This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there enough material to separate "beating the bounds" out from Rogation days. I mean, we have nothing here written on the sociology of the activity; the passing of the familiarity with the landscape and boundaries from one generation to another on a ritual level, before the age of cartography; indeed this is why several areas have restarted the practice in recent years. I'm not sure that has a place in what is essentially an article on "church days", however. Graldensblud — Preceding undated comment added Graldensblud (UTC)
I understand these were also known as "Gang Days". Origin of this name? Drutt ( talk) 23:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I just edited this sentence at the end of the article: ""The new Protestant version of Rogation days became such a fixture in church life that the tradition was even carried over to the Americas by British slave holders.[18]" , altering "slave holders" to slave owners. The citation refers to a publication about rituals in British plantation colonies. On reflection, it seems absurd to suggest that a part of Episcopalian liturgical history in the US could exist solely because of British "slave holders", and so it proves: http://fullhomelydivinity.org/articles/rogation%20and%20ascension.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/rogation-days http://stpaulsms.org/rogation-days/ I would therefore suggest removing this sentence. Robocon1 ( talk) 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have just remove this sentence, and at the same time, edited repeated references to "Catholic" priests etc from periods before the Reformation. Robocon1 ( talk) 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Panyd: You have not simply restored references to "Catholic" and replaced a sentence with a minor amendment, you have reverted both my recent edits. I believe that is usually regarded as a hostile act on Wikipedia.
I edited those references because of the fact that there were no "Catholics" before the Reformation. "Catholic" is usually used to mean Roman Catholic. The church was just the church, not the "Catholic" church. And, for instance, a woodcut illustration showing processional regalia is just a woodcut illustration, not a "Catholic" illustration. And a woodcut is not a drawing, and this illustration does not show a procession, or a "procession line" - see caption "Catholic drawing of procession line". Your point about the adaption of Roman ceremony by the early Christian church is made very clearly by the sentence following the description of Robigalia.
You have added your sentence about the observation of Rogation Days in the US to a section headed "In the British Isles". The US is not part of the British Isles. In any case, Rogation Days are observed in the US as part of the shared religious tradition of Anglicanism and Episcopalianism, as well as by Roman Catholics. It is therefore wrong to describe them as a "Protestant" tradition or as being "carried over by British Christians".
This is an article about Rogation Days, not Roman religious customs and their historical influence. The fact that Rogation Days were originally a Roman custom is already explained, and how they were adapted by the early Christian church. The rest of the article is about subsequent history and current practice.
I therefore respectfully invite you to restore my edit. Robocon1 ( talk) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's the problem here at all. The church split into two parts after the Reformation. The original 'entity' was afterwards known as Roman Catholicism, or usually just Catholicism. Rogation is observed on the same days in both the Protestant and Catholic churches, but in different ways.
To reply to your earlier posting:
And I respectfully retain the right to point out that you haven't edited the article, you've simply reverted my edits, in the process restoring errors of fact and grammar that had been corrected - Christians can only be described as Protestant or Catholic after the Reformation, there was no "British" Rogation before the Act of Union in 1707 etc. Reverting good faith edits without explanation or discussion is, I think, behavior often associated with edit warring.
I'm sorry, but I can't see what access to JSTOR has to do with this, and I can't see that you've effectively refuted any of the points I made in my message to you above.
I've just looked at the history of the article, and I would say the changes you made in January amount to more than 'good tweaking', and were a lot more major than anything I've done. They certainly alter the entire tone of the article, but I notice you didn't explain them or provide any chance to discuss them in the Talk section beforehand (I'm referring specifically the 'I got me some stuff' edit).
However, you are discussing this now, and you've asked me to suggest where you might put this information. I think it belongs not in another section in this article, but in another article concerned specifically with the adaption/adoption of Roman religious rites by the Christian church, tracing the connections from those influences down the ages, and I think you should then restore the tone and direction of this article to what it was before January 1st.
