Talk:Infant Jesus of Prague
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infant Jesus of Prague article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Nick cool 05:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC):One time during a war, a heretic invaded the church and cut off the statue's little hands. The entire church itself was reduced to a pile of rubble. But one day a young priest heard a faint voice from the rubble. Digging through it, he found the little statue, and was elated. he immediately began work on a new church to house it. When the statue was finally installed a little voice was heard: "Give me hands, and I will bless you," the priest heard. And so he found and repaired the statue, and was as it is now, in its present condition.
Is this verifiable in any way? "One time during a war?" What war? When? "A young priest?" Who? Cutting off the statue's hands caused the church to collapse? The statue has an audible, human voice? This may be a story that's commonly associated with the statue; in that case, it should be described as such. for now, I'm deleting it. Dyfsunctional 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
More information on the aforementioned "war"
The priest spoken of is Fr Cyril, who found the statue in the garbage after the Carmelites returned to their monastary following the Thirty Years War.
I found this information here: 
--Shari Lord 11:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Shari
I reckon that an encyclopedic point of view is not served by the inclusion of the words 'Protestant Swedish'; "plundered by the troops" or "by the army" (as the case may be) would be more to the point -- don't you think?
Did Princess Polyxena receive the statue as a wedding present or inherit it upon her mother's death? The History section states both. -or did her mother die just before the Princess's wedding? Mannanan51 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51
|Rants of now indef'd editor|
My 2 caveat wiki paragraphs did not edit or change one word by anyone but added true perspective regarding the Holy Infant of Prague
THEY WERE BOTH REPEATEDLY DELETED
Here are the 2 caveat paragraphs to which I now add a Papal third:
History Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known origin of the hand-less Icon, a pile of rubble after the Thirty Years War, was later verified and supported in the nineteenth century by the events at Lourdes, France, around a pile of rubble. There have also been repeated fabricated attempts to base this powerful Holy Self-made miraculous Sign-Icon of Prague in Spain, because the timing of its discovery and Hosea fulfillment contradicts the anti-Semitic text then being prepared by Mary of Agreda in Spain solely to try to sell an apocryphal, scandalous, sinfully violative of the first two Commandments and therefore impossible name, "Joakim", for the father of Mary already 1000 years honorably secured as Levite "Amram" by the Holy Qoran.
Papal Caveat Wiki (again) - Firstly, it should be noted in regard to the so-called Ratzinger "coronation" that for this event the hair on the Prague Holy Icon was painted unprecedented non-Jewish, non-Jacob (Genesis 25:21 et seq.), red. Also, the September 2009 event itself either never officially took place or could not last becase the Sanctuary of The Infant of Prague had been violated in April, 2009. Apparently Ratzinger had not cared to notice this. But when the Czech Republic rightly excluded/deported from Czech territory David Duke as undesirable or even dangerous in late April, 2009, it neither then nor thereafter made any provision for the human rights of Duke (who had actually kept an image of the Infant of Prague on his website the whole time he was getting his PhD), to obtain even a limited and guarded day pass access to the Holy Infant of Prague Shrine Sanctuary, which is not "Czech Territory". No one has sued the Czech government or the Vatican over this yet.
(Papal caveat contiued): But of course Ratzinger did not notice the April Prague Sabctuary violation as he wormed his way, with his Knight Waldheim, into the Holy Mosque on Temple Mount two weeks later on Msy 13, 2009. He did not see the Bob Dylan song, "Desolation Row", copyright chain from the nailed curtains to the broken doorknob, either, nor did he notice that the entire April event coincided exactly with the impossible finding of "probable cause" against Ingmar Guandique for the May 2001 Chandra Levy murder done by the Matt Hale/Knight Waldheim sponsoring FBI. How could he notice these instant replay basics when he never believed how anti-Semitic Mary of Agreda was told off in 1650 from a pile of rubble? Nobody messes with the Hosea 2: 16-17 abstract "Atlas Shrugged" Holy Infant.
After repeat deletions I added:
TO Maurauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven needed caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda. You will please also note that I do not NEED to delete "your" lying junk to be understood. It is YOU who delete and call mine "unconstructive". OF WHAT? Murder rackets or phoney Catholicism?
See how they need to get away with anti-Semitic lies by blocking objectivity
- There are numerous issues with what you are trying to add to the article. First off adding "Caveat Wiki" is not very encyclopedic. Second, you do not provide a single reliable source. Third, what you do provide is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. Fourth, subsequent edits started to insert usernames into article space, also not allowed on Wikipedia. Fifth, the information is not given in a neutral point of view. Sixth, after I stopped editing due to the fact that I was observing WP regulations related to edit wars, you continued to reinsert your stuff when multiple editors reverted that, personally I am surprised you haven't been temporarily blocked by now for the multiple reverts. Please read the links included on your talk page in the "Welcome to Wikipedia" message on your talk page.Marauder40 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@2605:e000:218a:2d00:f18d:ba85:a58b:2507: Welcome to wikipedia. I have reverted this edit, because it deleted sourced content. Your edit comment has no relation to what you deleted. The other edit of yours similarly deleted sourced content, without any explanation. Please review wikipedia's content guidelines and WP:RS in particular. If you have concerns, please explain. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of sourced content, addition of unsourced content
2605:e000:218a:2d00:8d78:db8a:58d2:9932 / @2605:e000:218a:2d00:*: Welcome to wikipedia. Your repeated deletion of sourced content, and changes to the content in a manner that misrepresents the cited sources, is puzzling. Please see wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, particularly WP:RS and WP:V. If you have concerns, please explain what and why. Your personal opinion / prejudice / wisdom is irrelevant, and any objections you raise must identify reliable sources. Please do not edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)