Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Guadalupe and Folk Religion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Basilica 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "golden measure", NPOV, citations, etc. 

message: 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  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  and here 
Katsam 07:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent owned by China 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "fictional" and "alleged" 

message: I would love to have more images in this article.  For instance:
Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla waving a Guadalupe flag ,
Posada's Juan Diego (is it public domain since Posada died in 1913?) ,
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) ,
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?)
,
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)
replies: text: Couldn't see the Hidalgo image. The Posada one is probably good. The book cover is no good: According to , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Images

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

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

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: More Ifeito edits.

message: 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)
thread_title: Altar link

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: How about some Neutrality?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worthless 

message: 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)
thread_title: help

message: Does anyone have more details on the objections of Poole et. al. to the veracity of the Codex Escalada?  Saying "it's too good to be true" isn't exactly a scholarly critique.  It's been 15 years since this codex surfaced, surely they have something more substantial by now?  Also, perhaps more details could be added about what the Codex supposedly says?  I don't know much about it; maybe someone who does can add it.  SHarold (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it is worth, see my remarks under "Specialists" below, and in Talk on the article Juan Diego Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now see what I have written above, under Juan Diego Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion has now moved to Talk under Codex Escalada Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codex Escalada 

message: Did the event of the revelation of Our Lady of Guadalupe occur on the dates given according to Julian or Gregorian Calendar? --Xact (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gregorian. {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregorian or Julian Calendar 

message: The image :File:Virgin of Guadalope Veroart.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Virgin of Guadalope Veroart.jpg

message: Is Hillary Clinton's visit to the shrine sufficiently relevant to merit inclusion here? Frank Lynch (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it certainly didn't belong in the "pontifical pronouncements" section! It was also selectively copied from  without attribution. Removed. The news report may be useful to cite in other places in the article, though. Gimmetrow 19:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hillary Clinton? 

message: I agree with the tag that says the article has a lot of problems, but could the tagger point out specifically what they think needs attention?  Maybe in triage format.
Also, could someone archive the talk page?  I don't know how.  Thanks.  Katsam (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive done. Marauder40 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: It needs more about sceptical study of the image, such as that of Joe Nickell. http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/miraculous_image_of_guadalupe/ --22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is crappy tag

message: Maunus, I will not revert to Wojtyla again, but I do insist that that is his official name and it should not be a problem using it instead of "The Pope" in the context of this article.   Like I said before, I was just trying to make the "He" on the original sentence a little bit more clear.
I usually visit this article every year a couple of days before the festivities of Dec. 12 to make sure it's not too messy.   People try to add their POV's all the time and it ends up being very unconnected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFeito (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not adamant about it either, but in the context of first having used Pope John Paul II, then he, and then using the name Karol Wojtyla made it seem more confusing to me rather than good writing. Secondly I do think that theologically speaking Karol Wojtyla never had the power to canonize, that power is vested in the office of the Pope who is known by another name. If anyone else agrees with IFeito rather than me I encourage them to change back to IFeito's version  - I shall not revert again. Anyway I am glad that someone else is taking and interest in the article, which as you say does tend to become messy quickly. Thanks for arguing in good spirit. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Maunus here, in the context of this section he should either be referred to as "he", "the Pope" or "Pope John Paul II".  Using his given name, doesn't reflect that he was Pope at the time of the canonization. Marauder40 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will not revert, but just for the sake of argument, when you discuss the President of the United States you can either say "The President" of Barack Obama; nobody would consider those two not being interchangeable.    Wojtyla used the Title of Pope John Paul II while he was in office; can't see why they would be any different; the article states it was done in 2002, well within the term of his papacy. Schicchi (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that the president doesn't change his name when he becomes president.  The Pope does for all official matters.  Once he become Pope you refer to him by that name.  We don't know what he does in private matters, but on all official matters of state and church related things he goes by his new name. Marauder40 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are standards for how to refer to people, for example, the protocols that can be found in Emily Post's Book of Etiquette. These standards are part of the English language. It would be absurd to refer to (the late British monarch) George VI as "Albert Windsor" even though his mother referred to him as "Bertie" -- and you certainly wouldn't say "George VI did [such and such] ... after that Albert Windsor did [so and so]." Nobody would know what you were talking about. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pope & Karol Wojtyla

