Talk:Rosary of the Holy Wounds

Expand

This page should be expanded as it is small I do not belive it is small enough to be called a stub but I thing it needs to be Expanded. Please fell free to expand if you know more info. Etineskid (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, But what to expand with? This page is about a prayer, and the prayer is included therein. There is also some background, and any more would have to go to the bio page of sister Chambon. I am not sure if this page can, or needs expansion. Please provide concrete suggestions on how to expand it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RC Term

There is a whole article the "defines" Roman Catholic. In what sense is it irrelevant? It took MUCH work and three editors to get the definition right. Why is it irrelevant? History2007 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Because this article isn't about terminology, this article is about a prayer. A link to an article about the church where the prayer is used is therefore relevant; a link to an article about how a word is used isn't. And read WP:BRD before you accuse me of "starting a revert cycle" - once your bold edit was reverted, you shouldn't have reverted back to it. +Angr 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse, excuse, excuse me.... since when is a link a bold edit? Minor edits are not bold. Hello? anybody there? History2007 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing the destination of a link is indeed a bold edit. But that's not the point; the point is that the sentence in question is using the term "Roman Catholic" for the sake of its meaning, not mentioning the phrase Roman Catholic in its capacity as an adjective (phrase); see use-mention distinction. If the sentence were about the phrase qua phrase, a link to Roman Catholic (term) would be in order, but it isn't. +Angr 15:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

First things 1st. So you now agree it was not a bold edit. Right? History2007 (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Changing the destination of a link is being bold, which just means making a change without seeking consensus for it first. Being bold is OK, in fact it's encouraged, but when someone reverts you you're not supposed to revert back. Even an edit as minor as switching from roman text to italics (or vice versa) is subject to WP:BRD if someone reverts you. +Angr 16:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly where is it stated that a link change is bold? Exactly where is it stated that an italic change is being bold. I do not see those in the documents at all. Please justify your claims by quoting the exact paragraphs instead of a top level document link. History2007 (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of article

This article is incorrectly titled. It is not commonly known as the "The Rosary of the Holy wounds." It's commonly known as "The Chaplet of the Five Wounds." The article needs to be retitled. And also, there are mulitple errors regarding the origins and uses of the chaplet that need to be corrected.Malke2010 04:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please substantiate these statements & tags. How do we know what the most common title is: stat survey? And what are the errors? References for why there are errors? Why not correct errors and add refs anyway? In any case, this says otherwise: [1] that chaplet of 5 wounds (passionist & indulgenced in 1823 by no other than Leo XIII) was there long before the visions of Chambon in 1866. I think you probably have them mixed. Chaplet of Five Wounds would make a good article however. Please feel free to write it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick and easy way to determine usage is a google search. If you put in Chaplet of the Five Wounds, you get lots back. The Rosary of the Holy Wounds? Next to nothing. This title is nothing more than original research. And the title is an editor's personal preference for calling it that. The article will never be seen by the people who would otherwise want information about the Chaplet of the Five Wounds.Malke2010 14:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No. They are 2 different chaplets decades apart [2]. Check Ann Ball page 121. It has an entry in Ann Ball'sbook. It is NOT original research. . You are wrong. I am sorry. You are just incorrect on this. Period. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is just original research. Also, you misunderstand the source entirely. Sister Chambon is being included with the devotion, she is not the cause of the devotion coming into being.Malke2010 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So now you have agreed that there are two different chaplets. Do you accept that or do we need to continue to discuss that? And it is called Rosary of teh Holyu Wunds by Liz Kelly page 162 [3]. I am sorry, you are just incorrect on this. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

History2007, where in anything I have posted would cause you to write: "So now you have agreed that there are two different chaplets." Please show me what would make you say such a thing.Malke2010 15:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not sure, so I asked. I ask again: Do you now think there are 2 chaplets or do you think there is just 1 chaplet? A simple answer will settle it. 1 or 2? History2007 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. You are not asking anything, you are stating something. This is problem you had on Leo XIII. You cannot refactor an editor's comments and then turn your refactoring against the editor to 'win' your argument.Malke2010 16:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I did. I said I was not sure, so I asked. Now I am asking again: "Do you think there are 2 chaplets or just 1"? History2007 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The question doesn't make sense. There is only one Rosary. There are many chaplets. People often confuse the two, but the correct name for this devotion is "The Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus." Whether or not an author has incorrectly stated it as a Rosary devotion does not matter.Malke2010 17:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question1: what year did said "Chaplet" FIRST receive indulgences? That would be interesting to know from your assessment. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Question2: are you aware of Rosary-based prayers? It lists several rosaries and has been edited by several editors. It lists this as a rosary there.

