Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christianity / Saints / Catholicism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Top-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Mexico (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Juan Diego[edit]

Subject to any further points that people might like to make, I propose deleting the reference to the disbelief of Bishop Camacho (1838-1920). This controversial figure is indeed said (in a wire report published in the NY Times of 6 September 1896 – the source cited at footnote 14) to have been forced to resign "in consequence of his expressed disbelief [in the apparition]". What is certain is:-

[A] that he resigned on 3 October 1896 [Poole 2006), p.95;];
[B] that he clashed with other members of the Mexican hierarchy over the coronation of the image (under discussion since 1887 and not realised until 1895) which he had publicly opposed in a pastoral letter:- Poole, 2006, pp. 63, 307; Manuel Ceballos Ramirez: Un Siglo de la Iglesia en México: entre La Reforma liberál y la Revolución Mexicana, in "México en tres Momentos 1810-1910-2010", UNAM 2007, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, vol. 1, p.387 [1]; and
[C] that he had been rebuked in 1888 by the Holy Inquisition for words and acts "against the miracle or apparition of the Most Holy Virgin Mary of Guadalupe – words which he later retracted:- [2].

It also appears that in 1910 (after he had apostasized from the Catholic Church) he did indeed publish a document stating his disbelief in the apparitions. See, Xavier Campos Ponce: "La Virgen de Guadalupe y la Diosa Tonantzin", México DF 1970, p. 147 cited by Maxwell E. Johnson: "American Magnificat: Protestants on Mary of Guadalupe", p. 22 (Liturgical Press, 2010). But, apart from the wire report, there is nothing linking his resignation with disbelief in the apparitions. See generally on this, José Miguel Romero de Solís, "Apostasia episcopal en Tamaulipas" Historia Mexicana, 37 (1987), pp. 239-281. []

Because I also propose re-writing the paragraph on the Codex Escalada (for the reasons which I mentioned in my response to Maunus under "Specialists" below), I think it will be inevitable that I should attempt a re-write of the entire section on Juan Diego, especially since I have undertaken to re-write the article Juan Diego itself. Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The third para. in this section contains material that is tendentious and erroneous. Rather than spell out the errors (the extent of which can be sufficiently ascertained from the linked article Codex Escalada), I present here a projected re-write of the para. and await comments:-
In 1995, mid-way between the beatification and canonization of Juan Diego, Father Xavier Escalada, a Jesuit who was at that time engaged in compiling his multi-volume Encyclopedia Guadalupana, made public the existence of a previously unknown deer-skin codex (the so-called Codex Escalada) on which the apparition was depicted and which gave some details as to the life and death of Juan Diego. It bears the date 1548, placing it within the lifetime of those who had known Juan Diego, and also bears the signatures of two illustrious contemporary scholars, Antonio Valeriano and the Franciscan priest Bernardino de Sahagún, thus seemingly verifying its contents. [1] Some scholars remain unconvinced, one of them describing the discovery of the Codex as "rather like finding a picture of St. Paul's vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, drawn by St. Luke and signed by St. Peter".[2] These doubts and conjectures notwithstanding, Diego was duly canonised as Saint Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin in 2002. Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Codex Escalada[edit]

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)

Bellarmino (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I agree, it's entirely unscientific and displays a kind of desperation. Scholars who have staked their reputations on denying the historicity of the apparition simply could not cope with the discovery of a fact which was incompatible with their published works on the subject, so they denied the fact. The silence about it since is telling, surely.

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)
Now see what I have written above, under Juan Diego Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved to Talk under Codex Escalada Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Gregorian or Julian Calendar[edit]

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)

Gregorian. {..::M@®©™ ::..} (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Virgin of Guadalope Veroart.jpg[edit]

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)

Hillary Clinton?[edit]

Is Hillary Clinton's visit to the shrine sufficiently relevant to merit inclusion here? Frank Lynch (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly didn't belong in the "pontifical pronouncements" section! It was also selectively copied from [3] 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)

Guadalupe as symbol of Mexico[edit]

I'd say she is a symbol of Mexico, even non-Catholic Mexico (though the current "symbol of all Mexicans" phrasing is bad).

I'm not alone in believing this:

Carlos Fuentes -- " may no longer consider himself a Christian, but you cannot truly be considered a Mexican unless you believe in the Virgin of Guadalupe."

Octavio Paz -- "When Mexicans no longer believe in anything, they will still hold fast to their belief in two things: the National Lottery and the Virgin of Guadalupe. In this I think they will do well. For both have been known to work, even for those of us who believe in nothing."

In the book Chicano art inside/outside the master's house, Alicia Gaspar de Alba wrote that "The two earliest icons of Chicano/a popular culture are the images of the brown-skinned Virgen de Guadalupe and the black thunderbird, both revolutionary symbols of Raza empowerment. Known as the 'empress of Mexico,' the Virgin symbolizes Mexican racial and religious mestizaje. While this is a problematic image for contemporary Chicana feminists, during el Movimiento the Virgin iconographed the biological source of Chicano brotherhood (i.e. the Mexican motherland) and also constituted a symbol of indigenist resistance to spiritual colonization..." (p. 47)

Guadalupe's been used to symbolize Mexico and Mexican independence (i.e. as the flag for Hidalgo and Zapata's armies and as the name of an EZLN "mobile city"), and shows up in pagan and nonreligious as well as political Chicano contexts (i.e. by Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworkers, in US-based Mexican Independence Day parades, and in queer Chicana art). (And see also discussion of Guadalupe-as-symbol-of-Mexico in Rafaela Castro's Chicano Folktales, Stafford Poole's Our Lady of Guadalupe. The Origins and Sources of a Mexican National Symbol, and various writings by Eric Wolf and Virgil Elizondo.)

en mexico hasta los ateos son guadalupanos, Katsam (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That is simply not true, and frankly the Paz and Fuentes quotes are disturbingly chauvinist to the millions of Mexican citizens who do neither believe in the virgin nor much less worship her. They are also clearly meant as caricatures of the "mexican national character" rather than as statements of actual fact. Fact is that Mexico has an ever growing number of protestants and areligious people, Mexico's constitution has been areligious since 1918 and no-one is required to believe anything to be a "true Mexican".·Maunus·ƛ· 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel like we're talking past one another. Of course not all Mexicans believe in the Virgin of Guadalupe. That isn't the question I was trying to raise, and I apologize if my using that last quotation made you think that's what I was arguing.
The issue I was raising is is the Virgin of Guadalupe widely seen as a symbol of Mexico and/or Mexican identity. There is ample documentation to support this claim, as seen above. I am satisfied with the fact that the top of this article says that Guadalupe "has been used as a symbol of the nation," and would be fine striking the "symbol of all Catholic Mexicans" part altogether. ~~ (Damn I've been off Wikipedia so long I don't even remember how to sign my name. Katsam (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Article is crappy tag[edit]

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)

Archive done. Marauder40 (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It needs more about sceptical study of the image, such as that of Joe Nickell. --22:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh7 (talkcontribs)

The Pope & Karol Wojtyla[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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))

Historicity debate and controversies: incorrect Virgin of Extremadura[edit]

  • (Discussion moved to bottom of page. New subjects are added at the BOTTOM of talk pages.)

Incorrect Virgin of Extremadura is referenced and displayed on page. Leoncio Garza-Valdés talks about a high relief sculpture located in the choir section from an Extremadura monastery. Leoncio states "This Virgin of the choir is from 1498. It is made in high relief sculpture of wood. I traveled to Extremadura to check, he explains." [4]. Further investigation points that indeed the Virgin he was talking about was dated 1498-1499; thats 30~ years before Our Lady of Guadalupe of Tepeyac painting. Following are the correct version in which Leoncio was referring to:

1. Shown here [5] in black in white. Translated: "Sculpture of Our Lady, placed in 1499 on the front wall of the choir in the Monastery of Guadalupe, Caceres (Extremadura). Its invoice [form] of Flamenca. Has some similarities with Our Lady of Guadalupe of Tepeyec." Source: Revista de Impugnadores[6]

2. A version in color at a blog source [7] with more detail. Source: Virgen de Guadalupe: Dos imágenes que desmienten definitivamente "El milagro"[8]

It's unclear if the high relief sculpture of Our Lady in the Choir, and Lady of Guadalupe (Extremadura) are located in the same Monastery. Our Lady of the Choir is described to be located in Monastery of Guadalupe, Caceres, while Lady of Guadalupe (Extremadura) located as monastery of Santa María de Guadalupe. This may or may not be the same location. Its important to note Extremadura is an autonomous community (similar to county or state) of western Spain whose capital city is Mérida.

Clearly Our Lady of Guadalupe of Tepeyac have very similar aspects from Our Lady in the choir of Monastery of Guadalupe, Caceres (Extremadura). Both have a kind of winged guardian, light rays, stars in the mantle, half moon and the Immaculate conception. --Djcasual (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin of Guadalupe in Spain is a statue, not a relief wall-carving, which is what you have linked to. The image in the article is therefore correct, being the actual pilgrim statue from the 1300s. Xandar 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Im not disputing that the pilgrimage statue of Virgin of Guadalupe in Spain [9] is incorrect or invalid, and Im certainly not trying to take anything away from her or replace her. Thats not what I'm trying to correct here.
Let me re-word the heading since I can see how this may be confusing. I'm simply pointing out that in Leoncio Garza-Valdés research he was refereeing to a completely different virgin statue; a high relief statue found in the choir wall of Monastery of Guadalupe, Caceres (Extremadura). This is exactly what he had stated on this article paragraph 29 [10]. Weather or not the Virgin of choir is also named Guadalupe is up for debate, but thats not what I'm trying to correct here.
In this article Historicity debate and controversies gives incorrect statement from Leoncio Garza-Valdés. Article reads 'He also stated that the original image showed striking similarities to the original Lady of Guadalupe found in Extremadura Spain' which is wrong and thus the picture is also wrong. --Djcasual (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Leoncio Garza-Valdés views on this seem to be quoted incorrectly from a Spanish language source. This is one reason why English Wikipedia should only use English language sources. There is one English language source given for Valdes, [11], but it doesn't say what our article currently claims. Perhaps this statement should be removed or rewritten. Xandar 02:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Historicity and documentation edits[edit]

Bellarmino (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I'm new to this. I have made some edits adding some sources and infomation supporting the historicity of the apparition and they have been deleted without a trace. I have two questions - why does the "history" not show that these edits were made and undone, and why were they undone?

Bellarmino (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Now an "undo" has belatedly appeared on the "history" page and still there is no sign of the log of my edits to begin with. Is this a technical fault? Further, the reason given for the undo was "not sufficiently neutral" when entire sections of the article are a sustained assault on the historical truth of the apparitions. If neutrality were really valued, you'd just about have to wipe the thing and start again. If you can specify which bits of text are not "sufficiently neutral" I can edit the article more effectively, but I am lost as it stands - my edits were rational, supported by references to published, scholarly, documentation, and more importantly they were factual, unlike some of the material I deleted. I can only presume that some sentence or perhaps adjective falls afoul of the "not sufficiently neutral" notion.

Bellarmino (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I see now that I have been looking at the history of the discussion, not the history of the article. That explains that much. However I still would like answers to my other, substantive, questions please.

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) Your use of the term "apparitionist" betrays your own prejudice, as does your contentment with the numerous editorialising and tendentious features of the original article. If you can identify anything other than the word "sneer" that I have used, please specify and I will happily edit to remove them. As for the assertion that I seek to "put the apparitionist account in a more positive light" you must be referring to this comment: "adding some sources and infomation supporting the historicity of the apparition." I must have misunderstood and assumed that the aim was accurate data in the disinterested search for truth, which presupposes an objective and unprejudiced approach rather than the kind of unscientific mentality you express. Identify the "weasel" terms, state the reasons for dismissing my sources (believing in the truth of the apparitions is not sufficient, any more than I can reject Poole's stupidities merely because he is a rationalist-priest - we need to put the facts and form sound judgements). As for my argument about extant sources, I don't mind if you don't find it compelling. Evidently you don't grasp the case put by Poole and others, which is that the absence of extant contemorary documents is crucial in assessing the truth of historical facts, a stance which is pretty dumb for any putative historian to have put, and especially when one considers that on that basis the entire history of Mexico before the Conquest would be a blank slate.