message: Bellarmino (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't answer your questions about why you apparently couldn't see your edit history or that of the article. It must have been a technical glitch or an oversight. However it should be abundantly clear that your edits are not neutral you even write in your edit summaries that they are intended to put the apparitionist account in a more positive light. That is the definition of "not neutral". Further more you use weasel terms and synthesis (your bit about how the entire aztec tradition is derived form postcolonial sources is a synthesis of your devise - and it is a fallacious argument as well). You also introduce spurious non-reliable apparitionist sources "The wonder opf Guadelupe" is one such. The long quote from Virgil Elizondo is in conflict with the use of quotes allowed by the MOS. He is also not even a reliable source to be used in the article for any claim other than perhaps his own opinion if that is somehow notable - which I highly doubt. Scholars don't question the codex escalada because its inconvenient, but because it is MUCH TOO convenient. Your comment about "the codex escalada as fact" and "Poole and Brading's unscientific sneer" isnothing but your personal opinion and is simply inadmissible to the article. You should try by reading WP:VERIFY, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:RS before you edit further.
Bellarmino (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity and documentation edits 

message: Ref. Our Lady of Guadalupe
On 26 January 2010 14:41/CET, you reverted my edit of 26 January 2010 13:52/CET, where I had sub-edited my previous edit of 26 January 2010 13:39/CET (Footnote on the real meaning in Nahuatl of Tonantzin (to-nan-tzin): "Our Venerable Mother"), with the following change: 
*Tonantzin (to-nan-tzin): "Our Venerable Mother" => "Our Beloved Mother"
It is not clear to me from the comment appended to you edit ("revert - not an improvement") if (1) you simply wanted to revert to my first version ("Our Venerable Mother") OR (2) if you wanted to scrap even that one. 
* If (1), I would obviously bow to your linguistic competence, not without informing you that I have carefully consulted English/Nahuatl dictionaries before the edit ("Our Venerable Mother" => "Our Beloved Mother")
* If (2), I will ask you to justify the reason for your action, also because, contrary to you declared observance of the "1 Revert Rule", and your declared policy ("if I revert an edit I discuss it on the talk page immediately and refrain from reverting the same edit if inserted again"), you have obviously NOT talked of the reason for your action on the Talk Page. 
In any event (as per 1 Revert Rule), please contact me before taking any further action on that article. 
Thank you.
   
Miguel de Servet (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The most important reason for my reversal was that the foot note you introduced was not sourced. I believe that if a translation of Tonantzin it should be sourced to a reliable source. Linguistically there is no clear reason to choose venerable over beloved or vice versa, the -tzin reverential suffix means both. That is why it would need a source. If you find a reliable source translating Tonantzin as one or the other then that is ook and I will not object to its inclusion, I would even suggest that it go into the main text instead of a footnote. But on the contrary the choice between which one to write is Original Research and essentially arbitrary. I am sorry that I didn't immediately discuss on the talk page, I should have done that. I will copy this discussion to the talk page of Our Lady of Guadelupe. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Lady of Guadalupe (Our Beloved Mother) 

message: I've raised the issue of the reliablility of the Texas Catholic Herald, which is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, at WP:RSN . At the moment, all we have is what is basically a 'house organ' and we need to be able to verify this. In particular, we need to know who did the tests, what the tests are, and what the exact results were.
Also, this is a WP:REDFLAG issue. Our policy (note, not just a guideline) says:
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
  
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 
* surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
* reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
* claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.This idea—that exceptional claims require exceptional sources—has an intellectual history which traces back through the Enlightenment. In 1758, David Hume wrote in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The same is the case with "The Wonder of Guadalupe, Francis Johnston, TAN Books, 1981" - this book is obvious devotional literature (TAN books is a catholic press) and not a scholarly source. It is also published ten years before the seminal works by Burkhart, Poole and Lockhart were published€ and so can not in any way be considered up to date on these issues. As a source it is simply not up to the standard and can not be used to argue against scholarly, peer reviewed sources such as the before mentioned. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, you have stated your opinions now, I am sure that felt good. Now I must stress that in order for you to continue editing this article you must comply with the policies that we have for editing. The most important of these as they relate to this case are that all claims must be verifiable and supported by reliable sources and that wikipedia is not a publisher of personal opinion, of original research or even of the truth. This means that wikipedia is not "open to those who are by nature excluded from the universities" - as far as this means open to publish opinion and research that is not supported by established scholarship and science. It is also important to understand that decisions about what to include in articles and how to include it are made by WP:CONSENSUS|consensus - and the way to influence consensus is by provide arguments backed by reliable sources. Untill you take this advice to heart and acts the part as well I am afraid you will find your experience at wikipedia dissapointing and maybe even exasperating.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: What is this meant to be? If they are references, then they should be cited and we don't need this section. The external links should go in the external links section if they are references - but there are too many links already, this should be brought into line with WP:EL. WP:LAYOUT does allow a 'further reading' section. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: looks like a glorified external links section to me. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: One leaves this article for a while and suddenly all controversies and serious studies are removed.   I cannot believe how zealous the followers of this myth can become!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFeito (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To catholics this is no myth, but a true apparition. However, the contraversies and studies SHOULD be included in the article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article seems to have taken ona serious pro-apparitionist bias.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave up after a while, but it's probably time to try to fix it again. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just revert it back to the last good version. I don't know when that was or I would do it. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to do that, so I've simply tried to remove Bellarmino's changes  but I'd appreciate it if others would read through the article again now and make any edits they think appropropriate. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing some editing but if there's an editor out there who wants to make a fight I'll walk away. PiCo (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF???

