Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Our Lady of Guadalupe/Archive 1 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.

	Our Lady of Guadalupe/Archive 1 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.

This should not refer to this as Catholic mythology--that is neither respectful nor neutral. A better way to phrase it would be Catholic tradition.

Why isn't Guillermo Schulemburg mentioned in controversies? If I add information about that case, should it be done in controversies or another section? --Keys37 05:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Keys37

I'm writing a major expansion, like I just did for Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin, so hold off on edits for a little while, please. — Toby 19:10 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Done! — Toby 22:24 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

damn, 2002. that was over 3 years ago! -Nosaj56 21:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"Much of the recent increase in Marianism in the Catholic Church, including the call to recognise Mary as coredemptrix, stems from the cult of Guadalupe."

This statement calls for elaboration: How recent? And has the cult of Guadalupe been at all influential outside Latin America?

S.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Guadalupe and Folk Religion 3 Basilica 4 1556 Study? 5 "golden measure", NPOV, citations, etc. 6 "Star constellations"? 7 Revisions 8 Patent owned by China 9 Feast day 10 "fictional" and "alleged" 11 Images 12 Montufar and Marcos 13 NPOV dispute 14 IFeito's edits 14.1 More Ifeito edits. 15 Altar link 16 Neutrality 17 How about some Neutrality? 18 Worthless 19 Biased? 20 help

NPOV

The paragraph of description emphasising the miraculous nature of the apron is balanced only by: "Many sceptics disbelieve this story, of course, but in any case a church was built in 1533, dedicated to Our Lady of Guadalupe." This seems rather heavily POV in favor of the Church's version of the evidence. I don't have much knowlegde on this subject, but I suggest that the following should be expanded on:

• "Nobel Chemistry prize recipient Richard Kuhn, said the coloration is not of a mineral, vegetable, or animal source." -- What did he say it was made of?

• "The pupils reflect a group of Indians and Franciscan priests." -- Can we find a public domain image that we can post in this article so that the reader can judge for themselves?

• "Scientists cannot explain..." -- which scientists? Are there any who can?

And further, are there any sources or articles that can be mentioned that generally contradict the POV presented here? Maastrictian 19:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This external link to the sceptics puts the better part of the current entry into perspective... -- Syzygy 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that this article embodies everything that is so very wrong with wikipedia. Instead of reporting both sides or just the facts the impression of both is given while neither is delivered. -anon

Now we see only: One problem with the apparition tradition is that Juan Diego is said to have met the Virgin in 1531. But the earliest account about their meeting was published in 1648. Yet above we see: but in any case a church was built in 1533 and in the article we see: As early as 1556 Francisco de Bustamante, head of the Colony's Franciscans, delivered a sermon disparaging the holy origins of the painting What's wrong here? It's on the front page, man, this doesn't look consistent or fair.

There is lots of evidence for a Guadalupan shrine at Tepeyac in the 1500s. However, besides the Codex Escalada, the first mention of the apparition is in 1648.

Considering the silence surrounding the apparition account, including the silence of Bishop-elect Zumarraga (who is the Bishop who first saw the Virgin in the traditional account), skeptics believe that the Tepeyac devotion was to a different Guadalupe -- Our Lady of Guadalupe of Extremadura.

So it's not contradictory. A church and a painting named Guadalupe almost definitely existed before 1648: a history of Mary and San Juan Diego -- that's much more debated. Katsam 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Guadalupe and Folk Religion

A fact not well known outside Mexico is that many (if not most) rural villages are home to a statue or painting with supposedly miraculous origins. It would be interesting to see a discussion of La Guadalupana in this context.

That fact it's well known. Spain had it's share of regional virgins from the beggining of christianity, so Spain's former colonies, of course, followed the example of our mother land. In the case of the Virgen de Guadalupe, the grand majority of mexicans regard her as the "default" virgin, as our very own virgin, and the others -even the other lesser regional virgins of Mexico, such as the Virgin of Zapopan- are just dismissed as exactly that, as little folkloric curiosities. We mexicans are spoonfed the Virgin of Guadalupe story from early childhood. We're taught the virgin is not only a precious religious icon, but a national symbol as well. That idea is encouraged by almost everyone but public schools (family members, TV, society in general). I advise you not to engage in this discussion with a mexican untill you're sure he/she's open to debate it. I hate caricatures of mexican behaviour, but in regard of this very particular issue, most mexicans can get a little too cartoony, if you catch my drift.200.92.98.37 21:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Basilica

I removed the "Basilica" section to create a new Basilica of Guadalupe article since I think it deserves one of its own. Please move content between the two articles as you people see fit. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 15:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

1556 Study?

The article mentions a 1556 study conducted by the church that claimed that the image of Gaudalupe was painted recently, but I'm not sure where this comes from, as most concrete evidence of the Lady of Guadalupe comes from the seventeenth century, though seventeenth century sources may refer to this perported report. Anyway, I think this section here should be revised to emphasize that the greatest cause of skepticism comes from the delay between the perported events of the sixteenth century and the delay in them being written down in the seventeenth century.

"golden measure", NPOV, citations, etc.

The claim in the section "The image" that the image corresponds to a 'golden measure' is unclear to me. Is this a reference to the golden ratio or something else? --Andymussell 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd guess so. Though considering the fact the the Golden Ratio dates back to at least the ancient Greeks, I wouldn't say it requires a "Donatello" to use it... :-/ -- Syzygy 07:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Overall I found that the article lacks a strongly neutral point of view and is bereft of helpful citations, especially again in the 'The image' secion. I'm no expert on miraculous phenomenon, particularly Roman Catholic ones, so besides the minor editing and linking I've done I don't think I'm qualified to make any further changes. --Andymussell 01:38, 12 Dece

(Coleen Benavidez 05:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)) Prior to 1556 cataloges, nothing is supposed to exist,until now, read my artical of *TemplateNuestra Sinora De Guadalupe,1536: I've been reading your articals on Nuestra Sinora De Guadalupe. I'm very new at this but it seems that nothing has been written about her since December 2006. I guess I've been trying to communicate with old articles. One article says that *a claim by a church was made that a painting of Guadalupe was done in 1536.* I believe I posses the proof of the existence of that painting. I'm not sure how this works so I hope someone will respond to my inquires. Coleen Benavidez 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) April 22, 2007 it may change your mind. About 3 days ago, on the world news station, a woman passed away leaveing a treasure of relegious paintings, two of which sold for 3.4 million dollors. I am sure my painting is in the same catagory.Coleen Benavidez 05:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Star constellations"?

 The forty-six orange stars positioned on the Virgin's cape have been shown by astronomers
 to form the forty-six constellations in their exact positions in the heavens above Mexico in December 1531.

What is this supposed to mean? IIRC, constellations are made up of a number of stars each, so 46 stars are not quite enough to account for 46 constellations, pretty much like 46 words aren't really enough for 46 sentences. Not to mention the "exact positions in December 1531"...

And even if the statements made sense, what would it prove? That the painter of the apron, be it man or Mary, had basic astronomical knowledge...? -- Syzygy 09:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the constellation story comes from a book by Jody Brandt Smith --he participated in one of the "investigations" of the tilma, where they probed it with infrared lights and examined the apparitions in her eyeballs. The starry cape, being like the night sky in Mexico in December 1531, is mostly important because it shores up other mirror-like aspects of the tilma, i.e. the people reflected in the eyeballs (Juan Diego + co.) I have never seen the starry-cape story presented in a coherent fashion, though. This article could use a little touching up... Katsam