Our Lady of Guadalupe (Our Beloved Mother)[edit]

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)

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)

Reliable sources[edit]

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 [12]. 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

Policy shortcut:

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.[3]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)

The same is the case with "The Wonder of Guadalupe, Francis Johnston, TAN Books, 1981" - this book is obvious devotional literature (TAN books[13] 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)

Deleted possibly-defamatory comments by User: - I've given grounds over at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Are_these_talk_page_attacks_acceptable.3f the BLP noticeboard. --GenericBob (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Bellarmino (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC) You've stated your opinions now, and I presume based on your comment on mine, you did it to feel good. I certainly didn't. The difficulty with religious issues is precisely that the universities are dominated by rationalists - that is, people whose entire mindset is dominated by the dogma that supernatural events don't occur. Therefore, having excluded a priori all facts which support the historicity of supernatural events, they cast about for theories, no matter how irrational, that will serve as cover for their prejudice. This is how universities generally work, and if you're not familiar with it you evidently haven't spent time in one. I have. Now, the situation makes it very difficult, practically impossible, for scholarly work to be peer-reviewed and published if it violates the anti-supernatural dogma. This is all evident. In the present case we have a transparent example of the application of this violent prejudice. The denial of the reality of the Codex Escalada as soon as it was discovered and ever since by those whose theories it is incompatible with, and the refusal to take seriously anything published by Catholics who display "devotion" to the Apparition, make this clear. If a work is "devotional" it is a priori excluded from "reliability." If you could make the imaginative effort to see how you would feel if you examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Apparition was real, you would see that the belief in it has practical effects on a person. Devotion follows naturally from belief. This is not irrational, it is rational. One does not lose one's critical faculty by accepting a supernatural event as real. This is obvious to men of reason, but apparently not to you. I purchased "A Handbook on Guadalupe" recently to see what data it had about this matter and it is filled with perfectly credible factual statements concerning various scholars who investigated aspects of the Tilma and what they found. I have not bothered to type any of it into the Wikipedia article because I am presently convinced that it would be ruthlessly deleted as "not reliable." Newspaper articles about frauds who claim the Tilma is a painting or that it is not made of Agave fibres, despite having never examined the original, are permitted to stand. Entirely unsourced assertions are permitted to stand (e.g. the story concerning Leoncio Garza-Valdés). But they support "denial" and therefore comply with the anti-supernatural dogma. Why did the rigour you display against edits "favouring" the Apparition suddenly evaporate when considering such worthless material which favours your prejudices? Since you have stated that your standard of judgement concerning motives for writing here is whether or not it feels good, such blatant inconsistency is inevitable. There is manifestly nothing scientific about it.

We could do something useful here if we at least had some kind of consistent application of principle - even if it were the purported scientific rigour you claim to believe in. Perhaps you could start by editing the article to make it at least appear to fit that model, then we could see what's left and see where to go from there.

References section[edit]

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)

looks like a glorified external links section to me. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 23:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Schicchi (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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)
I agree that the article seems to have taken ona serious pro-apparitionist bias.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I didn't want to do that, so I've simply tried to remove Bellarmino's changes [14] 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)
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)

Scientific Investigation[edit]