message: The section on scientific analysis seems to need work. Minor point, the ref at 25 is just a website on infrared photography and we don't need it anyway as there's a link to our article on infrared photography. Ref 26 is to 'Folklore Forum' which doesn't seem to be peer reviewed. " The journal encourages the free-flowing exchange of research and ideas on all aspects of folklore and folklife. An interdisciplinary publication, Folklore Forum seeks to continually question existing assumptions and bring new ideas to the fore of humanities and social sciences." . The statement using reference 27 should probably be worded more tentatively. Ref 16 is a copy of an article in a magazine about an unpublished study, and because copies can be altered we don't normally link to them. But see  Painting a new world: Mexican art and life, 1521-1821 By Donna Pierce, Rogelio Ruiz Gomar, Clara Bargellini, Frederick and Jan Mayer Center for Pre-Columbian and Spanish Colonial Art Footnote 33, p280 "Recent technical studies claim the presence of the signature of this painter ("M.A." for Marcos Aquino) and the date 1556 on a first painting, under the prsent one: Rodrigo Vera "La Guadalupana: Tres imagenes en una", Proceso, issue 1334 (26 May 2002) 52-53. If this is so, the complicity of painters in creating and maintaining the miraculous image would be further confirmed." The book looks like a great source if you search the Google copy with "miraculous Guadalupe" and "miraculous Guadalupe Diego".
This book looks invaluable:  Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem (if I may say so) arises from the focus on "scientific investigations" and not on the data.  Viewed from the perspective of the object, technical questions arise as to (a) the support (ixtle, hemp, linen, cotton or whatever) and whether it has been lined, (b) the presence or absence of a preparatory ground or sizing, (c) the presence or absence of any under-drawing or under-painting, (d) the nature and origin of the original pigments, (e) the extent and date of any re-touching or additions, (f) the presence or absence of any varnish, (g) the date of the work itself, and so on.  These are purely technical data to be ascertained by a variety of accepted techniques including (but not limited to) chemical and microscopic analysis, and other forms of imaging (such as x-radiography and infrared spectography).  Ocular examination by someone with recognised expertise and experience in the specific field of inquiry is also indispensable although one would not class it under "scientific examination" as such.  So much for the data, there then arises the question of the credibility of the person who gathered the data and whether or not it has been published in such a way as to be amenable to peer-review: these have a bearing on whether any written report is to be classified as "scientific" or "academic" (these being taken, for present purposes, to be equivalent to "credible").  I therefore propose changing the heading of this section to "Technical Analysis" and grouping the data under the heads I have identified.  Arguments and controversies can possibly be collected under a new section entitled "Controversies" (in which I have no particular interest).  In this way perhaps we can strain out the actual facts (such as they are) from issues of disputed interpretation, among which I class the alleged three layers of paint as well as the images allegedly visible in the eyes. Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestion sounds very sensible. Go ahead, by all means. (Incidentally, the section "Beliefs and Miracles" has this sentence which looks as if it should be in the Scientific Analysis section: "Dr. Philip Serna Callahan, who photographed the icon under infrared light, discovered from his photographs that portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle had been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no visible brush strokes.[47]") PiCo (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I had over-looked that last sentence in "Beliefs and Miracles".  It comes from a second-hand summary of Callahan and (so far as it correctly reports Callahan 1981) ought to be moved to the "analysis" section.  I am holding off, for now, on a major re-write to be conducted along the lines I indicated above (and which you and Dougweller support) for the reasons which I gave in response to Dougweller above.  There are, I might add, numerous miracles attributed to the image which have not been included in "Beliefs and miracles".  Some (such as the early healing miracles) are beyond scrutiny, and others depend upon a subjective interpretation of the material (Tonsmann being the most obvious example).  The frustration which leads to "vandalism" of the article can perhaps be released by setting strict parameters on the technical discussion and channelling devotional energy into the "Beliefs and miracles" section. In this way I hope we can build an article that does not offend either against the truth or against the just demand that the image be not expropriated by "science".  It is, I think, the unnecessary polarisation of "science" and "faith" which is at the root of many disputes in here.  My suggestion for renaming the section "Technical analysis" is offered as the essential first step towards achieving a harmonious and cooperative approach to the content of the article.Ridiculus mus (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on scientific analysis 