• Question3: How do we know that "an author has incorrectly stated it as a Rosary devotion"? How do we determine that? Do you know better than the author or do you have references that the author is wrong?

Please clarify these. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus was written in the 1700s by St. Alphonsus Liguori. He was a devotional writer who wrote devotions to the Sacred Heart, the Stations of the Cross, etc. He wrote it, correctly, as a chaplet. Sister Chambon did not invent it.Malke2010 18:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are making repeated statements with NO references. And you are not responding to the question: "How do we know that "an author has incorrectly stated it as a Rosary devotion"? That seems to be an "argument from authority", since you have provided NO answers as to why the authors who call it a rosary are wrong and not answered the question about the year in which the chaplet FIRST received an indulgence. Why this evasiveness? You placed tags, now please answer the questions about them with references, not authority. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[4].Malke2010 18:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello? That was a website for the passionist Chaplet of the Five Wounds whose existence I do NOT dispute. I think it will make a good, separate article. What I asked was how do you know there is not another one, i.e. how do you justify the statement that "an author has incorrectly stated it as a Rosary devotion"? And I am getting no answer. And I am getting no answer to the question about the date of the FIRST indulgence grant. Please answer these "clearly" next, with references, or I will assume you have no answers. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked for the dates of the indulgence, and the website provides that. This website also makes it clear that the devotion is a chaplet to the Five Wounds. You are trying to make the claim that there are two separate devotions. There are not. It's all the same devotion. Sr. Mary Chambon's vision was about devotion to this chaplet of the five wounds. It wasn't about making a new devotion. If you note in the introduction to the article, it acknowledges that it is sometimes called the Chaplet of the Five Wounds. However, it's really the other way round. It's the Chaplet which is sometimes called the Rosary.

You are asking, "How do we know the author has incorrectly stated it as a Rosary devotion?" I never said that. What I said was that people often confuse the word rosary with the word chaplet. They confuse the beads, to be more precise. The website shows you what the beads look like in a chaplet.

The devotion to the Five Wounds goes back to the 1700s when St. Alphonsus Ligori wrote it. Mary Chambon's contribution is that she had a vision of Christ telling her that devotion to the five wounds would help save the world (i.e., be an act of reparation.) That is what Mary Chambon's part is in all of this. She did not invent the devotion. St. Alphonsus Ligori did. He invented dozens of devotions.

You seem not to understand the point of the indulgence. An indulgence was attached to a devotion as a means to buy your way out of purgatory. It was also a means for the Church to get donations. The practice fell out of favor because it was just bad behavior on the Church's part. Therefore, when indulgences went out the window, a lot of devotions went with them. Mary Chambon's vision is seen as Christ appearing to her to tell Catholics that devotion to the five wounds should continue and to use it to save the world. (i.e., act of reparation.) It appears, to believing Catholics, Jesus is saying, forget the indulgences for yourselves, use devotion to my five wounds to save the world.

You might be confusing the word 'chaplet' with 'rosary.' The website I've provided shows you a picture of a chaplet. This should make it clear why it is easy to confuse the two. When Catholics think of the Rosary, they think immediately of the standard Rosary on which repetitive prayers are said, counting them out with the beads, about the life of Jesus Christ from birth to the passion and the resurrection, with an additional set of mysteries added by John Paul II. The rosary is commonly said for the conversion of Russia and for the dead. It is believed that saying the full rosary after the death of a loved one will help them ease their transition from Purgatory to Heaven.

Using beads for other devotions does not make the devotion a 'rosary.' But some Catholics will still call it that, probably because they want to indicate a devotion that requires beads. Beads are needed when there are many prayers, and you have to keep count. Sometimes Catholics will also call a chaplet, their 'little rosary.'

The Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus is said as a devotion to Jesus, and Mary Chambon says, Christ wants Catholics to continue to say it for the reparation of all souls. He's saying, don't forget about my five wounds.