Either way; can we just delete the star section? Even *if* the stars on he tilma are in the positions of December 1531 -- why wouldn't a contemporary artist paint them that way? It appears to me to be an attempt to attest to the tilma some supernatural origin for which there really is no fundament. -- Syzygy 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that the dates are probably in the Julian calendar... I think this article needs a complete rewrite anyway, it is highly POV in my opinion. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 14:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I cut the star sentence. As far as a rewrite goes, I'm thinking about it: the Virgin of Guadalupe has a lot of significance in Mexican culture --as the Catholic protectress of the Americas, as a syncretic version of the old goddess Tonantzin, and as a symbol of Mexican-ness (both Zapata and Hidalgo marched under Guadalupan flags). The current article is mostly just about the proof of Catholic miraculousness, which isn't the half of it. I'm new to wikipedia though and am hesitant. Can I just go in and rewrite most of the article? Is that appropriate? Katsam 1:45, 14 December 2005

By all means, please be bold! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 11:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Being knowledgable about the subject should not keep you from updating the article, Katsam. ;-) -- Syzygy 11:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should cut the stars section for being POV. If we delete it somebody will add it eventually. What we can do is, instead, add it from a NPOV. Not speculative. The fact is that the stars are there and a section describing that part of the artwork is certainly justified. --Vizcarra 19:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

But now we [would] have an incorrect fact on the article stating that the 46 stars represent the constellations, which is not true as discussed above. The only thing you can say about it without citing a proper source is that the tilma has stars. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted it Vizcarra's rv. It would be nice if we could continue with the discussion as we were doing so far. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me. I was mistaken by the diff, I thought I was deleting the inclusion of unsourced material. My bad. I am not advocating for the inclusion of unsourced material by any means. --Vizcarra 20:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No biggie. Cheers. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been doing some edits trying to make the article more balanced, however it seems to read like bits and pieces. Could someone with English as their native language do some style corrections to it? Ignacio

Hi Ignacio! I like your edits. I think the article would work better if we put the "controversy" information up at the top of the article, together with the documentation the Vatican has presented for the Virgin -- http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/LADYGUAD.HTM -- is a good link for pro-apparition stuff. I was trying to communicate with you via your userpage User:IFeito -- have you noticed your user page yet? I'm gonna try to work on this article tonight. Katsam 08:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Was it you who put the link to the Frost article? Maybe it's just my computer, but I can't get through to it. Also, if you wrote the second paragraph in the "Controversy" section, could you reference where you got the quote from Zumarraga and the information about what year his bishophood was consecrated? Thanks a lot -- Katsam 10:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The information about Zumarraga being consecrated bishop in 1534 is a) wrong, and b) misleading. Wrong because according to the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia article, he "was solemnly consecrated at Valladolid on 27 April, 1533". Moreover, it is misleading because it implies that he was not acting as bishop at the time of the apparitions in 1531. In fact, Zumarraga had arrived in Mexico on Dec. 6 1528 bearing the title of "bishop elect and Protector of the Indians", and Pope Clement VI wrote a Bull naming him bishop on Sep. 2, 1530. Zumarraga was most certainly acting as bishop in 1531 even though he was not consecrated; he placed Mexico under the interdict in 1530 after a priest was murdered there. Clavtie8:43, 14 May, 2006

Revisions

I put a lot of new information in the article tonight and now it seems somewhat large and unwieldy. Any suggestions about how we can streamline the information or join it together in ways that will make it more coherent? Maybe putting things into large sections with sub-sections instead of having so many big sections...

I want to talk about the implications of the Virgin as a mestiza/protectress of indigenous rights/"Tonantzin", but right now those ideas seem to be sprinkled throughout the article. Do you think it would be worth it to pull them out of their current locations and put them together into their own section?Katsam 14:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Excelent work Katsam!!! As you can probably see I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but I just couldn't stand the original article on Guadalupe/Tonantzin. I'm impressed with your work; I added the piece on Tlaltenango around 1:30 AM and at 8:30 (Mexican time) you've got a whole new article! I just hope the people who posted the original don't start reverting to it. Looking for information I found the original article to be an exact copy of a site dedicated to pilgrims of Guadalupe. I'll try to find my page and we can start communicating. I'm just sorry we didn't edit this page before dec. 12 when it was visited the most and quoted by several sources. IFeito

Looks much better. I'll make more specific comments on your talk page, cool?--Rockero 20:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to chime in -- Very good work! Much less propaganda and more information than before. Party on! -- Syzygy 09:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations guys! I see a much more documented and valid article (April 2006) than the one we started modifying last december. That's what wikipedia is about!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.154.179.150 (talk • contribs)

Patent owned by China

Is it true that the image of the virgin has been registered as a patent by China?

Maybe. The Basilica got a Captain Hook Award [1] for cultural piracy for just that -- but I can't find other information about it. However, the Florida company Viotran sought, and briefly held (?) an...um...some kind of trademark on the Virgin's image, or rather one of their employees held it (Teresa Herrera Fedyk) -- exclusive international rights for $12.5 million. According to an interview with Herrera Fedyk, they had big plans for the image, some kind of multi-transnational gig involving Sony, MoneyGram and Telemundo, among others. But if I understand right, the deal fell through. If you read Spanish you can check it out here [2] and here [3]

Katsam 07:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Feast day

The information should definitely be included, but it needs to be in a sentence that makes sense. In fact, I was thinking we should maybe write an article Día de la Virgen (or Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe), and then we wouldn't have to categorize this article, which is about the apparition/icon, with Category:Catholic holy days and Category:Christian festivals.

And about the POV, I think it was titled "History and legend" to contrast the two, which may have been unnecessarily "disrespectful" to believers. But I thought it was OK. And if you want to talk about POV, we should talk about the title, because "Our Lady" is a very Catholic title. I think "Virgin" would be a bit more neutral. But since you brought it up...--Rockero 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the feast, I am fine with a separate article, though it does deserve some mention in this article. Regarding the Our Lady vs. Virgin, they are both religious titles. Non-believers have no reason to ascribe virginity to Mary. So, I think it is a wash. "Apparition" of G. has the same problem. What I believe gives O.L. of G. an edge is that this is the title of the feast. In this sense it is not a religious claim but a reporting of objective facts. I think religious articles are always dicey when it comes to POV. Even the term "Catholic" implies a religious claim.

I think there is some material missing here also. The effects of a bombing are scientifically inexplicable as well as the image on the tilma.

Regarding "legend," this is in no way a neutral term. "Account" is neutral. "History" can take into account conflicting sources without making the judgment "legend" does. --Vaquero100 05:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An atomic bomb? This is ridiculous.--Broux 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"fictional" and "alleged"

To refer to Mary as a "fictional" character is unfounded in fact. To call her appearance "alleged" is poor writing. "Alleged" is a term best left for newscasters to use when discussing unresolved criminal cases.Dave Walker 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

I would love to have more images in this article. For instance: Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla waving a Guadalupe flag [4], Posada's Juan Diego (is it public domain since Posada died in 1913?) [5], The cover of Miguel Leon Portilla's book Tonantzin Guadalupe (is it fair use because it's a book cover? I like the image of Guadalupe in the aloe) [6], A picture of the Codex Escalada (is it copyrighted because it's a photo, or not-copyrighted because it's a document which is supposed to be 500 years old?) [7], and so forth. Do any of you old Wikipedia-hands know if any of those images are usable? And if they're not, how we might procure some that are? Katsam 06:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't see the Hidalgo image. The Posada one is probably good. The book cover is no good: According to {{Book cover}}, book covers are only FU when used "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." (And it's not Aloe, it's Maguey!) The Codex Escalada--I think that's shaky ground. I say we try to get away with it for as long as we can. You've done a lot of good work, Katsam. I just wish I could comment on the good article nomination!--Rockero 10:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Drat, I had misunderstood the book cover fair use thing. I guess you're right. Maybe I'll try to draw a picture of Guadalupe in a maguey. I don't see how the Codex couldn't fall under fair use -- it's five hundred years old, right? Right? Katsam 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the photograph that's the issue, not the Codex itself. If you or a fellow Wikipedian were to take a photo of it, that would be fine, at least if I've interpreted the rules correctly. Don't suppose there's any chance of that...? MLilburne 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought that reproductions of ancient paintings were fair game. At least over at Wikimedia Commons there's the option "public domain -- reproduction of a really old painting" (I'm sure they're more eloquent about it). It appears I've been engaging in a peck of wishful thinking with respect to the images, however. I kind of suspect the Codex is under heavy lock and key in some temperature-controlled vault somewhere, although I'm not certain and will be sure to try and pay a visit if I ever make it to Mexico City. Katsam 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Montufar and Marcos