message: I visit this article "religiously" around december 12 to ensure it has not been vandalized as it usually is and to try to get it ready for the multiple visits it will probably get on that day.    First time in several years I find a very balanced and well presented article.
Also, it finally stopped reading like a copy of the "official page" by the catholic church. 189.138.207.10 (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

message: Greetings, everyone. I noticed that several passages were removed during the rearrangement of certain sections by user Riduculus mus. In particular, I noticed the following passages were deleted:
: in 1897 the Bishop of Tamaulipas, Eduardo Sánchez Camacho, was forced to leave his post after expressing similar disbelief,"Divided by an Apparition." New York Times. September 5, 1896; p. 3. De la Torre Villar, Ernesto, y Navarro de Anda, Ramiro. "Testimonios Históricos Guadalupanos." Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1982
and
: In 1979 Philip Serna Callahan investigated the composition of the image through infrared photography (used to detect sub-surface layers not visible to the naked eye).Brief overview of IR photography and art restoration at essentialvermeer.com He identified the moon, sun-rays and sash, stars and nahui olin, among other elements, as standard "International Gothic" additions, possibly from the second half of the 16th century. The original image beneath these, namely the hands, face, blue mantle and rose-coloured robe, showed no underdrawing, sizing or overvarnish. 
: In 1999 Leoncio Garza-Valdés of the University of Texas at San Antonio was engaged by the Archbishop of Mexico, Norberto Rivera Carrera, to undertaken a scientific study of the image using ultra-violet imaging. Garza-Valdés' findings contradicted those by Callahan, finding three distinct layers involving all areas of the image, including those Callahan had identified as original. The oldest image, with striking similarities to the Spanish Lady of Guadalupe of Extremadura, shows a light-skinned Virgin carrying a child on her left arm. This layer bears the signature M.A. and the date 1556. A second Virgin has been painted over the first, and shows facial features of strong native American type. This second virgin was probably painted by Juan de Arrue around 1625. The third image, the one currently visible, is painted 15 cm to the left of the second. Sample fibres given to Garza-Valdés proved to be of hemp and linen, not agave. 
: The painting was examined again in 2002 by art restoration expert José Sol Rosales with stereo-microscopy (a technique used to identify pigments and the integrity of images). Rosales identified calcium sulfate, pine soot, white, blue, and green "tierras" (soil), reds made from carmine and other pigments, as well as gold, all consistent with 16th century materials and methods. Despite Callahan's conclusion that the hands, face, mantle and robe could be identified as "original" and have never been painted, pigment has been applied to the highlight areas of the face sufficiently heavily as to obscure the texture of the underlying cloth, while the parting in the Virgin's hair is off-center, and her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, apparently applied by a brush; in addition there is obvious cracking and flaking of paint all along a vertical seam, and, in the robe's fold, what appear to be sketch lines, suggesting that the artist roughed out the figure before painting it.Joe Nickell, "Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation" (University Press of Kentucky, 2004) p.189  
Before the edits by Ridiculus mus, the page appeared to say that the tilma was a hoax; now it implies that it is miraculous. If these statements have indeed been proven to be false, then it is appropriate that they be removed. If they are true, however, they should remain. JBogdan (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My explanation for the deletion of the erroneous reference to Bishop Camacho in the context in which it appeared is fully explained at the top of the page under "Juan Diego" (my apologies for putting it up there instead of down here).  As for the re-write of what was formerly "scientific investigation" I am not entirely sure which "statements" JBogdan is referring to.  The justification for the wholesale re-write is set out above in detail, but I am very ready to enter into discussion about specific points if necessary.  For my part I did not read the deleted text as implying a hoax, nor do I construe my re-write as endorsing a miraculous origin.Ridiculus mus (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies, btw, for not parking here the text I deleted, and my thanks to JBogdan for repairing my omission.  To summarise my long argument re Garza-Valdés given above:- (1) The middle paragraph under what was "Scientific investigation" was neither scientific nor an investigation but the expression of an opinion which was controverted by another person with equal access to the photographs.  (2) In any event, the alleged "findings" were never published:  G-V's opinion was made known through the medium of a magazine interview.  (3) G-V's status as a serious investigator (such as it was) was impaired rather than enhanced by a comparable intervention in the field of sindonology.  I note that his claims in that area have not been noted in the wiki article Shroud of Turin. As for Rosales, his examination was reported (again, in a magazine interview - which selectively quoted from his report) in 2002, but it had taken place 20 years before.  The low magnification "stereo-microscopy" and ocular examination employed were incapable of positively identifying pigments (for which an electron microscope and chemical analysis are requisite). It is generally recognised that the image has been touched up over the years (see yet another interview, with José Antonio Flores Gómez, for example, referenced in my edit), and that there have been additions, but these have no bearing on the nature and status of the original. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Underlying masks sketched beneath the image...Could this provide a viable explanation for the 'hologram properties' of the Tilma?  With spectrum specific illumination the hologram properties of the artifact are significantly developed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virgen_de_guadalupe_gif-8.gif .  Is this scientific proof of an inscription technology with multi-dimensional manifestations? Laserles (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot recall where I read a claim that the image seems to hover in front of the tilma (which might or might not be what the previous post is referring to), but Callahan (1979, p.15) was very taken by a different feature of the painting, namely what he called the mysterious way the pigment and the rough surface of the unsized tilma " 'collect' light and diffract from afar the olive-skinned hue", which he likens to the "surface-sculpturing of feathers or butterfly scales".  Callahan had considerable expertise in entomology and the study of lepidoptera.  This is more an aesthetic response than a scientific description, however.  Ridiculus mus (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There appears to be embedded image masks refracting specific wavelengths when subjected to specific fields of illumination.  Each of these developments were simple recordings under spectrum specific illumination: http://www.impactoptics.com/images/Virgen_de_guadalupe_gif-11.gif .  An inscription technology of over-layered and visually connected image masks similar to a photolithography process applied to integrated circuits.Laserles (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why were the following sections removed?