Twice now a more balanced account of scientific investigations of the tilma has been replaced by a selective and one-sided account, listing only negative conclusions made by frankly dubious sources. While we can list all investigations and serious claims, they must not be presented in a manner that misleads the reader as to their accuracy and acceptance. Some of the negative claims quoted uncritically are from highly dubious sources, (non-experts in the field, and people who have never examined the cloth,) and are referenced solely to strongly anti-catholic or rationalist publications. Yet there has been an attempt to quote these as if they were the unbiased results of a proper investigation. Xandar 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a valid concern. Very little scientific investigation has ever been done. To put them in reverse order:
  • 2002: José Sol Rosales, art restoration expert: identified pigments and methods compatible with 16th century art. Also noted some poor draughtsmanship (the off-centre parting in the hair). (Source: Skeptical Inquirer magazine)
  • 1999: Leoncio Garza-Valdés, University of Texas at San Antonio: UV photos showed 3 superimposed images, the oldest dated and signed. Also examined fibres from the image and found them to be hemp and linen, not argave.(Source: Proceso magazine)
These both appear in the "Scientific investigation" section, are both sources meet the Wikipedia's reliable sources criteria.
Then there are:
  • 2001?: José Aste Tonsmann of the Mexican Center of Guadalupan Studies claims to have found images of 14 persons within the eye of the Virgin. The claim was made at a conference at Pontifical Regina Apostolorum Athenaeum and reported in the Catholic newsagency Zenit. Given the very low level of "science" involved (Tonsmann simply magnified the image 2500 times) and the very high level of subjectivity (people see similar images in clouds and pieces of burnt toast) this qualifies as belief rather than science.
  • 1979: Philip Serna Callahan photographed the icon under infrared light; "according to Callahan, ... portions of the face, hands, robe, and mantle had been painted in one step, with no sketches or corrections and no visible brush strokes." Let us assume that this is what Serna reported. Like the Richard Kuhn claim, it's contradicted by recent and trustworthy investigations, and therefore must be regarded as dubious.
  • 1948: Claim that Sansom-Purkinje reflections can be seen in the eye of the image. No source given in the article, therefore impossible to verify. Source is a devotional website which would be unlikely to meet Wikipedia's verification standards.
  • 1946: "...biochemist Richard Kuhn analyzed a sample of the fabric and announced that the pigments used were from no known source, whether animal, mineral or vegetable." But did he? As noted in our article, this claim is reported on many confessional websites, but never sourced - it therefore does not meet reliability criteria. And of course it's in conflict with recent, and reliable, investigations.
These are all entered in the "beliefs" section, as they don't come from reliable sources and in some cases are contradicted by genuine scientific investigations.
I hope this answers your concerns. But please, let us all contribute to making this a good article. PiCo (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this analysis, with which I agree. Kuhn does not belong in this article until we can find something better then the sources seen so far. Just because it is repeated many times doesn't make it accurate. I'm also not clear why the article should include Sansom-Purkinje and Philip Callahan. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That is not satisfactory at all. The reflections in the eye of the image have not been brought into the discussion by me with reference to this section. What I am objecting to is a presentation of scientific evidence which is extremely one-sided in presenting a negative view of the image. The sources used for these so-called investigations do not meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidance since both are POV websites and publications with an anti-Catholic and rationalist bias, giving both strong interest in debunking the image and purveying negative views of it. If we are to rule out pro-Catholic sites as reliable sources, we must rule out anti-Catholic ones too. What we cannot do is present dodgy and unreliable material like that as if it was bona-fide scientific analysis. This negative stuff is REDFLAG and should probably not be in the article at all without better attribution. If such startling results have been proven - which show the tilma to be a painting, then they should have had much wider and more reliable coverage. The fact that they haven't is good evidence for them being fringe opinion rather than science. The Callahan investigation for example is widely quoted even in sceptical sites. So just saying that it has "been contradicted" by what is claimed without much support to be more recent "reliable" investigations is not tenable, when the investigation referred to is anything but reliable. Xandar 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Xandar, Processo magazine is a Mexican political magazine, and spends most of its time on politics, not religion. Skeptical Inquirer is very careful in its investigations. Both are respectable publications. The Richard Kuhn story that you want to add to the "scientific investigations" section is very suspect - nowhere is there any reference to the supposed original source, which is very ref flag. I have no problem accepting Callahan's investigation, but I do doubt the way it's presented in Catholic literature - there are enough loose threads to make me suspect that something is being left out. However, I want to stress to you that I am not your enemy. I want to create a good article. If you can find a source which tells us where we can find Kuhn's original report, or Callahan's, I will be most grateful to you. PiCo (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't found Callahan's original report on the web, but it is extensively quoted in this catholic page, here, and also in this book published by University of Texas press. It also contains coverage of the eyes issue. There are multiple attestations to Kuhn as well, which are mostly from Catholic sites. Xandar 02:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a look at those sources for Callahan. For Kuhn we need some good evidence that he actually did what he's said to have done - at the moment it looks like an urban legend. PiCo (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
As I've said before, I agree, Kuhn should not be in the article until we can prove that he said what the claims say he did. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have now provided the full reference to Callahan's monograph, so the focus can turn to the quality of the source reference to the alleged scientific study made by Garza-Valdés in 1999.
(1) Nobody argues that Proceso is not a reputable magazine, but it is not a scientific journal, and the interview it gives with G-V is far from establishing the validity of what G-V's study is supposed to show. In fact there is no indication that G-V ever published his "study" (with or without the photographs he claimed to interpret). The Proceso journalist (Rodrigo Vera) was shown one photograph by G-V, but all he could make out was the date 1556 and the initials MA - which proves nothing since Vera saw no image on the photograph.
(2) Two colleagues accompanied G-V on his trip to the basilica in February 1999 (see the Proceso interview). One of them (Dr. Gilberto Aguirre) disagreed with the interpretation put on the photos by G-V:- “Dr. Garza-Valdes and I have the same images, but our conclusions are entirely different. I can´t find anyone who agrees with Dr. Garza-Valdes. Secondly, he claims to not only see two other paintings, but a nude baby Jesus in the arms of the Virgin, as well as the initials M.A. and the date 1556. I have studied these photos, but I do not see these things.” San Antonio Express-News, 2 June 2002, article "Test of Faith", by John MacCormack as quoted at [15] an anti-apparitionist website.
There are other problems with G-V's alleged study (he was not an art historian and his use of UV photography - which could only reveal surface details on the tilma - is incapable of contradicting the results of infrared reflectography), but his failure to publish his discoveries and the evidence of Rodrigo Vera and Alberto Aguirre is enough to disqualify G-V's "study" as scientific, so his views (if they are to be noticed at all) do not, I suggest, belong under this section or the next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiculus mus (talkcontribs) 15:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I must add that Vera was also shown a photograph of the alleged second image (that is to say, the one supposedly immediately beneath that currently visible) and he expressed some surprise that it was so clear. In terms, this discrepancy between the photograph of the second image as shown to Vera in 2002 and what Aguirre reported he had studied in 1999 cannot be a matter of interpretation or opinion, but must reflect different photographs.Ridiculus mus (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to refocus the discussion if I can – it has been conducted under more than one heading in here, but it mostly pertains to credibility of technical anlayses so I address it here with no apologies for the length. The aim is to offer a basis for improving the treatment of the technical issues addressed in the article. It should be read with my comment of 19 December 2010 below under "Section on scientific analysis".

One immediate problem is that I have not found a full English translation of the two Proceso articles from 2002 (N° 1333, 1334) which contain the original interviews with Rosales and Garza-Valdés on which so much reliance is placed for discrediting Callahan's study. The articles themselves are behind a paywall, and I have only been able to study websites which have claimed to reproduce them. Both are anti-apparitionist websites: univision (Jehovah's Witnesses) for Rosales, and for Garza-Valdés. A third Proceso article (N° 1343) is also at containing an interview with José Antonio Flores Gómez, an art restorer who examined and treated the painting twice (in 1947 and 1973). This source must obviously be taken into account in the eventual re-write of the "Scientific analysis" section.

That said, I agree with PiCo that "(v)ery little scientific investigation has ever been done [on the tilma]" ("technical analysis" is the preferable term), but to dignify Garza-Valdés' work as "recent and reliable . . . genuine scientific investigation" is unwarranted, and I propose that the treatment of it in the article should be re-written and removed from this section on the ground that, like Tonsmann's work, it is mere opinion – disputed, at that – as to what is visible on photographs. Unlike Tonsmann's work, however, it was never published or presented in an academic setting, and, since it does not fall under "Beliefs and miracles", it should be treated (if at all) under a new section "Controversies".

This resolves into three issues: [A] Is Callahan's work credible or has it been refuted or contradicted? [B] Is Garza-Valdés' work more credible than Callahan's? [C] Is Garza-Valdés' work scientific analysis at all?