I took out this paragraph:

Zumárraga's successor, the archbishop Fray Alonso de Montúfar, is said to have commissioned Marcos Aquino to paint the Virgin around 1556, the same year the first Basilica de Guadalupe was built: the church built in 1533 would have been originally dedicated to the Spanish icon. Montúfar sent a reproduction of the image to King Phillip II of Spain in 1570.

I did it for two reasons. One, I'm currently trying to dig up citations for this article and I don't have the citation for this paragraph, and two, the anti-apparitionist Stafford Poole has this to say on the matter:

"...it should still be remembered that the identification of Marcos...as the painter of the image ultimately depends soley on a claim by one person, Bustamante. Although his assertion was not challenged...the attribution is never again found in any Guadalupan document." (from "origins and sources," p. 63)

If someone wants to defend/dispute... Katsam 16:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's what Poole says, then we should mention it in the article.--Rockero 10:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the original citation for Montufar commissioning Marcos at all. Would you recommend something like "The 'Indian painter' Marcos Aquino is often said to have painted the image; Bustamante was one person who said so; however this attribution was only found in Bustamante [reference Poole]"? Katsam 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

What happened to this article? It reads like religious propaganda again! 189.138.48.153 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:189.138.48.153, I'd like to address your complaint but I'm not sure exactly what's bothering you. Almost all of the information that was in the earlier draft has continued into this draft. Some things that I could not find a citation for were removed, but you're welcome to put them back in if you can find a citation for them. Please discuss your issues with me -- I've been working really hard on this article and would like to have it in good shape for December 12. Katsam 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK... I've started with some minor edits, I may start getting bolder and try to have it in better shape by Tuesday (dec 12). I can't believe you can have an article this long and not mention Alonso de Montufar. I can see that you left some of the controversial issues, but you somehow have managed to place them pretty low in the page. Let's see if we can balance it a little better. For now I insist on the "neutrality" tag staying in place. Schicchi 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

IFeito's edits

With respect to Montufar, I took the paragraph about him out because I could not find a reference for it in either of my academic Guadalupe books (Brading, Poole). I've been attempting to put citations on all the possibly controversial claims (you'll notice that there are a lot of new citations). I mentioned my thoughts about the Montufar issues on December 5 (please look about three inches up): the fervent antiapparitionist Stafford Poole doesn't embrace the Marcos story either. Still, I'd be willing to put it back in with Poole's caveat, if you have a reference for it.

I profoundly disagree with the placement of "Controversies" up after "History." In my experience with editing other articles, the "controversies" section is almost always placed at the base of the article.

I also feel strongly about the edits you made to the second paragraph of the article. The question of Guadalupe being worshipped as a syncretic Tonantzin is different from the historical allegation that the Conquerors used Guadalupe/Tonantzin as a way to convert people, and I'm going to revert the intro to reflect that.

Further, the theological belief that Guadalupe represents a special link between the people of the Americas and God/Mary/whoever is a valid and oft-mentioned aspect of the V. of G. (see the alleged papal pronunciation that "it was not so given to any other nation," etc.) and I'm going to put that back in the intro as well.

I also disagree with the placement of the Virgin of Tlalteneco under "Controversies." What's the controversy? Found in a box, etc., etc., worshipped by the Catholic church as a manifestation of the V. of G. -- that sounds like a Catholic devotion to me.

As far as Garza-Valdes is concerned, perhaps we can meet in the middle with "a colleage who saw the same photos disagreed with Garza-Valdes' findings, though he did say that the painting had been tampered with over the years." The guy did say "I am in total disagreement with Dr. Garza-Valdes...my opinion is that his conclusions are faulty."'