In summary, the point is, there's only one devotion, only one set of Five Wounds of Jesus. Mary Chambon didn't invent a separate devotion. I think that's about as plain as I can make it. The source you've stated has no page numbers, but I will try to find it online. But there are multiple sources to show that the devotion was written by St. Alphonsus Ligori, and it is just a chaplet. It's an easy fix to the article with a name change and corrected text. Also, some of the text here, in this article, seems to taken directly from a website, without attribution to the website, but instead is attributed to this Ann Ball encyclopedia. Malke2010 19:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No, not all all. If there is a WP:RELIABLE source that says Chambon's was APPROVED after the Chaplet of the Five Wounds was indulgenced, that means they are different. A chaplet/rosary can not be approved after it has received indulgences, unless it is a different one. Ann Ball, a totally WP:Reliable source says that Chambon's chaplet was APPROVED in 1912 long after the other received indulgences in 1823. Here is the solid reference: [5] Hence they are different chaplets/rosaries. Period. Beleive me, I know this topic. Please accept and drop this. Thank you. By the way, the web site you had mentioned is not a WP:Reliable source, but that is beside the point now. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard, "A chaplet/rosary cannot be approved it has received indulgences," and that, "that means they are different." Do you have a source for that claim? What does an 'indulgence' have to do with anything? Is there a canon law you can cite? A Papal decree/encyclical? It is original research to draw the conclusion that there are two separate devotions and that Mary Chambon's is the approved one. Approved by whom? Your citation does not show any such thing. What it does show is that Mary Chambon had a vision and that she promoted devotion to the Five Wounds as a means to make an act of reparation. That is her contribution to the Chaplet of the Five Wounds.Malke2010 20:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, please, let me rephrase to make it simpler. When was the Chaplet of Five Wounds approved? Your own website says: "The Chaplet of the Five Wounds was first approved by a Decree of Pope Pius VII, dated January 22, 1822." Now do I need a Vatican reference that a chaplet can not be approved twice? Will you be kidding me? One chaplet is approved in 1822, the other in 1912. They are different. History2007 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What reference do you have that says they are different? What source says that they are 'approved' for different uses? Also, any 'approval' of the devotion means the devotion isn't against any doctrine of the Church, or morally objectionable. That's all the 'approval' means. The devotions are the same. Christ had 5 wounds, one crucifixion. Mary Chambon had a vision about continuing the devotion for a specific purpose, as an act of reparation. Not to create separate devotions.Malke2010 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you have no reference that they are the same. I have provided references above. I think we are going around in circles now. I think it is logical that two chaplets approved 90 years apart are different. History2007 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided any references. Ann Ball's Encyclopedia does not show two different devotions and you are confusing what the so-called approvals mean. Show a source that shows there are two devotions. And that two approvals has somehow changed them into two different devotions. That is what it seems you are claiming. Also, the article intro acknowledges that they are the same. The name is used interchangeable, but the article title should be Chaplet of the Five Wounds, also called the Rosary of the Five Wounds. Same devotion. Wrong article title.Malke2010 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I will stop after noting that article intro does not include "Five" but Holy. Now it is time to stop. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is also incorrect. And you have not given sources to show that they are two separate devotions.Malke2010 21:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I'm going to try to give a 3O on this, even though it's a little outside of my realm of knowledge. As I understand the conversation, Malke is saying that the title should be "The Chaplet of the Five Wounds", whereas History thinks it should be left as is. In this case, we need to apply WP:COMMONNAME. What do the sources say? Is it an even split between Chaplet and Rosary, or do all of the sources say one or the other? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the challenge. The most common name among Catholics is the "The Five Wounds of Jesus." History2007 is arguing that there are two devotions, but really it is a misnomer. Catholics sometimes say rosary when they mean chaplet. But the point is, the devotion is to the Five Wounds of Jesus. That hasn't changed. It should be correctly titled that, with inclusion for the fact that followers of Sr. Mary Chambon are calling it the Rosary of the Holy Wounds. I think they are attempting to single her out because they want her canonized eventually. That's not uncommon. But the devotion has been and still is, to the Five Wounds of Jesus. And the devotion is a series of prayers that are counted out on a chaplet, or little rosary, of beads.Malke2010 16:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

