded I briefly search for the site in other locations and found this site which is the "official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Miami" containing a news article containing information about the foundation and the site.  They may be legit with a poorly designed "contribution" section to their site, that makes it look like they stress contributions more then their mission.  Marauder40 (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Marauder, I looked at that article too once you pointed it out. I guess the person in charge there is called Dan Rudden, and I fully agree with his comment about the need for attention, etc. In fact he could have quoted Saint Louis de Montfort's emphasis on full attention, etc. as detailed in Secret of the Rosary, Methods of praying the rosary etc. In fact he probably needs to add that material to his site by copying from Wikipedia! However, I still don't know if the site passes the Wikipedia threshold. My guess is still that it does not. In fact, Wikipedia has more solid material on the rosary than that site. Let us wait a day or so for further comments. Cheers History2007 (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

St Eligius
If St Eligius lived c588-660 it is unlikely that he prayed repeated Hail Mary's as the Angelic salutation together with Elizabeth's greeting was not used as a separate prayer till after 1050 AD. I would suggest that this reference be deleated from the article as being unsafe. St Bede and reference to prayer beads is also very doubtful I did not come across it in his ecclesiastical History —Preceding unsigned comment added by EsmondJohns (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"Rosary and scapular"
I suggest that the topic heading "Rosary and scapular" tries to draw an association between the Rosary and Brown Scapular primarily based on the Fatima revelations recommending both these devotions, and perhaps someone will consider cobining this content under the topic heading that immediately follows, "Rosary in Marian apparitions." Elizdelphi (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Gallery of Rosary in Marian Art"
Regarding the "Gallery of Rosary in Marian Art" -- and the caption for the painting "Madonna offering Saint Norbert a rosary by August Palme, 1860" -- the image of the saint receiving the rosary is clearly NOT Saint Norbert, but Saint Dominic. First, it is Saint Dominic who has traditionally been seen as having 'received' the rosary from the Blessed Virgin; second, the figure is wearing a traditional Dominican habit (not a Norbertine habit); and third, the painting contains an image of a dog with a torch, or a watchdog, the traditional symbol for Saint Dominic, founder of the Order of Preachers, or Dominicans. The image of the watchdog refers to a pun about the Dominicans, or "Dominicanes" in Latin: Dominicanes = domini canes = 'dogs of the Lord.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djgibboni (talk • contribs) 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And your reference/source for these is? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Inherent wisdom. Djgibboni (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)DJGibboni

Catholic issues
Hi, there is an ongoing discussion on Catholic Church about Roman Catholics that may have wide ranging effects, perhaps eventually affecting terms on this page. The issue is the abolition of the term "Roman Catholic" from many Wikipedia articles. Those interested please see Removal of the term Roman Catholic discussion. I feel like it is an electronic persecution of the term Roman. Help on the discussion will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)