As to Question [A], Callahan's work has been (a) put on the same level as the hearsay claim about Kuhn's research ("K"), and (b) dismissed on the ground that "it's contradicted by recent and trustworthy investigations, and therefore must be regarded as dubious" – meaning the investigations by Rosales ("R", actually conducted in 1982 not 2002, thus not "recent") and Garza-Valdés ("G-V"). This dismissive treatment of Callahan's work ("C") can no longer be sustained:-

(1) C was published in 1981 (see the source now given in footnote [19] in the article) and has been extensively quoted by Jeanette Rodríguez, "Our Lady of Guadalupe: Faith and Empowerment among Mexican Women", Univ. Texas Press 1994, reprinted 2001. This makes it qualitatively more significant than (a) the unsourced conclusions attributed to K, (b) the unsubstantiated conclusions claimed by G-V, and (c) the credible but incomplete report of the mostly tentative conclusions arrived at by R using limited technical resources and impaired by a failure precisely to identify what part or parts of the tilma were under examination at each stage of the study (see below). Furthermore, C's photography of the tilma was conducted without the interposition of the plexiglass (or other) shield whereas G-V's photographs were taken through it.
(2) There is no justification for claiming that C (1979, published 1981) has been contradicted by "recent and trustworthy investigations", meaning R (the 1982 study was selectively quoted from and discussed in a journalistic interview in 2002) and G-V (1999 and never published, but to some extent recounted in a journalistic interview 2002). The weight to be assigned to G-V is addressed at [B] and [C] below, so I now turn to R to see if it contradicts C:-
(i) Pigment analysis is not central to the discussion in C, but what is emphasised is the extraordinary luminosity of the paint on the image of the Virgin. R does not address this point, but concentrates on pigment identification; however, the full range of techniques available for analyzing pigments was not employed by R (e.g., no chemical analysis). The techniques used were: ocular examination, raking light, UV light, and a stereo-miscoscope such as is used in surgery (and, specifically, at low magnification: "Un microscopio binocular para cirugía —dice— fue lo que le permitió analizar a detalle la imagen . . No utilice lentes de mucho aumento. No es recomendable usarlos para analizar pinturas . .").
(ii) Infrared imaging (which, with x-radiography, is the standard technique for locating underdrawing and underpainting) was not employed in R, nor was high-resolution microscopy (necessary for identifying old fibres and confirming pigment identification).
(iii) R uses tentative language for the most part and challenges C (although it is not obvious that R knew of C); but R does not contradict C except on the question whether there was a preparatory primer or "ground" (see below). C reported no varnish (this is not disputed), and no underdrawing. According to R (as quoted in the wiki-article) the eyes "have outlines, apparently applied by a brush" and "in the robe's fold, what appear to be sketch lines, suggesting that the artist roughed out the figure before painting it" (my emphasis). At best, there is only one small area where it is suggested there might be underdrawing, and one minute area of brush-strokes.
(iv) On the question whether the support (i.e., the tilma) was prepared for paint by the application of a primer or ground, R noted that a purely ocular examination revealed "la presencia de una preparación de color blanco, de un grosor que podría considerarse medio y aplicada irregularmente."[16] It is not certain what "irregularmente" means if not that the distribution of the ground over the support is patchy. It was not, in any case, a conventional evenly-applied ground such as would normally be used to cover the entire surface of a support before applying the paint. R does not (and, on ocular examination, can not) say that this ground covers the entire surface of the tilma, but C accepts that significant additions were later made to the original image (including the application of paint from the image to the edge of the tilma). Such ground as R observed could easily have been in this area of the tilma extrinsic to the image: we do not know the answer to this because R is defective here.
(v) Nor did C deny that the painting had been touched up in places in the almost five centuries of its existence (something which R confirms).

I conclude that C's credibility is left undisturbed by R and that in a very small particular his findings are challenged (but not contradicted) by R.

As to Question [B], is G-V more credible than C? G-V can be inherently impugned as a "scientific investigation" as follows:-

(1) G-V (a) had no expertise or experience in interpreting UV or IR photographs for signs of underpainting (his amateur discipline was what he dubbed "archeobiology"); (b) had no university affiliation in 1999 and, in the blurb on his 1999 book "The DNA of God?", [17] he was described as "pediatrician" (it is noted that previously – at a time and for a period undisclosed – he had been an adjunct professor of microbiology at the Health Sciences Center of the University of Texas); and (c) his contribution to the scientific debate over the dating of the Shroud of Turin was not enhanced by (i) the claim in "The DNA of God?" that he had isolated DNA from the shroud, or (ii) the fact that his study of what he called a "bioplastic coating" on the shroud was never subjected to peer-review and his sighting of bioplastic coating has never been replicated.
(2) C, by contrast, is a recognised academic and scientist both by training and by profession (born 1923; Ph.D. from Kansas State University; 1959 associate professor at LSU; 1962 project leader for insect biophysics, USDA research lab at Tifton, Ga. and later professor of Entomology at the University of Georgia; 1969-1986 USDA research lab at Gainesville Fa. and full professor on the graduate faculty at the University of Florida, Gainesville; authored 106 scientific papers and 12 books on science) who specialised in IR technology from 1965 in his chosen field of entomology. [18] and [19] (blurb on a 1994 book of his).
(3) The tilma was photographed for G-V at night in the secure vault where the image is stored during the Basilica's closing hours, without removal of the protective sheet of acrylic or plexiglass.
(4) UV light is only very rarely capable of indicating the presence of underpainting – the standard and indispensable techniques are x-radiography and infrared photography and spectography.
(5) In 2002, Dr. Garza-Valdés did publish a book entitled "Tepeyac: Cinco Siglos de Engaño" which detailed his alleged 1999 findings without, however, providing any photographs.
(6) G-V's reading of the photographs has been disputed by Gilberto Aguirre who accompanied him to the Basilica, was present at the photo-session, and studied all the photographs taken on that occasion - see quote and reference at (2) in my comment of 16 December above.

I conclude that G-V is not superior to C either in expertise, experience, academic credibility or scientific rigour: in particular, G-V's photographs were subject to potential interference arising from the plexiglass shield; G-V's account of what the photographs show is disputed; and (most significantly) those photographs have never been published. C's study (with photographs) has been in the public domain since 1981 and his interpretation of those photographs and his expertise with IR imaging has never been challenged.

As to Question [C], it is clear that G-V relied exclusively upon his untutored and disputed interpretation of photographs which he has never published. He had no expertise in the field of art conservation and was recruited by Cardinal Rivera Carrera for another purpose entirely: viz. to explore the possibility that a supposed bioplastic coating had been deposed by bacterial action on the surface of the tilma thus potentially falsifying the result of any tests performed to date it. The study was not set up in order to examine the presence or absence of underlayers of paint and (in its reliance on UV light, the nocturnal photo-session, and the interposition of the plexiglass shield) would have been subject to severe and crippling technical limitations if it had. Finally, despite C being in the public domain, G-V made no attempt to challenge or even deal with it. I conclude that G-V's "study" is merely an opinion and that, in its methodology and approach, it falls far short of being recognisably "scientific". All that can be said is that the investigation employed technical means (the UV photographs) which tells us nothing about the reliability of the findings.