Robocon1 ( talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just realised the first sentence of the January 1st edit, which is current, is wrong on a number of counts:
"Rogation Days are Christian celebrations spanning over five days. Processions are held from Monday through Wednesday on the dates preceding Ascension Thursday, with a final celebration held on the 25 April. [1]"
They are not celebrations, they are days on which rituals are observed or ceremonies are performed. They don't "span over" five days, and even if they did the correct expression would be "spanning five days". The Major Rogation is observed on St Mark's Day, 25th April, and the Minor Rogations are on the three days preceding Ascension. Ascension is the 40th day after Easter, this year the 29th May. So St Mark's Day is not a "final celebration", it precedes the Minor Rogations.
So, as it reads now, the first sentence of the article needs editing.
Robocon1 ( talk) 19:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Panyd: No, not the whole article. That was just an example. Please read my comments above. I don't believe the origins of source material affect the relevance of the points I made there. Robocon1 ( talk) 20:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to all have forgotten about the Eastern Church. The Catholic Church was by no means The Church all the way up to the Reformation (see the East–West Schism.) Personally I would refer to "the Catholic Church" or "the Roman Church." DBD 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point, DBD, and one covered by Rwflammang in the most recent edit.
To return to the question of the reverted edit: It is not a major edit, not least because no contributions were removed, with the exception of the sentence about Rogation Day observation in the US being due to British slaveholders. Terminology and grammar are edited, not salient points. Referring to Johnsoniensis' comment, it is a language edit, but perhaps more about improving clarity and concision, rather than being a question of British or US English. Since there appears to be more consensus for than against, I will now restore it before further edits are made.
Robocon1 ( talk) 02:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Panyd, what do you specifically mean by "the new Protestant version of Rogation days were carried to the Americas"? Do you mean processing and beating the bounds, or just processing? And by 'the Americas' do you mean the US, or North (US and Canada) and South America? Robocon1 ( talk) 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
And did they have processions and beat the bounds, or just have processions? Robocon1 ( talk) 15:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So does the reference say only slaveholders participated in these rogations? Slaveholders were a minority of British colonists in these places, and I imagine in these parishes as well. I think the wording in the article should not give the impression that rogations were just a slaveholder thing. Rwflammang ( talk) 01:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Right. I've trawled through reference 19 again. I missed out a few parts. Firstly, I had forgotten the original quote that tied the ritual to slave holders, namely:
I also missed out the bit where the British also did this in Barbados and Jamaica, as well as what is now South Carolina. All it says regarding their version of Rogation though is fasting. No other reports on how else it was celebrated. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, one point. The wood cutting is the Catholic version of the procession which was different from the procession type used in later years. Can we please make sure this is reflected in the article? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
What publication is it from, please, and what date is it? Unless it's from the early to mid 1500s (in which case it may be a woodblock print) it's a woodcut illustration. If it's from before 1534, the Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church.
Robocon1 (
talk)
12:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems Henderson used the 1508 and 1517 editions of the Sarum Processional. Perhaps "Woodcut illustration of Pre-Reformation processional order, c. early 16th century." for a caption?
Robocon1 (
talk)
15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I notice that the description in the wikimedia jpeg file summary currently reads: "English: Original picture from the Catholic Church regarding the order of the procession for Rogation days in the South of England. From around the 13th to 15th century.", which isn't really very helpful regarding source or date.