message: This really needs to be sourced; it's original research as it stands. The only things unquestionably based on papal infallibility are the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Find a source for the infallible text being added to the article, and it can stay. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Infallibility

message: I have reverted a deletion by PiCo, viz. the line reading "and in every case the investigators had direct and unobstructed access to the tilma."  In principle, a deletion ought not to be made without adequate justification and PiCo explains the deletion only in these terms: "don't think this is true.  UV exam wasn't direct or unobstructed."  The deletion therefore appears to have been made on a supposition rather than upon independent knowledge of the source material.  In fact, it is likely that PiCo was mis-remembering something I wrote in section 15 above about Garza-Valdéz's discredited "examination" in 1999.  I give full justification for my revert on PiCo's talk page. Ridiculus mus (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct access to tilma 

message: With reference to selective 'spatial (magnification)' and 'spectrum (illumination)' developmenting micro images by Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, Ph D...A similar inscription technology was applied to hologram projecting stones called petro photoglyphs.  A micro image development study of photo-lithographic type over-layered mask image inscriptions: The Tilma and The Petro PhotoglyphLaserles (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Micro Image Developments by Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, Ph D 

message: The article has become very cluttered with images - maybe someone would care to rearrange them (the majority are at the top of the article) so that the text is easier to read? PiCo (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Am I missing something, or does the Notes section duplicate the footnotes from the References section? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly appears so. Anyone object to its being cleaned up? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated footnotes? 