The controversy section was originally in rough chronological order. I later switched it to have the "miraculous" claims followed by the "skeptical" ones (so as to give the skeptics the chance to debunk miraculous claims). The way you have it now is not sensible. For instance, the claims of "miraculous lack of paint strokes" and "lack of pigment on fabric" are preceded by studies which were designed to debunk them. A person who doesn't know anything about the Virgin of Guadalupe wouldn't be much impressed, for instance, with the study of Jose Sol Rosales who says that Guadalupe was painted using pigments -- the reason that study is interesting is because it contradicts/debunks earlier studies claiming that the image didn't use known pigments.

Also, the way it currently stands it looks as if there were something about religious paredolia which would debunk the idea that "it's miraculous that the tilma hasn't degenerated after 500 years."

I wish you had come to make these edits earlier. I have spent a lot of energy over the last few weeks trying to improve this article -- rewriting, putting in citations, finding photographs, etc., all in the interests of producing an article which would represent the idea that the Virgin of Guadalupe is very important to several different groups of people for several different reasons. It is frustrating to me to have you come do a bunch of bold changes 24 hours before the Virgin's feast day -- it doesn't leave much time for us to discuss these issues. Katsam 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see you replaced the thing about Zumarraga not being bishop. That's fine, but please put in a citation.

Further, you'll see above that someone (user:Clavtie) objected to that idea earlier this year, saying:

The information about Zumarraga being consecrated bishop in 1534 is a) wrong, and b) misleading. Wrong because according to the 1913 Catholic encyclopedia article, he "was solemnly consecrated at Valladolid on 27 April, 1533". Moreover, it is misleading because it implies that he was not acting as bishop at the time of the apparitions in 1531. In fact, Zumarraga had arrived in Mexico on Dec. 6 1528 bearing the title of "bishop elect and Protector of the Indians", and Pope Clement VI wrote a Bull naming him bishop on Sep. 2, 1530. Zumarraga was most certainly acting as bishop in 1531 even though he was not consecrated; he placed Mexico under the interdict in 1530 after a priest was murdered there.

Please address that stuff when you put your citation in; if Clavtie is right, then that information should be included. Katsam 06:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Katsam, we should then mention that Zumárraga was not consecrated until 1533. I may agree with some of your notions, but as it stands the article comes across as strongly POV, and that's not what Wikipedia users are looking for.

Please describe the POV. 71.222.44.99 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

More Ifeito edits.

Let's talk about these edits. Merely saying that stuff seems POV to you is not enough discussion: I would like to go over specific points. Here are several things I would like to talk about:

The appearance of the Virgin of Tlaltenango is celebrated by Catholics and thus seems to fit well under the heading "Catholic devotion". If you disagree, please explain why (also explain what is controversial about the Tlaltenango virgin).

Similarly: I very much like the inclusion of the Virgin in tortillas, microwaves etc. However I don't understand why that is controversial, either. Please explain.

The section "Mestizo culture and Mexican identity" is meant to discuss how Guadalupe is a symbol of mestizaje. The section "Symbol of Mexico" is meant to discuss how Guadalupe has been used as a symbol of the Mexican nation. I think these two things are different and deserve different sections. If you disagree, please discuss.

The section "Catholic devotions" doesn't fit under "Religious interpretations of the image." The Catholic devotions section is mostly about stuff that the Popes did. Stuff like "Pope John Paul visited the shrine in 1979" is not "religious interpretation". I'm going to put "Catholic devotions" back under its own heading.

"Religious interpretations" -- I see two separate ideas: the idea of interpreting symbols in the image is one category (seeing the moon as part of the Woman of the Apocalypse, seeing the rays of light as maguey spines). Meanwhile, the search for miraculous properties -- lack of pigments, lack of brushstrokes, men in eyeballs -- is different. One is art interpretation, the other is...I'm not sure if there is a word for it. Miracleology?