Perhaps something more helpful might be along the lines of: Illustration from Sarum Processional, ed. W.G. Henderson, 1882, McCorquodale, Leeds, UK (p.122). Woodcut showing order of procession for Rogation Days in Pre-Reformation England, c early 16th century." Robocon1 ( talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
does the'difference' between "Rogation Sunday" and "Rogate Sunday" originate in a difference between English and German? Or is it people translating the original word in different or sloppy ways? 209.128.15.129 ( talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is there enough material to separate "beating the bounds" out from Rogation days. I mean, we have nothing here written on the sociology of the activity; the passing of the familiarity with the landscape and boundaries from one generation to another on a ritual level, before the age of cartography; indeed this is why several areas have restarted the practice in recent years. I'm not sure that has a place in what is essentially an article on "church days", however. Graldensblud — Preceding undated comment added Graldensblud (UTC)
I understand these were also known as "Gang Days". Origin of this name? Drutt ( talk) 23:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I just edited this sentence at the end of the article: ""The new Protestant version of Rogation days became such a fixture in church life that the tradition was even carried over to the Americas by British slave holders.[18]" , altering "slave holders" to slave owners. The citation refers to a publication about rituals in British plantation colonies. On reflection, it seems absurd to suggest that a part of Episcopalian liturgical history in the US could exist solely because of British "slave holders", and so it proves: http://fullhomelydivinity.org/articles/rogation%20and%20ascension.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/rogation-days http://stpaulsms.org/rogation-days/ I would therefore suggest removing this sentence. Robocon1 ( talk) 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I have just remove this sentence, and at the same time, edited repeated references to "Catholic" priests etc from periods before the Reformation. Robocon1 ( talk) 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Panyd: You have not simply restored references to "Catholic" and replaced a sentence with a minor amendment, you have reverted both my recent edits. I believe that is usually regarded as a hostile act on Wikipedia.
I edited those references because of the fact that there were no "Catholics" before the Reformation. "Catholic" is usually used to mean Roman Catholic. The church was just the church, not the "Catholic" church. And, for instance, a woodcut illustration showing processional regalia is just a woodcut illustration, not a "Catholic" illustration. And a woodcut is not a drawing, and this illustration does not show a procession, or a "procession line" - see caption "Catholic drawing of procession line". Your point about the adaption of Roman ceremony by the early Christian church is made very clearly by the sentence following the description of Robigalia.
You have added your sentence about the observation of Rogation Days in the US to a section headed "In the British Isles". The US is not part of the British Isles. In any case, Rogation Days are observed in the US as part of the shared religious tradition of Anglicanism and Episcopalianism, as well as by Roman Catholics. It is therefore wrong to describe them as a "Protestant" tradition or as being "carried over by British Christians".
This is an article about Rogation Days, not Roman religious customs and their historical influence. The fact that Rogation Days were originally a Roman custom is already explained, and how they were adapted by the early Christian church. The rest of the article is about subsequent history and current practice.
I therefore respectfully invite you to restore my edit. Robocon1 ( talk) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's the problem here at all. The church split into two parts after the Reformation. The original 'entity' was afterwards known as Roman Catholicism, or usually just Catholicism. Rogation is observed on the same days in both the Protestant and Catholic churches, but in different ways.
To reply to your earlier posting:
And I respectfully retain the right to point out that you haven't edited the article, you've simply reverted my edits, in the process restoring errors of fact and grammar that had been corrected - Christians can only be described as Protestant or Catholic after the Reformation, there was no "British" Rogation before the Act of Union in 1707 etc. Reverting good faith edits without explanation or discussion is, I think, behavior often associated with edit warring.
I'm sorry, but I can't see what access to JSTOR has to do with this, and I can't see that you've effectively refuted any of the points I made in my message to you above.
I've just looked at the history of the article, and I would say the changes you made in January amount to more than 'good tweaking', and were a lot more major than anything I've done. They certainly alter the entire tone of the article, but I notice you didn't explain them or provide any chance to discuss them in the Talk section beforehand (I'm referring specifically the 'I got me some stuff' edit).
However, you are discussing this now, and you've asked me to suggest where you might put this information. I think it belongs not in another section in this article, but in another article concerned specifically with the adaption/adoption of Roman religious rites by the Christian church, tracing the connections from those influences down the ages, and I think you should then restore the tone and direction of this article to what it was before January 1st.