message: I'm not sure what happened, but I thought I'd removed that. Callahan has written a book which among other things describes "how Egyptian priests levitated people"  and Jody Smith was a Professor of Philosophy at a minor college in Pensacola Florida, and apparently only had a Master of Arts degree. I don't see any way in which these two can be reliable sources, or anything based upon their work. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added & removed material referring to work by  Philip S Callahan  and  Jody B. Smith 

message: For: (→Technical analyses: Added a video reference for PC's assertions.) 
I had posted: 
Unsolved Mysteries published a video illustrating some of Callahan's infrared photographs and findings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd3G1S_24NM&feature=watch_response
User:Charlesdrakew removed that, stating: "Rv youtube and fringe theory supported only by religious sources."
I understand the removal of the bomb explanation ("fringe theory") edit that I had made before this video reference addition edit.  But why remove this video reference addition from the discussion of Callahan's findings?  Unsolved Mysteries is not a religious source. Furthermore, Callahan's findings have been deemed scientific.  I am sure that people would be interested watching a video depicting Callahan's research. In particular, I am sure that people would be interested in seeing for themselves some of the infrared images of Our Lady from which Callahan claims there is no underdrawing. I did not remove the book reference to his research, and I understand that that would still remain a primary reference.  However, not everyone has access to his book, and not everyone likes to read. I do not find Unsolved Mysteries as a "religious source" and assert that their visual elucidation of Callahan's scientific research should be deemed an acceptable addition; it only illustrates Callahan's research in a graphic manner.
COice6 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia rarely allows links to youtube. A robot usually removes them.--Charles (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a copyright violation, for a start, so we can't link to it. And who decided Callahan's findings are scientific? This is the guy who writes about ancient Egyptian priests levitating - and more, see . This doesn't look like science to me. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

text: I am not going to comment on Callahan's scientific reputation, as I have never met the man. However, my colleagues at the University of Florida entomology and nematology department, of which I have been a member for over 32 years, have some very strong opinions about him, which I won't go into here. I am going to change the text that reads that he is (was?) a member of my department as he was not such. He was—he is retired now—a USDA entomologist. His connection with my department was as a courtesy professor, so he could be on graduate student committees. He no longer holds that courtesy position. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Video Reference to Callahan's Research

message: Referring to the firest paragraph of the lead, an IP wrote this in the article which I'm moving here:
"**This paragraph needs a citation or needs to be rewritten.  The information provided in the last sentence of this paragraph directly contradicts the explanation of the event in a lower, cited paragraph." Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint about a perceived contradiction in the article 

message: The lead doesn't follow WP:LEAD. It isn't a summary of the  main points of the article, there is material in it not in the article, and it doesn't mention the dispute over its authenticity. Dougweller (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Whoever tagged the "Name" section as being biased didn't even comment why they thought it biased. 
I edited this section on Dec 11, 2011. At that time it contained Nahuatl name origin theories only, making it one sided. In my edit, I made sure I respected and kept these arguments, while also presenting a Spanish name origin theory. I also made the paragraph begin in such a way that it shows the reader that a definitive answer is not necessarily being advocated. It states quite clearly that the origin of the name Guadalupe is disputed, which it is, and different theories follow. To verify the existence of the Spanish name origin theory and its claims, I cited a book that presented the research of Eduardo Chavez, one who has studied Our Lady of Guadalupe extensively. The book I had on hand happens to be a "Catholic" book. One might claim it should not be used because it is religious in nature; however, the point of discussion is not concerning religious faith, but rather the etymological / historiographical discussion of the name's origin. This book gave the details of the name dispute, favoring a Spanish name origin. However, the POV of the author, Eduardo Chavez, is not being represented in this section as "the definitive viewpoint". It is simply being presented as indicative of the Spanish name origin theory alongside the POV of several Nahuatl language origin theories. Perhaps it could be reworded and more thoroughly presented, for example if one were to research every name origin theory, but as it stands, I hardly think it warrants a Neutrality violation tag. Any discussion? --Chrisgaffrey (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After re-reading the NPOV dispute page, I understand why the section had been flagged. I made some changes to try to uphold NPOV. Are these sufficient to remove the NPOV dispute? Any thoughts? --Chrisgaffrey (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute Name 

message: The study of the eyes of Guadalupe by  José Aste Tönsmann inserted by user:Emilogt does not seem to be apt for inclusion since it does not seem to be very notable as they have not been academically publisyhed but only published on a catholic university website and in a seemingly selfpublished monograph published in Mexico which is unlikely to have been academically reviewed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  José Aste Tönsmann

message: As the legend goes, Juan Diego showed the Icon of Guadalupe to Archbishop Juan Zumárraga on December 12, 1531. But Juan Zumárraga wasn't consecrated Bishop until April 27, 1533. The reason being that he was Bishop-Elect at the time of the apparitions.
Oct13 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archbishop Juan Zumárraga 

message: Substituted at 21:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment