Talk:Necedah Shrine

message: I made some comments about the Necedah Shrine and
the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the discussion section of the article about Raymond Leo Burke who was Bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse. RFD 16:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I made some comments

message: This article focuses on criticisms of the shrine. There are alligations of pedophilia that should be cited. Lots of "mud slinging." Sounds like the place is run by criminals. I wonder about the objectivity of the Unity Publishing as a source. I went to the place, and I sure didn't get the feel that his article conveys. I don't consider myself a believer or non-believer in the place. There should be both praise and criticism sections. Royalbroil 12:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged the article again... recent edits seem to be quite POV driven and worded as such. 72.131.44.247 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV dispute

message: I started the original article before I register with Wikipedia. Initially, I included the article from Unity Publications (??) as a primary source that the Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse was opposed to the Shrine for several good reasons.I wanted to balance the official website.
Also Bishop Raymond Leo Burke founed the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe as an alternative to the Necedah Shrine. Initially, I did try for some sort of balance by including both websites. Thank you- RFD 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think the article needs reorganizing. This article is inherently POV, and I think its fine to be presented that way. I think there should be a lead section showing the shrine according to Van Hoof's POV. Then there should be a criticism section. I think its fine for the criticism to exceed the regular part of the article, but I think the current article is about 90% criticism and 10% complementary to Van Hoof. I read the "Old Catholic" article, and now I understand this article much better. Would you (RFD) please reorganize this article and we can go from there. Thanks! Royalbroil 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I reorganized the article into sections-this makes it easier for future editing. I added some key words from the official website. I wanted to convey the original purpose of the Shrine from Mrs. Van Hoof's viewpoint Thank you-RFD 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One more thing: Why is the third paragraph under Criticism (starts with "Unity Publishing, an orthodox and non-schismatic conservative ") necessary? The comments appear to be about the Old Catholic church, not this site. I think they should be moved to Old Catholic or delete altogether. These comments are a large part of why I felt the article was POV. Also the last two sentences in the final paragraph of the Criticism section. Royalbroil 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The interdict and criticism sections clearly indicate that the visions are controversial. Just having an interdict puts her visions in doubt. The word choices appeared to show that she is on trial. The Roman Catholic Church has done their judgment. All the words / concepts that I removed are on the weasel words list. I realize that this is a contentious topic to some people. I'm not looking to pick a fight, just get an article with less POV. Cheers! --Royalbroil 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Necedah Shrine]] 

message: In the article it states in the first paragraph that Mrs. Mary Ann Van Hoof received a vison on November 12, 1949. 
But under the Vision claims  category it states she saw a vision on November 2, 1949.
I just happened to notice it.  Which one is right?
User Bdman 23:23, June 17, 2006.
:Van Hoof claims to have seen 9 visions, so both dates are correct. Royalbroil 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: ===Interdict/Excommunication===
* The intro mentions that the Church imposed an interdict on Van Hoof, but does not mention the more severe penalty of excommunication.  May as well do so.   Under Interdict, the excommunication needs to be sourced to something other than the Burke letter, which does not mention it.   (Is Loughnan correct in saying that there was a 1975 excommunication?)
===Visions===
* Testimonies as to the authenticity of her visions from many doctors vary significantly.  This statement is vague ("many doctors") and unsourced, and is oddly placed.   It doesn't really give the reader any information.  I think material about the evaluation of Van Hoof's claims should come after some description of them.   
===Reorganizing===
* One way to organize the content would be: (1) History: 1949-1950; (2) Messages and mystical claims; (3) Response from the Church; (4) Continuing activity up to 1975; (5) Excommunication and schism; (6) Personalities (information, including criticism, about Van Hoof, Stehlik, etc., could go here); (7) Current status (statements by Abp. Burke; the school, etc.)
* It would be good to describe the history as much as possible in a clearly neutral and objective way.  For example, one could start with facts about the Van Hoof movement: a description of how and when the alleged visions became public knowledge, how the public events unfolded in the early period.  Were there public gatherings during the early visions?   Were they promoted through the press?  By word of mouth?   How many people were involved?   There is probably published material in newspapers, magazines, or books about these issues. 
* Overall, events need to be described more objectively:  Pilgrims have seen Van Hoof in a state of religious ecstasy should not be stated as a simple fact, but placed in a paragraph about Van Hoof's claims; e.g., starting with "According to Van Hoof and Shrine publications..."   
Hope this helps.  Chonak 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some suggestions

message: * One way to organize the content would be: (1) History: 1949-1950; (2) Messages and mystical claims; (3) Response from the Church; (4) Continuing activity up to 1975; (5) Excommunication and schism; (6) Personalities (information, including criticism, about Van Hoof, Stehlik, etc., could go here); (7) Current status (statements by Abp. Burke; the school, etc.)
* It would be good to describe the history as much as possible in a clearly neutral and objective way.  For example, one could start with facts about the Van Hoof movement: a description of how and when the alleged visions became public knowledge, how the public events unfolded in the early period.  Were there public gatherings during the early visions?   Were they promoted through the press?  By word of mouth?   How many people were involved?   There is probably published material in newspapers, magazines, or books about these issues. 
* Overall, events need to be described more objectively:  Pilgrims have seen Van Hoof in a state of religious ecstasy should not be stated as a simple fact, but placed in a paragraph about Van Hoof's claims; e.g., starting with "According to Van Hoof and Shrine publications..."   
Hope this helps.  Chonak 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganizing

message: How does this statement improve the article: "Given her later association with Old Catholic clergymen it appears however that the shrine group has no problems with a married priesthood."? (end of second paragraph under visions) I have a problem with the comment. It is someone's conclusion, non-encyclopedic, and is not NPOV; even if you find it in a reference. Readers can easily draw this conclusion without being lead to that conclusion. You might be able to use a quote from a book if it's worded in a less POV way. There's a whole paragraph on marriage things like this (the first paragraph in the criticism section). 
I also have a problem with the first sentence in the second paragraph under aftermath: "Although his study focuses on Lueken and the Bayside Marian apparition, Michael Cuneo's framework of traditionalist Catholic apocalyptic dissent is also applicable to Van Hoof and the Necedah Shrine." It is also someone's opinion. Was it written by the marketing department for his study?
I will remove these statements, and I let's discuss on word before they are reinserted. Royalbroil T : C 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was hoping that we could openly discuss the wording on this before you did anything. I object to the way it is worded. You win due to the 3 revert rule. Royalbroil T : C 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The second source Joe the spaceship guy quote is very prejudicial to the belivablity of Mrs. Van Hoof. Unless a authentic source for the quote from a published Van Hoof work is available it should be dropped from the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerenaud (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New additions