Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Our Lady of Guadalupe has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Saints Our Lady of Guadalupe is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Our Lady of Guadalupe: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    Mexico Portal
    This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
    A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
    Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
    Archive
    Archives
    /Archive 1


    Contents

    [edit] How references work + etc

    In response to User:Luisosio's comments at Talk:Huei tlamahuiçoltica:

    1. A Wikitech issue:

    Anything inside ref tags will go into the footnotes. In this case, you put ref tags INSIDE pre-existing ref tags, which doesn't work (because Wiki doesn't have footnotes of footnotes). If you look at the article itself, you'll see that your text isn't visible. Go erase the ref-tags-inside-ref-tags and it'll appear again.

    About footnotes in general: when inserting a fact, it's best to insert ref tags and a footnote at the same time. The style this page has been using to date is like this:

    For a journal article: Lastname, Firstname. "An Article about the Virgin of Guadalupe." Journal it was printed in. Page in journal which is being referenced. Issue of journal. Date of printing.

    For a book: Lastname, Firstname. A Book Which Mentions the Virgin of Guadalupe. Page on book which is being referenced. Publishing house which printed it. Location of publishing house. Date of printing.

    For a website: Lastname, Firstname. "Title of Article on Website." Name of Website. Link to website. Last date that website was accessed.

    This is much more useful to future readers/researchers than saying "which was written about by Cuevas," because if someone's writing a paper and they want to discuss the stuff which you mention, they want to know WHERE in Cuevas' work. Finally, keep in mind that the Works Cited section is alphabetized, so if, for instance, you want to put in a book by Mariano Cuevas, he should be listed under C, and put inbetween David Brading and Virgil Elizondo.

    2. On the word "proclaim":

    I really don't think that proclaim is a noun in English. (I looked it up in three dictionaries: if you have contrary information I'd be happy to hear it.) You might try "proclamation," which is a noun meaning "to declare formally."

    3. As for Schulemberg, the stuff about Escalada's study contradicting his seems fine. The stuff about Schulemberg and Camacho being racists verges on slander, especially without a reference or citation. Finally, I never heard in any other place that Our Lady had a "tan." Katsam 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


    Katsam, don't tell me you are not capable of finding a simple English word like proclaim in a dictionary? Find proclaim, it's the proper word. In relation to the "tan", must all depend on what you've previously heard, or could eye glasses help out? Could metaphors, figurative speech, etc. help you out just a little? How would Merriam Webster, or Oxford English dictionaries do? I can't help you out without knowing what dictionaries you have, but it's obvious you need a good one, as it's certainly obvious you missed all the good ones! Best!Luisosio 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Main Entry:proclaim Pronunciation:pr*-*kl*m, pr*- Function:transitive verb Etymology:Middle English proclamen, from Middle French or Latin; Middle French proclamer, from Latin proclamare, from pro- before + clamare to cry out more at PRO-, CLAIM Date:14th century

    1 a : to declare publicly, typically insistently, proudly, or defiantly and in either speech or writing : ANNOUNCE b : to give outward indication of : SHOW 2 : to declare or declare to be solemnly, officially, or formally *proclaim an amnesty* *proclaim the country a republic* 3 : to praise or glorify openly or publicly : EXTOL synonyms see DECLARE

    –proclaimer noun

    That's Merriam Webster. Luisosio 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    By the way Katsam, you placed your comments on Huei tlamahuiçoltica, in the page of Our Lady of Guadalupe!Luisosio 05:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

    Proclaim is a verb. In the context of "the drummer's proclaim" it would have to be a noun. Katsam 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are right. Proclamation is the correct word.Luisosio 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

    SOMEBODY substituted Zumarraga's picture. Can't put it back.Luisosio 01:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

    Have uplifted Miguel Cabrera's self portrait: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MIGUELCABRERA.jpg

    Don't know the procedure to install it in "An Image with surprising Qualities". Who can help?

    [edit] Where's the neutrality?

    This article is still retaining some fanatism and some healthy scientific and historic integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertebreaker (talk • contribs) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    Viva La Cristo Rey! Viva La Virgen De Guadalupe! Viva la Santa Iglesia Catolica y Apostolica! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.125.111 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] On Pontifical Pronouncements

    Pontifical pronouncements are not Catholic devotions, they are governmental acts of authority and the necessary recognition required. Readers have a right to know just how good is the Catholic standing of this Image. There are thousands of Marian advocations, but none celebrated so widely, emphatically and persistently. For comparison take the Shroud of Turin itself: internationally more famous, you will not find such a long list of popes pronouncing themselves on its authenticity!

    This is the reason to place it at the beginning, a thing which becomes obvious if you want to arouse curiosity for a long stretch of reading. A mirror image from the Institution's pronouncements guarantees formal acceptance, its not a mere popular devotion of which countless can be found: the Catholic Church itself is 'from the beginning' immersed in authenticating this as a concrete reality.Luisosio 07:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


    I understand what you're saying, but I respectfully disagree that pontifical pronouncements belong at the beginning of the article. Here's why:

    --Many English speakers are totally ignorant of the Virgin of Guadalupe. I believe these people are best served by learning about the apparition story first. --I don't think that most non-Catholics perceive the acts of the Vatican as "governmental acts of authority." I'm also not convinced that non-Catholics will have their curiosity piqued by a list of papal pronouncements. Katsam 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

    What you don't realize Katzam, is that this article is of interest mainly to Catholics! AND, that Catholics also have a right to their beliefs, in correct order, and to find this order of the Catholic mind and culture in this article! For their own benefit, and also to the benefit of others! So please STOP vandalizing!Luisosio 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

