Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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?

Apparently false assertion about Tonantzin

I removed a sentence asserting that in 1611, Martin DeLeon, the 4th viceroy of Mexico declared that the image was of a pagan goddess, Tonantzin. There was no such viceroy as Martin DeLeon, and Mexico was on its 12th viceroy by 1611. Further, the source was supposedly a book by Stafford Poole published by University of Arizona Press. No page is given, and I cannot get the book, but the Press' web page for the book claims the image was virtually unknown before 1648, hardly something which would elicit such a response from the Viceroy, and it explicitly states that Poole finds no evidence of a contemporary association with Tonantzin. 98.204.183.211 (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Dan Marsh

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I heard that a image of a feitus appeared on the womb with no lighting effects when they legalized abortion, but I didn't see anything on the page. 11-3-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.141.117 (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job!

This page is looking really nice. Whoever's been editing it over the past six months has done a good job. Katsam (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I think the lead is a bit long, and emphasizes too much her importance to Mexican culture. I think the lead would be improved if either the quote from Fuentes or Paz was removed. It's a bit "cutesy" with both of them there. Any thoughts? Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove both and put them into the text - quotes do not belong in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

How it is possible for this image to exist?

This image: A colorful print, created before color printers were invented?

This image contains no underwriting, so in other words, it would have to had been created without any kind of layout sketch or guiding marks before the paint was added. This intricate and detailed painting would have to had been done completely perfectly, at first go. Correct?
Additionally, the original painting has no brush marks. How can something, especially something so elaborate, be painted without a single brush stroke?
--COice6 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Skeptoid not reliable source

A good deal of material cites Skeptoid which is not a reliable source. The material needs to cite to a reliable source or it will have to be removed. Mamalujo (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Size?

I cannot find this painting's physical dimensions in this article, or anywhere. 189.130.247.194 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC) baden k.

Yes, the dimensions are not in the article and should be added to the section "technical analyses". According to the Enciclopedia Guadalupana, p.536f. (vol.3) the lienzo was measured by [José Ignacio] Bartolache on 29 December 1786 in the presence of Joseph Bernardo de Nava, a public notary: height, 170cms (67 inches); width 105cms (41 inches). The original height (before it was shielded behind glass, at which time the unpainted portion beyond the Virgin's head must have been cut down) was 229cms - the source for that is Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia (1718-1780), Baluartes de México, (publ. postumously, 1820), p.32. The December 2001 issue (special edition) of Guia México Desconocido (pp. 86) dedicated to the Virgen de Guadalupe has a fact box on p.21 which gives slightly different dimensions: 178cms high and 103cms wide. As an artefact, the tilma is composed of two pieces (originally three) joined longitudinally. The join is clearly visible as a seam passing from top to bottom, with the Virgin's face and hands and the head of the angel on the left piece. It passes through the left wrist of the Virgin. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Our Lady of Guadalupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120426045240/http://www.mariologia.org/aparicionesguadalupeespanol09.htm to http://www.mariologia.org/aparicionesguadalupeespanol09.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Approved documents

This article seems to be taking on a rather strange character by listing a lot of the primary sources that serve as evidence for Our Lady of Guadalupe. I can't say I've seen any other articles that do this. This may be Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST but to me it indicates there is likely precedent against doing this. Sizeofint (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Our Lady of Guadalupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928054015/http://www.proceso.com.mx/rv/hemeroteca/detalleHemeroteca/127581 to http://www.proceso.com.mx/rv/hemeroteca/detalleHemeroteca/127581
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100620110845/http://catholiceducation.org:80/articles/religion/re0447.html to http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0447.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)