Talk:Folk saint/Draft

Historical Perspective?

I was reading this article, and I got to wondering about the way the term 'Folk saint' gets used in anthropology or the social sciences more broadly. Is the term only used for objects of popular veneration in modern-day Latin America, or is the term used more broadly for objects of veneration that fall outside of the Catholic mainstream?

I ask because I'm curious about the way that the concept gets read back into history. Before about 1000, of course, there was no official process of canonization in the Western church (I don't know about the east, off the top of my head). Do saints from before 1000 count as folk saints, or is the use of the concept restricted to Latin America (or other present-day Catholic areas)? Brian P. Long 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question. Folk saints tend to arise in a colonized context when local religions or traditions are subsumed by Catholicism. In fact, more than a few of the canonized saints seem to have had lives as regional deities or cultural heroes long before they were venerated by Christians. This phenomenon is certainly not restricted to Latin America but the Cathlicism of Latin America is highly syncretic in some ways and seems to keep producing more saints. The essential difference is that folk saints are not recognized by the Church but people petition their spirits nonetheless.

As far are saints from before 1000, I'm not sure. I suspect they were venerated in much the same way as folk saints, which is to say according to local custom rather than official doctrine. But there was no official list to compare them against, so it is hard to say that they stood in contrast to official saints the way folk saints do. I have a book here on the history/hagiography of a few canonized saints during the colonial period in Latin America that might shed some light on the process of passing from unofficial to official.

I'll have a look at some of my sources and a think about how to make the article clear on this point. Please feel free to pitch in if you have any ideas.--Joe Quick 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's still some work to be done, but I think the article is coming together now. What do you think of my adjustments, Brian? --Joe Quick 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this looks good. The article has me thinking about some things related to saints, syncretism, and official sanction in the first thousand years of the church, but I don't yet have a good way to work these things into the article. I'll let you know if I do. Thanks, Brian P. Long 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

I am nominating this article for approval since it appears complete and appropriately encyclopedic. It would be good to be joined in this nomination by an anthropology editor or someone in religion. Roger Lohmann 15:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think it would need at least a brief description of the Protestant/Reformation viewpoint on folk saints. David L Green 01:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to but I've never heard or read anything about that perspective. Could you help? --Joe Quick 02:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

David,

I am not an author on this piece; only trying to shepherd it through to approval, but it strikes me that the the Reformation viewpoint on saints would be very appropriate in the general entry on saints. But Martin Luther's recognition of the Roman/pagan origins of Catholic/Christian saints and consequent characterization of the veneration of saints as 'idolatry' doesn't really apply here. (There may also be other facets of the Protestant/Reformation viewpoint relevant here that I'm not aware of.) In any case, the article offers a cultural rather than a doctrinal perspective; it struck me that folk saints arose in a largely Latin American context where there was no significant Protestant cultural presence to speak of until late in the 20th century, long after this folk-culture configuration took root. Thus, including that point here could be construed as assuming a Protestant viewpoint not consistent with the CZ neutrality policy.

There would certainly be room here in a later revision for fuller exploration of the colonial and native cultural mix that produced these folk saints, and variations in African and other colonial cultural regions, but that shouldn't deter approval of the first draft. Because of the paucity of other material on the subject, this article already appears #1 on a Google search for "Folk saint". Given the CZ editorial philosophy, it is important to add our imprimatur to what is really a very fine article.

Roger Lohmann 12:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Toward Approval

I see that editor Roger Lohmann has nominated this article after making what looks to be only these edits, which I think all pass as copy edits. Therefore a single editor approval is in order and set for June 27th, 2009. Keep an eye on the version number as the date approaches as the version in the Template is the one that becomes the approved version. As Roger eludes to, other editors are encouraged to sign on as well and can only increase credibility. D. Matt Innis 02:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a note for Robert Stockman earlier today about joining in on approval. I brought the article to his attention a little while ago and we were briefly in communication about it but the discussion never really went anywhere. Hopefully, he can join in on approval now. --Joe Quick 02:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Roger, do you want to include Shamira's edits in the approved version? They look good to me. --Joe Quick 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thing you brought that up, I was literally just about ready to start the approval process. Now I'll hold off until I get a final word. Hayford Peirce 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, was I not supposed to do that? I have a bad habit of copyediting when I read. Shamira Gelbman 20:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not a hanging offensive. I'll let you, Joe, and Roger hash it out. Hayford Peirce 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That was a good thing. It's the kind of edit that the time between nomination and actual approval is meant to allow. The nominating editor just needs to update the version to be approved to include any new edits that he/she thinks should be included in the approved version. --Joe Quick 20:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll wait until Roger does his thing. Hayford Peirce 20:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