Robocon1 ( talk) 19:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just realised the first sentence of the January 1st edit, which is current, is wrong on a number of counts:
"Rogation Days are Christian celebrations spanning over five days. Processions are held from Monday through Wednesday on the dates preceding Ascension Thursday, with a final celebration held on the 25 April. [1]"
They are not celebrations, they are days on which rituals are observed or ceremonies are performed. They don't "span over" five days, and even if they did the correct expression would be "spanning five days". The Major Rogation is observed on St Mark's Day, 25th April, and the Minor Rogations are on the three days preceding Ascension. Ascension is the 40th day after Easter, this year the 29th May. So St Mark's Day is not a "final celebration", it precedes the Minor Rogations.
So, as it reads now, the first sentence of the article needs editing.
Robocon1 ( talk) 19:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Panyd: No, not the whole article. That was just an example. Please read my comments above. I don't believe the origins of source material affect the relevance of the points I made there. Robocon1 ( talk) 20:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to all have forgotten about the Eastern Church. The Catholic Church was by no means The Church all the way up to the Reformation (see the East–West Schism.) Personally I would refer to "the Catholic Church" or "the Roman Church." DBD 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point, DBD, and one covered by Rwflammang in the most recent edit.
To return to the question of the reverted edit: It is not a major edit, not least because no contributions were removed, with the exception of the sentence about Rogation Day observation in the US being due to British slaveholders. Terminology and grammar are edited, not salient points. Referring to Johnsoniensis' comment, it is a language edit, but perhaps more about improving clarity and concision, rather than being a question of British or US English. Since there appears to be more consensus for than against, I will now restore it before further edits are made.
Robocon1 ( talk) 02:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Panyd, what do you specifically mean by "the new Protestant version of Rogation days were carried to the Americas"? Do you mean processing and beating the bounds, or just processing? And by 'the Americas' do you mean the US, or North (US and Canada) and South America? Robocon1 ( talk) 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
And did they have processions and beat the bounds, or just have processions? Robocon1 ( talk) 15:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So does the reference say only slaveholders participated in these rogations? Slaveholders were a minority of British colonists in these places, and I imagine in these parishes as well. I think the wording in the article should not give the impression that rogations were just a slaveholder thing. Rwflammang ( talk) 01:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Right. I've trawled through reference 19 again. I missed out a few parts. Firstly, I had forgotten the original quote that tied the ritual to slave holders, namely:
I also missed out the bit where the British also did this in Barbados and Jamaica, as well as what is now South Carolina. All it says regarding their version of Rogation though is fasting. No other reports on how else it was celebrated. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, one point. The wood cutting is the Catholic version of the procession which was different from the procession type used in later years. Can we please make sure this is reflected in the article? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 10:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
What publication is it from, please, and what date is it? Unless it's from the early to mid 1500s (in which case it may be a woodblock print) it's a woodcut illustration. If it's from before 1534, the Church in England was the Roman Catholic Church.
Robocon1 (
talk)
12:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems Henderson used the 1508 and 1517 editions of the Sarum Processional. Perhaps "Woodcut illustration of Pre-Reformation processional order, c. early 16th century." for a caption?
Robocon1 (
talk)
15:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I notice that the description in the wikimedia jpeg file summary currently reads: "English: Original picture from the Catholic Church regarding the order of the procession for Rogation days in the South of England. From around the 13th to 15th century.", which isn't really very helpful regarding source or date.
Perhaps something more helpful might be along the lines of: Illustration from Sarum Processional, ed. W.G. Henderson, 1882, McCorquodale, Leeds, UK (p.122). Woodcut showing order of procession for Rogation Days in Pre-Reformation England, c early 16th century." Robocon1 ( talk) 15:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
does the'difference' between "Rogation Sunday" and "Rogate Sunday" originate in a difference between English and German? Or is it people translating the original word in different or sloppy ways? 209.128.15.129 ( talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)