Talk:Sacred Heart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sacred Heart was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 14, 2006
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Who painted the second painting (left side)??? I've always wanted to know.

Contents

[edit] Graphics help

I've tried to resize the images (see my markup). Why won't this work? Thanks!! --Dpr 06:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Because the "framed" setting implies the original size - you would want the "thumbnail" setting, were it not for something else - there's no point in resizing images beyond their actual size because they only come out pixelized. (Try it yourself with the preview mode.) --Joy [shallot] 16:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! --Dpr 04:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Collaboration

I've overhauled the article, and included a significant amount of text from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Please read it over and help to wikify anything I missed. Thanks! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cheyinka! Incorporating all that Catholic Encyclopedia text was a big undertaking, so I'm glad you're lending a critical eye. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hee, thanks. Sorry for the dozens of edits. Do we know why St. Margaret Mary felt "dreadful confusion" when Fr. de la Colombière's "little book" was published? Cheyinka 15:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
No idea. That came straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I assume the quotes mean that there's a written record of her having spoken those exact words. It might be best to take them out, though. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 15:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)According to her letters, St Margaret Mary did not want her name to be associated with this work as she felt that her sins and misery would harm the work Jesus was accomplishing. Hence her confusion which she mentions in her letters [1]was because she made this known to all of her Spiritual Directors and frequently prayed that she remain unknown.

[edit] Couple issues

I see a couple things that need to be cleared up. Two sections "Vatican endorsement" and "Worship and devotion" seem to have come verbatim out of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which results in archaic language that needs to be simplified and cleared up. I'd also go so far to say that a bit of that information seems to detailed/obscure/irrelevent for a wikipedia article. Secondly, I am not fond of the opening. It is worded in a manner that reeks of Christian POV. Go to the Zulfiqar article about a sacred symbol in Islam and compare how the tone and language differs from the opening here (and notice the lack of a reeking Islamic POV). I'd say the opening needs a whole new rewrite, but want to hear other suggestions, or give others a chance to revise.--Andrew c 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheyinka has already taken the plunge and cleaned up some of the archaic language. I suggest going ahead and tackling that effort. As for the opening, since that may be more contentious, why don't you propose it here? It's only a paragraph, so it's not too long for the talk page. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

According to her letters, St Margaret Mary did not want her name to be associated with this work as she felt that her sins and misery would harm the work Jesus was accomplishing. Hence her confusion which she mentions in her letters [2]was because she made this known to all of her Spiritual Directors and frequently prayed that she remain unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue Burton (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proposed new intro

Here is what I have come up with. Please suggest changes and constructive criticism.

The Sacred Heart is a religious devotion to Jesus' physical heart. This devotion is predominantly used in the Roman Catholic Church and represents divine love for humanity. It also stresses the central Christian concept of loving and adoring Jesus. The origin of this devotion in its modern form is derived from a French Catholic nun Marie Alacoque, who allegedly learned the devotion from Jesus in visions. Predecessors to the modern devotion existed to some extent in the Middle Ages in various mystical sects.
The Sacred Heart is often depicted in Christian art as a stylized heart wearing a crown of thorns, as well as on fire. Sometimes the image is superimposed over Jesus' body with him pointing at wounds in the heart. The crown of thorns represents the Passion, while the fire represents love.

-Andrew c 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start. Here's my revised version of the second paragraph (changes italicized). See what you think:

The Sacred Heart is often depicted in Christian art as a flaming stylized heart, pierced and bleeding from a surrounding crown of thorns. Sometimes the image is superimposed over Jesus' body with his wounded hands pointing at the heart. The wounds and crown of thorns allude to the manner of Jesus' death, while the fire represents love.


I really like that revised second paragraph, whoever posted that :)

Oops! That was me. Thanks! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think the first paragraph is stronger than the existing intro. --Cheyinka 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the imput and improvements. I sort of want to end the art paragraph with a mention of the sacred heart in popular culture (namely as a motif for tattoos). How is this for a concluding sentence: This motif has become a part of vernacular culture through its appropriation by tattoo artists. --Andrew c 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds good. I'd love to get a picture of a Sacred Heart tattoo for the page, but am not sure where to find one that'd be okay to use. --Cheyinka 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have contacted religioustattoos.net, and asked to owner if he would be so kind to donate an image to our project. Also, I'm going to make the new intro live and allow more editors to take a stab at improvements if/where needed. Thanks everyone--Andrew c 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Here's an external link to the most common depiction of the Sacred Heart among Catholics. Does anyone know who the original artist is, what it's copyright status is, and whether we might be able to obtain a copy for Wikipedia? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - I've never seen one where he wasn't pointing at his heart. --Cheyinka 03:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

"Some Catholics have been critical" apparently requires sourcing, I dunno. "Anglicans generally reject devotion to the Immaculate Heart, except for a very small number of Anglo-Catholics." - but do they reject devotion to the Sacred Heart? --Cheyinka 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I think the last two sentences don't fit at all, unless devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is necessarily linked with devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Any objections to me simply removing them? Cheyinka 22:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are the sentences I'm taking out:
The use of Marian imagery among Roman Catholics underwent a revival under the papacy of Pope John Paul II, who was a devotee of the Blessed Virgin. Anglicans generally reject devotion to the Immaculate Heart, except for a very small number of Anglo-Catholics.

If someone can see why they make sense in this article, please, put them back! (Though provide explanation, too :p) Cheyinka 01:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that whoever added them was confusing the Sacred Heart with the Immaculate Heart. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ga nomination

I'd just like to ask, since there's a Catholic collaboration on-going with this article, do any editors forsee any large edits or content disputes to arise out of this? Because that would make it probably fail the GA nomination if the edits are too expansive and widespread, and even though there doesn't seem to be much discussion on the talk page about it, I just thought i'd ask, because I can put the article on hold on the nomination page until the collaboration is over if its likely to become unstable from the collaboration. Homestarmy 04:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Collaboration effor is over now. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Normally, only link dates if they are full and in {{mmm dd, yyyy]] format. GA passed. Rlevse 19:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

Four references, while they are in this case adequate to make a stub on this subject, are not sufficient to make a fully-sized article be well-referenced, and thus, this is not a GA. Homestarmy 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This, like many other articles of on Catholic topics, incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia. As this is the primary source for most of the material, and is well-cited itself, it is not necessary to have a plethora of other references. You may not be familiar with the Catholic Encyclopedia Project here on Wikipedia, which would explain your delisting, but the article really should not be disqualified. - MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I submitted the article for delisting review. - MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

While the article currently appears to have been re-listed as a Good Article, I will adopt this article and endeavor to bolster its content with additional references and material. There are several important works on the Sacred Heart that I own which are internationally recognized. These will likely provide excellent material and citations. --TheTriumvir 16:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hands?

is there a formal name for the way he is pointing inward and up?