I therefore conclude that C has not been contradicted in any significant way by more recent investigations (scientific, technical or otherwise), and that G-V must be removed from the section treating of scientific and technical analysis, and either excluded altogether or re-written and moved to a new section entitled "Controversies".Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the article again, I agree. As it stands the article is more or less saying flat out that C was wrong.
Why do we have a sentence saying "Sample fibres given to Garza-Valdés proved to be of hemp and linen, not agave." Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The Proceso article of May 2002 N° 1334 (as published by includes this:- "Al igual que él, yo también comprobé que el lienzo es de cáñamo, y no de ixtle, como anteriormente se creía. Al material se le llamaba cañamazo de España, y con él se hacían, en el siglo XVI, las velas de los bergantines"
G-V is here referring to the investigation by Rosales in 1982 and says (if you do not understand Spanish) "Same as him, I found that the canvas is of hemp and not of ixtle [agave] as was previously believed. The material was called embroidery canvas (?) such as was used for the sails of brigs".
But G-V never explained what analyses he subjected the specimen to, and never published his results.
The claim was repeated by him in an interview with Texas Monthly in October 2002 [20] in which Aguirre also agrees that G-V was given one thread by priests of the basilica, but it is clear there was no chain of evidence linking the thread to the tilma (the thread wasn't taken from the tilma in the presence of G-V) and Aguirre fairly points out that the thread might have come from a border piece tacked on to square off the edge of the tilma - this is pure speculation, of course but it is not unusual for irregularly-shaped pieces of material to have pieces added at the borders to facilitate framing.
I repeat my proposal to remove the entire paragraph relating to G-V from "Scientific analysis". Maybe it can be re-written and inserted under a "Controversies" section (just to show that account has been taken of it). I can't help noting, however, that there is no reference in the wikipedia Shroud of Turin article to G-V's alleged findings relative to the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud [21] although three other sources are mentioned as casting doubt not on the accuracy of the test (that was G-V's precise point) but on whether the piece sampled for testing was representative of the shroud as a whole. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As can be seen, G-V does not say that the fibres are "hemp and linen", but "hemp" only (cañamo). It was Rosales (Proceso N° 1333) who tentatively reported the fabric was hemp and linen (he used a low magnification microscope):- "El examen microscópico (20-80X), su aspecto y su comportamiento me inclinan a pensar que se trata de lino con alguna mezcla de cáñamo. Estoy prácticamente seguro de que no se trata de fibras duras de tipo ixtle o henequén, como se asegura tradicionalmente, ni tampoco creo que es algodón" (the appearance and behaviour incline me to think that it is linen with some admixture of hemp. It is practically certain that it is not composed of tough agave or (?) sisal fibres, as is traditionally asserted, neither do I believe that it is cotton.) The reference to cotton probably alludes to the opinion of the art restorer José Antonio Flores Gómez whose interview can be found at Proceso N° 1343 (July 2002). He had examined and treated the tilma in 1947 and again in 1973 and concluded from mere ocular examination, manual manipulation and thread-counting that the image was painted on a very fine weave such as is extracted from cotton ("pintada sobre una trama muy fina, como la que se saca del algodón"). It doesn't seem that Goméz was confirming it was cotton, only that it was too fine to be ixtle. See what I mean about breaking up the technical discussion into topics rather than, at present, under "investigators"?Ridiculus mus (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be a lot easier to follow if it was broken into topics. Are you going to do that? You seem to have a good grasp of them. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I was waiting for support which it now seems I have from you and PiCo (in his comments in the section below). One thing holding me back from a full-scale re-write at this stage is the fact that I have not yet read Callahan 1981 which is the only modern published technical analysis. I have, however, ordered it (and, incidentally, Jeanette Rodríguez' book [22]). I say modern" because the report by the commission headed by Cabrera and reported on by him in 1756 in "Maravilla Americana" (only fitfully quoted and summarised by commentators) is absolutely indispensable. I understand that Callahan quotes it either in 1981 or 1982 (see below).
Part of the understandable resistance to Callahan has perhaps come from confusion between his technical study (1981) and the follow-up work published (with Jody Brant Smith, a non-Catholic) in 1982 which is far more "confessional" in tone and more prone to flights of fancy. Commentators have taken to writing of "investigations by Callahan and Smith" without discriminating between the two works. Smith wrote another work in 1983 (rev. 1994) called "The Image of Guadalupe", Mercer University Press which (from what I have seen of it [23]) appears to be on the credulous side. I can sketch out a version of a topic-by-topic treatment (as opposed to an "investigator-by-investigator" treatment) but it will be no more than a sketch until I have studied Callahan 1981. For now, I think the better course (if you and PiCo concur) is just to [1] rename the section "Technical analysis", [2] remove from it the paragraph on G-V , [3] adjust the balance between C and R, [4] open a new section entitled "Controversies" and put G-V in there after a re-write (and Kuhn?). Ridiculus mus (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
By all means go ahead - I'm just a little worried that you need to fit your study into a reasonable length so as not to overbalance the article - but you certainly seem to have a good grasp of the subject. PiCo (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. My contributions in Talk are not an indication of the lengths of the proposed re-write of the technical analysis and I must enter the caveat that my interest in technical aspects of painting is purely amateur. There is actually not a lot of material, but at least I have read most of it (Cabrera and Callahan being the crucial exceptions). I will readily defer to comments and suggestions by you and dougweller where I feel able to. As I mentioned, I am anxious this should be as cooperative as possible.Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Just an update. I have sketched a new paragraph on Garza-Valdés of 252 words (up from the 152 he currently receives). This is intended for a new "Controversies section". Is there any consensus what else should or could go in that section? My re-write of "Technical analysis" without G-V is 585 words (up from a current 385, including the G-V passage). How does this strike people, tolerable or not?Ridiculus mus (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I have cut my re-write of "Technical analysis" to 532 words (excluding cross-headings). Unless there are any further comments and suggestions, I will post it some time on 23 December, with references. It is subject to what may or may not emerge when I have read authentic and full copies of Callahan 1981, Rodríguez 1994 (revised 2001), and Brading 2001. Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As part of my down-grade of Garza-Valdés, I have now deleted the paragraph in Scientific (now Technical) Analysis and removed the citation of the Proceso interview from "Background" where it was a pointless and wholly unauthoritative repetition of the existing quote from Stafford Poole. I am waiting for guidance and comments before inserting a new section "Controversies" under which G-V could be re-instated Ridiculus mus (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I was busy with the edit when an edit conflict arose, can anyone explain what might have caused that?Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Section on scientific analysis[edit]