One other point, a solution might be to merge the article with Holy Wounds since Sr. Mary Chambon is already mentioned there.Malke2010 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the statement of the dispute is different. It is not a naming issue, but a distinction issue. As an analogy, the question is not if the name of a person is John or Dave, but if these are really two different people. I have provided sources that show they are different chaplets and were approved 90 years apart. It is like two people born 90 years apart. The links are all above. These are different chaplets. I think you did the right thing to post on the Catholicism project for help, and I would encourage you to post on Rosary for help. I did not post there, to avoid the suggestion of canvassing, but you can, since you are providing a 3rd opinion. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is original research to claim that somehow the Pope or Popes at the time 'approved,' this 'new version' over an 'old version' and that therefore, the 'old version' is now extinct. There is no such process in the Catholic hierarchy. I've seen this claim made over several Catholic related articles now, that somehow an approval for one image or prayer, has now supplanted the original. That is original research. In this case, there are only Five Wounds of Jesus. There is only one devotion. Sr. Chambon had a vision to revive the devotion. Some Catholics might be calling it the rosary of the holy wounds, but they would still understand that the devotion is to the Five Wounds of Jesus. What other holy wounds would anybody be talking about? Malke2010 17:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said the old version is extinct. They both exist. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alright, everyone calm down. Let's look at this from a different angle. What do reliable sources say about this? Is there a source that says they're the same thing with different names, or something like that? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is such a source that says they are the same, I would love to see it. History2007 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

[6].Malke2010 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Forums are not considered to be reliable sources. We're looking for things like books, newspapers, magazine articles, etc. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. That is an internet Forum and absolutely not a WP:Reliable source. We need a WP:Reliable, say a book published by a well known publisher that says that. If it is true it will be found in more than one WP:Reliable book and you will not have to reach for an internet forum. Those internet forums say many things and 70% of them are wrong and just typed by people at large. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But a Catholic online site would still be reliable, yes? So I will look for it there.Malke2010 18:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, unless it is the Vatican. WP:Reliable has specific requirements. History2007 (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any Wikipedia policy/rule that says that the only sources for verifying a rite or prayer or ritual of the Catholic Church, either online or offline, is to be taken from the Vatican only. [7]. Malke2010 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that there are all kinds of Catholic websites, and generally not reliable. However, thank you for the reference you just posted: Ann Ball, which I had in the article for long and had referred to at least 3 times above. It has "2 different entries" one on page 121 and another on page 123. These are 2 different chaplets with two different entries in a WP:Reliable source. One is called "Passionist" and the other (for which this page was written) is not. With that reference, you have proven that they are 2 different chaplets with 2 different entries in a reliable source. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