    Wikipedia is for everybody. This entry, as with all entries, should be written for a general reader. If you want to write to a specifically Catholic audience, perhaps you should consider working on a blog or for a Catholic encyclopedia.
    Also, it's not vandalizing for me to edit this article. "Vandalizing" refers to edits where people do things like write "HI MOM" in the articles. It isn't a catch-all phrase which means "did an edit which I disagree with." Katsam 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    One more thing: lots of non-Catholics are interested in the Virgin of Guadalupe, as evidenced for instance by the quotes at the beginning of the article (and in sayings like "in Mexico even the atheists are Guadalupanos"). Katsam 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    Please put things back in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisosio (talk • contribs) 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Taking out absurdities and slander

    Katsam please, consult before making mayor changes. I’ve been proceeding from the top down and now I have to take out absurdities and even slander. You’ve given credit to statements which shame Wikipedia, taken out of small town publications which deserve no credit, and you give them an Encyclopedic authority! And you also pick them from individuals with no authority whatsoever; I repeat, to Wiki’s shame as: “The Guadalupana continues to be worshipped as a manifestation of Tonantzin to this day. ” Not only is it false, it’s also blown out of proportion. Come down and ask the Indians if they’ve ever heard of Tonanzin, you are in for the surprise of your life! Ask them whom it is they’re visiting! There are 16 million pilgrims and visitors to the shrine in México City, on reading your statement everybody’s going to think there are millions of Tonantzin worshipers! Do you have a sense of proportion? And then you are putting in slander by: “Royalists responded by putting Guadalupe's image on the soles of their shoes.” This expression denotes abysmal ignorance. The Royalist armies were as Catholic as the Insurgents; they would have shot on sight whoever would put the Virgin’s Image in any one of its advocations blasphemously on the soles of their shoes! This is worse than unhistorical mickeymousing, its blasphemous slander! What are you doing in Wiki and to Wiki? Need I say more?Luisosio 20:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

    I can accept it if you don't like the Tonantzin-worshipping link. But the stuff about the royalists putting Guadalupe on the soles of their shoes comes from an article written in a peer-reviewed art history journal: it isn't slander, and it shouldn't be erased.
    Also, the quote about how Mexicans believe in Guadalupe and the National Lottery isn't an advertisement for the lottery, it's a quote which demonstrates how important/central Guadalupe is in the Mexican culture. And it's a quote by Octavio Paz, a Nobel prizewinner, and it was published in the foreword of a respected book about Our Lady of Guadalupe, which was printed by the University of Chicago. I think it should be reinstated. Katsam 03:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    I went and looked up the article which talked about the royalists putting Guadalupe's image on the soles of their shoes. The place it came from (Jeanette Peterson's article) says that she found that information in Ernesto de la Torre Villar and Ramiro Navarro's Testimonios historicos Guadalupanos, p. 1014-5 number 6, and in Matt S. Meier's article "Maria insurgente," which was printed in the journal Historia Mexicana 23, number 3, p. 469-71, in the January-March 1974 issue. So if you want to look it up yourself, that's where you can do it. Katsam 03:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks Katsam, we can discuss things now. It suffices to check De la Torre's work (1982 F.C.E.). There is a footnote on pages 1014-15; it is number 6. There's nothing about Insurgent soldiers putting the image on the soles of their shoes. There are other blasphemies mentioned though —about what seems a single battalion from Asturias; so we find ourselves before another case which can lend itself to over generalization, as war propaganda has always been managed. The work to which it was appended, called "Elogio y Defensa Guadalupanos" by Carlos María de Bustamante, a rebel soldier, (1774-1848) is trying at that point to justify his cause, and also Zumarraga, for not officially writing on the apparition against Muñoz's work of 1794. (We know now that he did write, we know about the copy of this official document at Vittoria, and even more because of the strategic honor to the Virgin in the battle of Lepanto). So you can understand me better, not only is the information about Spanish soldiers putting or painting a religious image on the soles of their shoes totally false, it's also idiotic from a practical standpoint. I'm sure you'll agree we must be more careful in managing sources, especially by their settings in place, time, intent and common sense.

    Secondly, and precisely from a common sense standpoint, metaphors are no more than figures of speech. Placing religious faith and faith in gambling on par is normally felt as detrimental; thus it can never be used to convey a place of distinction in an encyclopedia. Especially in it's opening paragraphs!Luisosio 16:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] RFC on Luisosio's conduct

    An RFC has been entered on Luisosio's recent conduct. All interested parties are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio. Cleduc 02:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] The little man holding her up

    My girlfriend and I want to know what's with the little dude who is holding her up in all the pictures. It can't be just a specific artist's preference, because he appears in the image at the top of the page as well as Hidalgo's banner. The article, best as I can tell, does not say who he is, or who he is supposed to represent. Anyone know? --Golbez 04:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

    I believe the "little guy" holding her up is an angel, or cherub; you can probably use Yahoo!Answers for a quicker response...  :) Schicchi (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] December 12 again!

    Here we are on december 12 again and the article is a mess. People have added "contributions" all over the place and the section titles don't match the contents. I'll try to give myself some time tonight to work on it and have something ready for tomorrow morning. Schicchi (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    There, did a little bit of rearranging, I hope many people will be able to give their points of view and contribute a little bit to make this article ready for tomorrow's big day. Should be back wit more work later today. Schicchi (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] nacimiento

    ocupa un lugar en el nacimiento de mi casa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.169.22.39 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Eyedetl.jpg

    Image:Eyedetl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

    BetacommandBot (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


    [edit] Missing Info and neutrality issues

    I see no reference to the inability of anyone to reproduce the color of the Virgin Mother's skin and would like to note that this article is slanted to appear as though Our Lady of Guadalupe is worshiped like a cult and is fabricated. It should appear neutral and should state only the facts so that the reader can know what and whom Our Lady of Guadalupe is and draw their own conclusions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.99.109 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)