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." [24]. 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 [25] 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: [26] Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)


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. (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


We need some attention by Specialists at Juan Diego - Mamalujo (talk · contribs) is removing material suggesting that there is doubt about the reality of Juan Diego's existence. He says that the Codex Escalada has been studied by 20 specialists and Charles E Dibble and been found to be bonafide. I am not currently in a position (or mood) to argue, but I know several users here are.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not a specialist, but, from what I have read, the technical studies (conducted between 1995 and 1997 and published as an appendix to Escalada's Enciclopedia Guadalupana) confirm the authenticity of the signature on the codex of Fray Bernadino Sahagún (died 1590 and confirm that the codex is an artifact of the mid-16th c.
Peralta (2003) elaborates a number of reasons why he still considers the codex to be suspicious (starting with the mysterious circumstance of its coming to Escalada's attention and Escalada's refusal to divulge his source - but that was cleared up in 2002 when the then owners, the Vera Guerra family, very publicly conceded ownership to "the people of Mexico" and entrusted the codex to the Basilica But Peralta accepts that he cannot impugn the results of those studies. He is left in the embarrassing position of concluding (about the signature, for example) " . . puede decirse que la firma de Sahagún, aunque genuina, es sospechosa" (we can say that Sahagún's signature, although genuine, is suspicious). Dr. Charles Dibble of Univ. Utah (who authenticated the signature) is a world expert on Sahagún. I have given an expanded response in Juan Diego Talk under "Balance and neutrality concerns". The best view of those technical studies is not from the 22 Jan 2002 article in "L'Osservatore Romano" seemingly relied on (the one which mentions "20 specialists" without giving any indication of the work that was carried out - but at I hope it helps Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I find it strange that Charles Dibble and Twenty experts would not publish their results in any other journal than the News Paper of the Holy see?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree and think that WP:REDFLAG applies here. The same editor replaced that both here and at Juan Diego last night, one editor reverted him here, I reverted him there. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As I explained above in my comment of 23 December, the results were published in the 1997 appendix to Escalada's enciclopedia guadalupana (as mentioned in the report in L'Osservatore Romano - it is not the case that the results were published in that newspaper). Poole (2006) at pp. 132f. cites and discusses the evidence as published by Escalada.Ridiculus mus (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Then it should be cited to Escalada and not to the osservatore. CJLLW has already been able to show that the osservatore misrepresents the study by for example giving Dibble a greater part in the study than he actually had - he apparently didn't even see the original codex.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not arguing about the correct citation for clearly the Appendix to the Enciclopedia is the primary published source as I pointed out last month. It is, however, unjust to characterize the report in L'Osservatore Romano as a misrepresentation: it says correctly that the codex was studied "by about 20 specialists in various subjects, coordinated by the Physics Institute of the UNAM and also by Dr Ch. E. Dibble of the University of Utah, USA, and by experts in graphology of the Bank of Mexico". I cannot read this as unduly enhancing Dibble's role. It is, after all, a newspaper article not an entry in a learned journal. As for Dibble's non-access of the original, that was clearly stated in the alternative source I cited last month (Boletino Guadalupano, n° 35). Casting doubt on the reliability of Dibble's conclusions on the basis of his non-access to the original presumes an expertise greater than Dibble's, does it not? His authentication stands, and the sceptical Peralta (for example) does not attempt to circumvent or subvert it. I cannot agree that it is for wikipedia editors to take up the cudgels themselves. I have, meanwhile, almost finished composing a full re-write of the Codex Escalada article, greatly expanding it. What is the best way to proceed? I do not want to edit the article prematurely if there is still a dispute over how to characterize the authentication. Shall I publish my re-write in Talk under Codex Escalada? Is that the sensible thing to do, to give people an opportunity to discuss various issues before I effect the edit? Or is it normal in a case such as this (where we know there is a dispute) for the edit to go ahead first, with other editors contributing ad hoc by making their own sub-edits? I am trying not to pre-empt anything. I just want the edit to progress in as cooperative a way as possible.Ridiculus mus (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean any of this as an indictment of your recent edits. I am also not second guessing Dibble - but it is of course relevant that he has not had full access to the document - it means that a more precise analysis of the material can still be carried out (this is of course not something we can cite to anyone other than Peralta). I am however sceptical about User:Mamalujo's edits which do not seem to be primarily working towards a neutral scholarly presentation of the situation. I think your work is probably the best we can hope for while we wait for a study like Peralta's in my opinion very astute and reasonable study to be published in a peerreviewed journal.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to worry that I am taking it personally, because I am not. Dibble had all the access he needed for the judgment he made, and we shall have to agree to disagree about Peralta (who is no kind of an expert that I am aware of, and lamely ended up saying Sahagún's signature was "authentic but suspicious"). Shall we take the discussion on Codex Escalada to the Talk page under that article where I can at least show the lede I have written so you can get a feel for my approach?Ridiculus mus (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Peralta is an advanced graduate student in history and ethnohistory at the Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia of Mexico. I think we will hear more from him.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The comments for which he is cited (including extensive and not faultless remarks on iconography, and on graphology where he made the blunder of reading Valeriano's name as a signature) were made in 2001 (not 2003, the date credited under "sources" in this article). At that date his only academic qualifications were a diploma in ethnohistory and a licentiate in communications sciences. I also note from his CV that he only received his Masters in history and ethnohistory as recently as 2008. His major interests at present are history, gastronomy and communication - a mixed bag at best; but as you say, we shall see what there is to see. Ridiculus mus (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Technical analysis[edit]

Good (indeed excellent) work on this. Please don't take what follows as criticism, it's intended simply as suggestions for improvement.

First, I feel is should be a separate section, not a subsection under "History" - the technical investigations aren't part of the history of the object itself.

Second, I do think it's a bit long, and I'm also wondering if the material couldn't be organised in another way. What I'm thinking of is taking the various elements of a painting (any painting) and examining them one by one. Those elements are: 1. The base (Is that the term? I mean what is the image on - algave fibre or cotton or linen or what? I think the answer is that we don't know, it hasn't been examined) 2. Preparation (I believe the first stage in making a painting is applying a ground or sizing, the aim being to fill up the interstices in the fabric - again I think the answer is that it hasn't been examined). 3. Drawing (Most, but not all, artists draw the figure before they paint it - I think the IR studies would show this) 4. Pigment And so on. The four studies can be noted by initials, as you've done, and the initials explained in a footnote.

Third, I think we need a brief note, maybe just a sentence, about the access the church authorities have given.

But this is excellent work and you're to be congratulated. PiCo (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement PiCo. I agree that the technical discussion is a bit long and could easily be moved out of "History", although, of course, the technical studies have a crucial bearing on the historicity of the cult, so this aspect must at least be mentioned under "History" with a forward reference. Can you do this? I am a bit of a dud at the mechanics of editing (as my temporary crash with an autobot demonstrates). If your suggestion is adopted (which I think is a good one) of moving to a footnote the explanation of the initials of the various studies, the entry will be considerably shortened. Perhaps see how the sub-section looks under "History" after you have made that change?
I am not sure I understand the point you are making at "second". What you call the "various elements of a painting" are precisely the headings I have used for my presentation of the "summary conclusions": [1] what you call the "base" is the support; [2] what you call the "preparation" is the ground or primer; etc ... I have discussed the technical matters under these exact headings. To clarify matters, I will add cross-headings in the 7 divisions of the summary, and hope this addresses your concerns
As for your third point, I did write à propos the studies: "all were commissioned by the tilma custodians" (my qualification "subject as appears below" should have been removed by me since it reflects an earlier draft). Do you want this statement expanded? Ridiculus mus (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
On reconsideration, shouldn't the technical discussion be a sub-section under "Image"? With a note under "History" to draw attention to the relevance of the technical studies for validating (or not) the historicity of the cult? Ridiculus mus (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why were the following sections removed?[edit]

Greetings, everyone. I noticed that several passages were removed during the rearrangement of certain sections by user Riduculus mus.[27] 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,[4]


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).[5] 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.[6] The original image beneath these, namely the hands, face, blue mantle and rose-coloured robe, showed no underdrawing, sizing or overvarnish.[7]
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.[8] 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.[8] 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.[8]
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.[8] 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.[9]

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)

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)
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)
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: . Is this scientific proof of an inscription technology with multi-dimensional manifestations? Laserles (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[10]
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)
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: . 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)[11]


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)

Direct access to tilma[edit]

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)

Micro Image Developments by Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, Ph D[edit]

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)


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)

Duplicated footnotes?[edit]

Am I missing something, or does the Notes section duplicate the footnotes from the References section? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly appears so. Anyone object to its being cleaned up? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Recently added & removed material referring to work by Philip S Callahan and Jody B. Smith[edit]

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" [28] 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)

Removal of Video Reference to Callahan's Research[edit]

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. [12]

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)

Wikipedia rarely allows links to youtube. A robot usually removes them.--Charles (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
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 [29]. This doesn't look like science to me. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
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)

Complaint about a perceived contradiction in the article[edit]

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)


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)

NPOV Dispute Name[edit]

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)

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)

José Aste Tönsmann[edit]

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)

Archbishop Juan Zumárraga[edit]

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)

How it is possible for this image to exist?[edit]

This image: A colorful print, created before color printers were invented?

This image contains no underwriting, so in other words, it would have to had been created without any kind of layout sketch or guiding marks before the paint was added. This intricate and detailed painting would have to had been done completely perfectly, at first go. Correct?
Additionally, the original painting has no brush marks. How can something, especially something so elaborate, be painted without a single brush stroke?
--COice6 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Skeptoid not reliable source[edit]

A good deal of material cites Skeptoid which is not a reliable source. The material needs to cite to a reliable source or it will have to be removed. Mamalujo (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


I cannot find this painting's physical dimensions in this article, or anywhere. (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC) baden k.

Yes, the dimensions are not in the article and should be added to the section "technical analyses". According to the Enciclopedia Guadalupana, p.536f. (vol.3) the lienzo was measured by [José Ignacio] Bartolache on 29 December 1786 in the presence of Joseph Bernardo de Nava, a public notary: height, 170cms (67 inches); width 105cms (41 inches). The original height (before it was shielded behind glass, at which time the unpainted portion beyond the Virgin's head must have been cut down) was 229cms - the source for that is Fernández de Echeverría y Veytia (1718-1780), Baluartes de México, (publ. postumously, 1820), p.32. The December 2001 issue (special edition) of Guia México Desconocido (pp. 86) dedicated to the Virgen de Guadalupe has a fact box on p.21 which gives slightly different dimensions: 178cms high and 103cms wide. As an artefact, the tilma is composed of two pieces (originally three) joined longitudinally. The join is clearly visible as a seam passing from top to bottom, with the Virgin's face and hands and the head of the angel on the left piece. It passes through the left wrist of the Virgin. Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Our Lady of Guadalupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Peralta, Alberto (2003). "El Códice 1548: Crítica a una supuesta fuente Guadalupana del Siglo XVI". Artículos. Proyecto Guadalupe. Retrieved 2006-12-01. (Spanish), Poole, Stafford (July 2005). "History vs. Juan Diego". The Americas 62: 1–16. doi:10.1353/tam.2005.0133.  , Poole, Stafford (2006). The Guadalupan Controversies in Mexico. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-5252-7. OCLC 64427328. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference brading was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ 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." [30]
  4. ^ "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
  5. ^ Brief overview of IR photography and art restoration at
  6. ^ Miguel Leatham (2001). "Indigenista Hermeneutics and the Historical Meaning of Our Lady of Guadalupe of Mexico" (PDF). Folklore Forum. Google Docs. pp. 34–5. 
  7. ^ Jeanette Rodríguez (1994). Our Lady of Guadalupe: faith and empowerment among Mexican-American women. Google Docs. p. 22. ISBN 9780292770621. Retrieved 27 August 2010. 
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference VeraR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Joe Nickell, "Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation" (University Press of Kentucky, 2004) p.189
  10. ^
  11. ^
  12. ^