point of order

Strickly from a technical perspective on the approval mechanics, the rules suggest that we need to perform the mechanics when the date comes using the version that is in the ToApprove section of the metadata template. It does allow us to add any copy edits that may have occurred after that version. It is really important, though, to realize that copy edits can change the meaning of the text in ways that the lay person (constable) may not realize, and therefore we need to err on the side of being conservative. In a case such as this, I would think that the rules want us to approve this article today - with or without Roger's instructions. I feel comfortable that Shamira's are copy edits because she has only changed the order of the words with the link remaining the same, but I think we also allow our Approvals Manager to make determinations in cases where there might be some question. So, what say ye, Approvals Manager? Which version do we freeze? Roger can always request a change when he returns. D. Matt Innis 18:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever you decided, please make certain that the Poor Old Kop on the Beat understands *exactly* what is to be done. Unless Matt wants to do this particular approval.... Hayford Peirce 18:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was away at a conference and my internet connection wasn't what I was expecting it to be, so I've belatedly just gotten back to these issues. I'll take a look at them in the morning. Meanwhile, assuming nothing has been frozen yet, I've set the Approval Date ahead to July 1. Please be aware that I've found another editor who is willing to consider joining me, but is currently on vacation. He thinks he can get to it early this week, but I may wind up moving it back another few days to accommodate him. So, just hold off on freezing anything for now. Roger Lohmann 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I won't do anything at all until I have an absolute green light from you -- it's incredibly frustrating to be away from home and not have the Internet working just the way we've grown accustomed to! Hayford Peirce 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, for sure wait if there could be another editor. Religion maybe? As far as Matt's question to me as approvals manager, I think I should excuse myself from doing anything in that role for this article because I was also the primary author of the article. --Joe Quick 02:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is, in fact, a religion editor who was on vacation last week, which is part of the reason for extending the deadline. Part of the confusion of roles that seems to have arisen about this one is that I had originally contacted Matt alerting him to it because I thought you would be excusing yourself from the approval process. It looks like everyone who needs to know is aware of these circumstances, so we should be cool at this point, but handling these kinds of subtleties of the approval process with no face-to-face or voice-to-voice contact can be tricky! Roger Lohmann 14:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My first edit

Hello, all. I've taken the liberty of making my first edit to the lead of this article. I did so when I noted that the whole thing is being considered in the approval process. I think my corrections are fairly obvious, but if they are not, kindly let me know.

The article still needs editing. This is not to denigrate the work that has been done before, but a new eye would catch some errors and questions before it is approved.

In particular, I wonder about the emphasis on Catholicism. Surely the Orthodox and Protestant churches have "folk saints" as well. If not, the lack thereof should be explained. That aside, I would like to work over the remaining paragraphs and, one hopes, tighten or improve them. I look forward to your remarks. Sincerely, your friend, George Garrigues 03:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for diving in with your edits, George! That's exactly the sort of behavior the Approval process is meant to provoke, in my view. One of the real (quite astounding, actually) insights on which the wiki project is based is that new pairs of eyes always see errors to be corrected and questions to be answered. (Even after approval, which is what the Draft and revision process is all about). So, if you see other things that need to be mended, have at it.

In response to your third paragraph, do you have any specific suggestions, ideas or language? Surely, the Protestant tradition has venerated figures, but as I understand it many parts of Protestantism (and specifically Lutheranism and Calvinism) involved, explicit, theological rejection of the Catholic model of sainthood. I'm less certain of the Orthodox traditions. My thought at this point would be that this is complex enough it deserves consideration in a separate (and linked) set of one or more Related Articles. Roger Lohmann 13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)