Talk:Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows

message: Very minor editons made to ensure the neutrality police, suince some phrases were written in purple prose and sounded like borderline propaganda. Pleasse remember to keep yourselves neutral. Lunamaria 11:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitpicky, nitpicky!

message: This article contains text included "with permission".  Unfortunately, text so encumbered may not be included in Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:Copyrights.  It needs to be licensed under the GFDL.  If the contributor who added this text and message actually owned the text and intended this license to apply, the "with permission" line needs to be removed since it clouds the issue.  If the contributor did not own the text, it needs to be removed.  Since this may well result in a virtual blanking of the article I am unwilling to do that myself, but post this here in the hopes that the problem can be otherwise resolved. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you indicated that you release the text under the GFDL, I have restored the article. Thanks so much! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: * Saint Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a self-confessed saint. I think we should take him at his word. —Ian Spackman 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other]] 

message: User:Rwflammang restored the prayer to the article with the following comment
restore prayer. This prayer is what he best known for in many circles. May as well remove Gettysburg Address (also propaganda) from Lincoln article)
This is more than a little odd, as the article on Abraham Lincoln doesn’t include the Gettysburg Address. (Nor, indeed, does the latter article include the text of the address.) So if, as Rwflammang says, this prayer is a notable text (and I have absolutely no reason or desire to gainsay that), I suggest that the Abe-example is followed: an article is written about the prayer, the date and circumstances of its composition, problems (if any) of translation, its signficance, etc, and then this article can refer to that article.
Alternatively, if the prayer is notable, but only just so, add a paragraph to this article about the prayer, the circumstances of its composition, its translator, its significance, what those “many circles” are, etc.
But let’s not leave the prayer floating in the infobox devoid of any meaning.
Here is the text and (slighty dodgy) source as quoted:
;Prayer of St. Gabriel
:I want to break my own will into pieces, I want to do God's Holy will, not my own. May the most adorable, most loveable, most perfect will of God always be done.
:Source: http://www.geocities.com/saintgabrielpassionist/writings.htm
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian_Spackman (talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 November 2006
::Speaking of the source, I found a mention of it in an internet news bulletin published by the Passionists. (Its the penultimate item in the bulletin. Scroll down.) Perhaps this improves the credibility of the source? Also, the first sentence of the prayer can be found in the Catholic-Forum page about St. Gabriel and in an article on Catholic Online. The Catholic Online article calls it St. Gabriel's "motto for daily living". The entire two sentences of the prayer are found in a blog by Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf. Yes, normally, blogs cannot be cited as verifiable sources, but in this case, an exception can be made. This blog, titled, "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" is totally dedicated to translating prayers from the Latin to English. Also, the author of the blog is a notable person, as given on the blog:
   Fr. Z is Moderator of the Catholic Online Forum and the 
  ASK FATHER Question Box. The WDTPRS columns appear weekly 
  in The Wanderer. 
::Yours,
::Savio mit electronics 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prayer 

message: Several times this article uses the term "a religious", as in "...[he] had promised to become a religious if he were healed."  My question is, "a religious" what?  Another apparent term of art is "attend", as in "...entered the religious life after several calls that he didn't fully attend until almost...".  I have a problem with the usage in both cases.  If these are Catholic jargon, fine, but they still seem odd.  Mike 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "A Religious"

message: I've taken the liberty of rating this article (Current revision) as "Low" in importance and B-class in quality. There are not many different references in the article and there are some grammar/spelling issues to address, but it seems like it has the structure needed for expansion. Of course I'm not going to act absolutely authoritative on my ratings here, but I feel that most people would agree with my assessment. Feel free to express your opinions here. Alekjds 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: I have removed this piece to a more appropriate place and lessened its content. I don't think it ought to be placed under 'religious vocation' as does not seem to have any relevence to that area. It is also really a rather minor detail (akin to the information about the festivals) and perhaps the SGP Society ought to have a separate page. User:Matthewafallen
There ought to be something on this page about St. Gabriel's association with handguns, particularly a recounting of the episode between him and the mercenaries. The connection is significant, and the story appears on New Advent, so it is definitely not a fringe issue. Even if it is "dubious" or discouraged by the Passionists (as some editors have asserted), it should still be cited because of the significance of that material, though with a disclaimer. Trinite 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not quite sure which incident you are referring to, but you only have to glance at the picture to realise that this article is a pious fiction. People who like both sweet-looking children and guns will like the article. These are the kind of Wikipedia articles that you have to take along with the porn-star ones. Total garbage which shouldn’t be in here. But fighting the people who write them is pointless: they will just re-write them. I can’t stop them. You can’t stop them. They will claim (or deny) the n’th amedment and carry on doing it. The best thing, I think, is to try to write articles about real people who are genuinely interesting. —Ian Spackman 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In doing some research on the history of handguns I came across a Mother Jones' piece from 2013 that suggests that this incident with the handguns might not have happened at all. Is this up for debate? Yadojado (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged the content of the Saint Gabriel Possenti Society article into this article, making it a separate section at the very end. (There was already a paragraph there.) The SGPS article - only four sentences long! - presented the story of Gabriel and the marauding bandits differently than this article, with no mention of its being questionable - and it only had one source: a blog about St. Garbriel. Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun Saint

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012034811/http://www.sangabriele.org/home/default.asp to http://www.sangabriele.org/home/default.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified