Talk:Miracle of the roses

Cathedral?

The text of the apparition quotes the Virgin Mary as saying, "...that here they should erect me my temple!" The word "cathedral" should be changed, if not to "temple," at least to "church." A cathedral is a special church, the church of the bishop. There already was a cathedral in Mexico City. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How Many Times Did She Appear?

The Virgin Mary appeared to St. Juan Diego four times: twice on 12/9, once on 12/10, and once on 12/12. At this last appearance occured the miracle of the roses. Therefore, I have changed the wording to reflect that: "third" to "fourth." Caeruleancentaur (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Who Picked What?

The Virgin Mary did not hand St. Juan Diego a bouquet of roses. The text of the story has her say, "Climb up,...,to the top of the hillock,....There you will see a variety of flowers: Pick them, gather them, bundle them, bring them down, carrying them here to my presence." The story later says, "Down he came,....She in turn, upon inspecting them, took them up in her own hands and again delicately replaced them in the fold of his mantle." It should be noted, also, that nowhere in the original story are roses mentioned. The reference is always to "varied Castilian flowers." This miracle still announces the presence of divinity, and there's nothing wrong about later references to roses. I just wanted to set the record straight. 76.123.208.229 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"The" text of "the" story? Which text of which story? and how authoritative is that, or any other story? This remark, and the two above (about dates and times), misses the point: these are hagiographies, not newspaper articles. You have to be really careful, really specific about which "story" you're citing. "Saints of the day" or something like that is probably not very objective, authoritative, or independent. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I should have quoted my source. My source is the work known as "Nican Mopohua." It is the first account of the Guadalupe story in Nahuatl, the language of the Aztecs. It was first printed in 1649, but there are manuscript copies from an earlier date. My own personal source of the "Nican Mopohua" is entitled "Guadalupe: from the Aztec language," printed by CARA Studies of Popular Devotion, Vol. II: Guadalupan Studies, Monograph No. 6, dated December 12, 1983. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Centaur, I included a brief note in the section, mentioning (and wikilinking) that very text. I think it's great if you wish to edit the section to follow the Nicon Mopohua more closely, esp. since you have access to it and I don't. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you know?

The editing mandated, apparently, for DYK has done more harm than good. It proposes that there is 'one' miracle and then different versions of it; this is incorrect, and I will reorganize the article to reflect this. Also, since the first miracle (at least the first mentioned in the article) is St. Elisabeth's, she should get the lead picture also. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Was this written by a Dutchman?

The lead sentence is a little weird to me. What is a "common" miracle? One that happens a lot? A well known miracle? Aren't miracles by definition uncommon? It seems a bit strange to me, but then again I haven't been listening to a lot of heavy metal... I might be able to fix it, but I'm a bit tired so it would take some kind of miracle... Ahahahahahahaa! What about: "The miracle of the roses occurs in Catholicism when the presence or activity of God is signified with roses."? And then start the next sentence with Miracle so you don't have the redundancy of explaining what a miravle is using the word miracle. Roger that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! For the one suggestion anyway. The second, I'll disregard, since "miracle" isn't explained using the word "miracle": that is a deliberate misreading on the part of a well-known troublemaker, CoM. And please see my edit summary. Keep the faith! Drmies (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 26, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. The writing is good, making the topic interesting. However, the article could use a good copyedit and a few polishing touches.

2. Factually accurate?: Fail. Some sources need pages numbers. Given the abundance of sources available on this topic, I am wary of the use of significantly outdated sources. There are certainly more current and authorative sources available in some cases. Most concerning is the use of sources that do not fully support the article text. For example: "She would carry bread hidden in her clothes to feed these prisoners; one day, when caught, they were miraculously changed into roses." is supported by a source that says nothing more than: :"St. Casilda, V. 1126 Roses in her lap (bread changed into them)"

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. This is nothing more than the summary of a few legends about the miracle. The miracle featured very prominently in Christian thought and symbolism for a period of time and has left an enduring impression upon orthodox (small o) Christianity. The legends need to be placed in better historical context and far more attention needs to be devoted to the symbolism and theological interpretations.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail. This article fails to cover historical and theological aspects in any significant depth.

5. Article stability? Pass. The article is stable.

6. Images?: Comment. The series of three pictures of the saints make the formatting very unweildly.

The topic has a lot of potential, but a fair amount of effort is needed to improve the referencing and expand the coverage.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Vassyana (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

St. Rita of Cascia

Hello, I added a section on St. Rita of Cascia and her miracle of the winter rose, mentioned in her wikipedia voice. I also inserted a citation to this miracle by Pope John Paul II. <br\>Regards, RCarmine (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miracle of the roses. 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/20081224072824/http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1898 to http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/SaintOfDay/default.asp?id=1898

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)