My most fervent disagreement is with the second paragraph in the article. Do you remember what used to be there? You can look it up: it was there from last December until about two weeks ago. The present edit is hard to read (why all one sentence?). I am also totally confused as to why you would edit out idea #2, that Guadalupe is a symbol of Mexican nationalism. I've written a new version, which includes your part about Tonantzin as a tool for conversion, and doesn't include the stuff about the "special relationship between the Virgin and the indigenous people of the Americas." I hope you like it.

71.222.44.99 05:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Katsam, I found an image of the virgen del metro here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v76/loulapunk/Noticias_virgen_metro_ok.jpg

Seems to be available for use in Wikipedia. If not I will shoot a photograph myself and donate it for Wikipedia. Schicchi 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, it would be nice to have a picture of the Virgin of the Subway. I think you'd better shoot one yourself, though, unless you know the person who shot it and they are willing to write Wikimedia and say they release all copyright to their work. Katsam 09:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Altar link

I assume the guy who deleted this deleted it because the link was posted by the person who made the webpage. But actually it's a great link. This page needs more information about popular devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe -- in fact we've been talking about expanding that theme -- and the webpage is a good first step in that direction. Katsam 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't think this article is neutral enough. See, for example, the part about Mary's eyes. It doesn't provide other points of view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chickenswa (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Which point of view do you feel isn't represented? It says that religious people see stuff in the Virgin's eyes, and then it says that skeptics don't believe in the visions because they think they're paredoleia (like seeing images in clouds). Is there another perspective you'd like to see represented? Please explain more. Katsam 09:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"If given a moment's reflection, this would lead one to conclude that the tilma is such a unique mystery on so many levels that the Mexicans uniting under her is not nearly as fascinating a phenomenon as the inability of people worldwide to find themselves more enraptured by the miracle."

This sentence is not at all neutral and is overly convoluted to boot. I suggest removing it.--Adkins 08:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It was the last sentence of the Miraculous Properties section. I went ahead and deleted it.--Adkins 08:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And I suggest you put the sentence you removed back! Speaking of neutrality implies war, you are clearly on one side which is precisely why you have absolutly no right to erase anything! Reds and all sorts of defrauders have pushed their cause not only in name of neutrality but even in the name of peace! No dice this time! Luisosio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luisosio (talk • contribs) 20:29:03, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

How about some Neutrality?

The article fails to offer an accurate and balanced description of the item. Also, it just ignores selectively some scientific facts and serious studies about the real nature of the painting. I don't care if it's sacred for most Mexicans, I just want a better article in Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertebreaker (talk • contribs)

Point. On the other hand, stating that "you don't care" if you offend someone doesn't add much to your good encyclopedist name. Let's talk about facts, and leave it at that, without any "in your face" postures, of it's all the same to you. 200.92.98.37 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact, we need to surplus.

I still don't care about anythig but the truth itself. I couldn't care less about my good name, I just want people to know what's fact and what's fraud. Vertebreaker 22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference 27, Michael Scheifler, is a weak resource for the claim of the icon as demonic worship. Can we find a better source for that grave accusation or withdraw it? The Jackal God 22:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Worthless

This article is completely worthless. It's trying so hard to present both points of view that it presents none. It doesn't say if the image is painted on or not, it doesn't say (if it's painted) with what materials - just that it has 3 layers and the top one is paint - gee... who would have thought a restauration was done with paint. Why doesn't it degrade? What does a spectograph say about the material? Is it even possible to paint eyes with a brush the way they are in the image? It adresses no points at all. Complete rewrite is required--86.121.67.149 22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased?

There was this in the "Controversies" sections: Every year at least 300 apparition of the Virgin Mary are reported to local church authorities, many seen on burnt toast and tortillas. In one of the most recent cases, believers saw a vision of the Virgin of Guadalupe in a humidity stain in the Mexico City Metro. This apparition was called the "Virgin of the Subway."^[1]. Had it anything to do with this very image of Our Lady? I don't think so. Better to put it in an article about apparitions or so. I took it out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.69.157.169 (talk • contribs)

help

Can someone archive this talk page? It's too long to deal with. I would do it myself but I don't know how. Thanks Katsam 12:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)