[8].Malke2010 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That one is just a passionist web site. Ann Ball already includes that and the other one. History2007 (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Passionist Order is a recognized religious order of the Catholic Church. And HelloAnnyong, I wanted to point out that you mentioned earlier, what is the common name? If you Google Mary Chambon you will come up short. But if you Google the Five Wounds of Jesus, you will come up with clearly defined sites. And often sites that do mention her, will do so in terms of the Five wounds of Jesus. As here for example, found randomly: [9][10].Malke2010 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, note the source the Passionists are using is this: From the Manual of the Confraternity of the Passion pp. 104-108. The Passionist Fathers, West Springfield, MA. 1955. If you had the book you would also see the Imprimatur.Malke2010 18:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will stop now. I have already said what I have to say via the reliable Ann Ball link you provided above which proves these are 2 different chaplets. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Ann Ball book shows that they are the same. Mary Chambon has a connection to it. Her vision was to revive devotion to Jesus's wounds. I think you are confused is all. You seem to connect "approvals" and "indulgences" as somehow separating out devotions, etc. There's no such thing in the Catholic Church. We don't drop/change devotions when a nun or priest has a vision. Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Lourdes. These are not separate beings. They are all the Virgin Mary. You would argue that they represent a new form of Mary each time a Pope recognized another vision of her. Not at all. Same Five Wounds. One Crucifixion. You're arguing that the recognition of Mary Chambon's vision is an approval of a new devotion. Not at all. It's an approval of the revival of the devotion through her vision. Malke2010 19:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn, you guys move so quickly with this conversation, it's hard to keep up. Either way, we're not here to draw any conclusions about what her vision is; that's original research. Similarly, it'd be WP:SYN to say "Well, Ann Ball describes the Chaplet as X, and this other source says that the Rosary is Y - so therefore they must be the same thing". Which, admittedly, makes this all the more difficult, as there are no sources that say that the two are the same. But I'm curious: Malke, how did you determine that Ann Ball says they're the same? Like, where in the text does it say that? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Annyong, I fully agree with your statement that "there are no sources that say that the two are the same". Hence we can not assume they are the same - the assumption would have no basis and no reliable source. You asked a simple question above: "Are there reliable sources that say they are the same?". I said I would love to see one. After a long discussion, I would still love to see one. There are no sources that say that. These are different chaplets. Period. History2007 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Page 245. You'll see she mentions Mary Chambon as reviving the devotion. [11].Malke2010 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (responding to History2007) For the record, though, all the sources here are about the Chaplet of the Five Wounds, not the Rosary of the Holy Wounds - so the article would have to be renamed. And while we're at it, you guys use "A Collection of My Favorite Prayers" to make a claim in the lede about what Chambon said - but that's not in the actual source. And actually, that book has no references to either the Chaplet or the Rosary. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that as well about the lede.Malke2010 19:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go back and read the whole entry and bring you quotations. It'll take me a few minutes.Malke2010 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)HelloAnnyong, here is a direct quote from Ann Ball, Under: Holy Wounds (Five Wounds) "A number of Mystics of the Church, including St. Francis of Assi, have received private revelations which encouraged devotion to the Sacred Wounds. In Modern Times, Sr. Mary Martha Chambon, a humble lay sister of the Visitation Order of Chambery, France, who dies in the odor of sanctity in 1907, received a mission to adore the Sacred Wounds and to revive the devotion in the Church.

"The essential acts of the cult of the Holy Wounds and of the devotion to them are acts of worship and love; it does not consist of a set of pious practices or exercises. . .There is however, a chaplet known as the Chaplet of Mercy of the Holy Wounds of Jesus, which may be prayed as part of the devotion. (See also, Chaplet of Mercy;Five Wounds)."

So you see, she uses the words interchangeably, but the devotion is to the Five Wounds of Jesus. It is a chaplet, and Mary Chambon was just one of many who had a vision about it. It's still the Five Wounds of Jesus.Malke2010 20:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the use of the words 'rosary' and 'chaplet.'Malke2010 20:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where did Ann Ball use the word Five in her description of Chambon? I think you mean "Chaplet of Holy Wounds" which currently redirtects here. "Chaplet of Five Wounds" is Passionist, Chambon is not. And given that the names are similar, I selected rosary, to avoid that very confusion. I do not mind calling it "Chaplet of Holy Wounds" but it must not be equated with the passionist chaplet which has a Five in its name. Liz Kellly's books clearly calls it "Rosary of the Holy Wounds" [12], so that name is valid as well. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the exact nature of each of the chaplets/rosaries above? If there is a clear and distinctive difference between the two, then I would have to assume that they are in fact different things. If they are substantially the same, then they might well be the same. I'll do some checking in the next few days to find what I can, but it would be very useful to know if there are any clear distinctions between the two, like introductory prayers, order and number of prayers, any other factors, etc. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

John, The answer is yes, yes, yes. Please double check them. There are now pages for the three different chaplets. The prayer words are different, number of beads are different, sequences are different, etc., etc. They are 3 different chaplets now. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

They are one and the same. The Passionists created the devotion, Mary Chambon revived the devotion. They are not at odds with each other. One is not claiming ownership of the Five Wounds of Jesus, while the other claims ownership of the Holy Wounds. Where is a citation that claims that?Malke2010 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is amazing! The passionist chaplet, as in Ann Ball has 5 times five i.e. 25 beads. The Chambon chaplet uses a standard rosary, as in Ann Ball. How many beads does a standard rosary have please? It is over 50 beads. Do we need a reference for that? History2007 (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said under this post previously before you moved it, you misunderstand the word 'rosary' and the word 'chaplet.'Malke2010 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The page number for Geoghegan was 53 and I fixed that. I will be off for a while, so I will type more later. But again, the Liz Kelly book calls it a rosary as well. By the way, all this chaplet/rosary debate is not a big deal really, Ann Ball page 120 says that a chaplet is a term applied to a rosary. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So if I'm correctly understanding what you said above, you're telling me that "Rosary of the Holy Wounds" and "Chaplet of the Holy Wounds" are basically the same, but that's distinct from "Chaplet of Five Wounds" in that the latter is a Passionist name? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No that would definitely not be correct. That's the original research part.Malke2010 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? Just above, you wrote: "They are one and the same. The Passionists created the devotion, Mary Chambon revived the devotion." Now that's not true? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I think History2007 is attempting to say there are two different devotions because one is a Passionist and one is Mary Chambon. Mary Chambon simply revives interest in the Passionist devotion. The devotion was created by St. Alphonsus Ligori, a Redemptorist. The Passionist's are devoted to the suffering of Christ, so they promote the devotion. History2007 is still trying to claim Mary Chambon has a separate devotion. She does not.Malke2010 20:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, FYI, the number of beads doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. They are counting beads. Some people need/like more beads. You can say the entire rosary with a finger bead counter, which is just five beads, I believe. It's just a counter. That is all. And if you can keep count, then all you need really is a crucifix, and I've seen people count their fingers.Malke2010 20:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Basic facts

Here are the simple, basic facts:

• There is a chaplet, i.e. a prayer on rosary beads, due to the Passionists. It has 25 beads and is smaller than a standard rosary. It was approved in 1822. It is called the Chaplet of the Five Wounds. Please note the use of Five Wounds here.

• There is a chaplet/rosary due to Marie Chambon, born in 1841. She was NOT a Passionist, but a Visitandine.[13]. This chaplet uses a standard rosary with over 50 beads. It was approved in 1912. It is called the Chaplet of the Holy Wounds. There is no Five here in the name. Liz Kelly's book calls this Rosary of the Holy Wounds. Ann Ball explains that chaplet is a term also applied to rosaries.

• If you read through Ann Ball's text you will see that these two chaplets use different words when praying.

• We have NO WP:Reliable reference that says these chaplets are the same. Just a repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated assertion by Malke that they are the same, with no reference in sight.

These are different prayers with different beads, different years, different religious orders and different words. I rest my case. History2007 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no approval. You are again misunderstanding. Mary Chambon's vision telling her to revive the devotion is approved. There is no decree that says what you are claiming. The devotion is to the Five Wounds of Jesus. You keep changing your argument, number of beads, number of wounds. Mary Chambon's vision is about the devotion to the Five Wounds of Jesus. The article needs to be renamed, and the other mystics who had visions reaffirming Christ's desire to continue the devotion, need to be included. Or, alternatively, the article could be merged with the Five Wounds. As it is now, it does not meet the common name of Wiki policy, and the sources do not support it, either.Malke2010 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the chaplet, i.e. a prayer on rosary beads. And you have no sources for any of your statements, as in all of the above. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You keep changing the story. It's about the Chaplet of the Five Wounds of Jesus. The sources are above.Malke2010 22:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Let us stop and wait for input from Annyong. History2007 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Alright. Now that I have some time, I've taken a look at the various sources we have here, analyzed their contents, and have come up with the following info based on the sources.

• Ann Ball talks about the Chaplet of the Five Wounds (p123). She describes it as "five divisions of five beads".
• She also talks about "Holy Wounds" (p245). This is the one Ball describes as having been revived by Chambon. And she mentions that the Chaplet of Mercy of the Holy Wounds of Jesus can be part of that devotion.
• She describes the "Chaplet of Mercy of the Holy Wounds of Jesus" (121) as being "part of the devotion to the Holy Wounds, based on the private revelations of Sister Mary Martha Chambon", and that it uses the "beads of a standard rosary".
• Liz Kelly talks about the "Rosary of the Holy Wounds" (143), how it was revealed to Chambon, and that it uses the standard rosary.
• Of the other sources in the article - "The Five Wounds of Christ", "Voices, visions, and apparitions" and "A Collection of My Favorite Prayers", none of them mention either the chaplet or the rosary.

Now, where to go from here. As only two of the sources on this page mention the rosary at all, most of the text should be removed per WP:V. For example, Ball does not actually say that the Rosary of the Holy Wounds was introduced by Chambon; but that the Chaplet of Mercy was. Really the only thing that is attributable is the first line to Liz Kelly. The text about Jesus appearing to Chambon should probably be moved to the article about her. (Just as a side note, I have a feeling that including the text of the rosary itself is a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, and it should probably be removed.)

According to Chaplet (prayer), chaplets and rosaries can be the same thing, but usually are not. I think that's an important distinction to make, particularly when the sources are so weak. Since there's no clear indication that they are or aren't the same, my preference here is to err on the side of caution and handle them as separate. The main reason for this is that we need to stay true to the sources, and if we accidentally draw a connection between the two when there isn't one, we're violating WP:OR - and in this case, we could make a great deal of adherents rather confused. I would much rather say "oh, they actually are the same" and merge two articles together somewhere down the line. I know it seems silly, especially since it's unlikely that Chambon had two revelations that were really similar, but I would rather stay closer to WP:V.

To be completely honest, I think the best solution is to redirect this page to Marie Martha Chambon. The reason for this is that she is the center of all this - she had the revelations. (Another, and possibly better solution, is that this article may not meet WP:GNG.) At the Chambon page, we can create a section that's titled Revelations. It will have just a few sentences that reflect exactly what is in these sources. No more, no less - just a very literal interpretation of the sources. If we can get better sources that show that they're the same, then great. If not, whatever - at least we're not lying to anyone.

I know this isn't the outcome either of you would have liked, but this is just my take on things. From here, you have a few options. You can agree with me and do what I've described above. You can take it to WP:RSN and make a thread asking if the chaplet and rosary can be tied together given the sources. You could start a MedCab request, though I think that's a bit silly. You could start an WP:RFC. I opened a thread on the Catholicism project, but no one seems to have responded just yet. Anyway... thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, redirect to Marie Chambon. Both are short articles. Makes sense. Thanks. I will also build Chaplet of Five Wounds as a separate page, since it is needed and was there before Chambon. But before that, why don't you post on Rosary for comments please?. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting on one talk page to get people on another isn't really done; it's usually funneled through a Wikiproject. Also, that page is fairly quiet; no discussion or major edits in the past few weeks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. That's a good solution. The point being that adherents won't be confused. I think you did a great job. Thanks.Malke2010 02:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, great. Shall I be the one to build the new section and handle the redirects and all that? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. You should do the honors.Malke2010 02:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've moved a bunch of the text over to Marie Martha Chambon. I tried to represent the text above as accurately as possible. If you guys are happy with that page in its current form, then I'll go ahead and do the redirects. Let me know what you think. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks.Malke2010 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a start, but has errors, e.g. the term Revelation is not applicable that way. I will fix it later. The text can be expanded a lot. The Geoghegan quote must go back in, it is referenced. Why delete that? I will fix that page later, and build a new page for the Passionist. There are two chaplets. Period. History2007 (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The text of the actual rosary does not belong in the article. I find it to be a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, as it's basically telling people how to pray. That isn't appropriate for the article; if people want, they can go find the text themselves. As an alternative, we could perhaps add an external link to the text, as long as it's not a blog post or something like that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Does the text of the Hail Mary belong in that article? Is it basically telling people how to pray? Does the text of the Lord's Prayer belong in that page? Is it basically telling people how to pray in 3 different languages? Does the text of the Angelus belong in that page? Is it basically telling people how to pray in 3 different ways? Does the text of the Alma Redemptoris Mater belong in that page? Is it basically telling people how to pray in 2 different ways? Does the text of the Sub tuum praesidium belong in that page? Is it basically telling people how to pray in 8 different ways? Please take that up on Angelus and Alma Redemptoris Mater and Sub tuum praesidium first and see what those editors will tell you. Wikipedia is full of prayers. So that argument does not apply. History2007 (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. I still object to the subject header being "Chaplet of Holy Wounds". The section is about the devotion(s). You can stick to them being two separate ones, but the fact is that the text does not specifically state whether they're the same or separate, and having the section title make a decision like that is inaccurately representing the text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So I take it that you do not object to the inclusion of the prayer words, but to the title of the section? If so, no problem. History2007 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)