Talk:Our Lady of Mount Carmel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Saints (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

October 2009[edit]

User Marley2289 added text and a link Oct 8 2009 which I removed Oct 20, to an article on Haitian immigrants and their syncretistic practice of Voodoo and Catholicism. I removed the text, after careful consideration and reading/skimming the article. The text/link was placed inappropriately in the introduction section of the article, did not contribute important information and was worded as an opinion, and the article linked does not describe typical devotion to Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The article describes Harlem, NY Haitian immigrants' participation in Catholic worship including the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, and their covert inclusion of voodoo elements and interpretations. It is much more about Voodoo than Catholicism (about which the author does not seem to know much nor treat respectfully nor make clear that voodoo beliefs and practices are truly incompatible with faithful Catholic Christianity) I think it's a big stretch to think it belongs in an encyclopedia type article about Our Lady of Mount Carmel. The same user had promoted the same article on a number of mostly Voodoo and Haitian related Wikipedia articles, so I think they were promoting the link rather than sincerely feeling that it informatively enhanced the article. --Elizdelphi (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you made teh right decision. History2007 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Representative main image, that does not contradict the article[edit]

Some IPs continue adding a main page image that is not representative of most of the statues in the world. I have reverted these, and I think the page will need protection if this continues. History2007 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, there is no need for page protection. This is a content dispute, where two editors have two different opinions about which image to use in the lede. Talk it out, rather than page protect to avoid discussion with an IP. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree. And stop WP:WIKIHOUNDing Mr Litpack. History2007 (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
First, who is Mr. Litpack? But I am guessing you are trying to respond to me, my user name is Xanderliptak. A bit off, but forgiven. Secondly, suggesting that you discuss this rather than block editors making good-faith contributions is not harassment, it is how Wikipedia works. Are you familiar with the consensus building Wikipedia promotes? You seem good at finding policy pages, so might I suggest you take a look at it. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Those comments are beside the point here. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to believe discussion and disagreement with you is besides the point. Mentioning that this should be discussed and that there is a policy about building consensus, however, is relevant. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your really deep thoughts Mr Liptak. This must be a truly edifying and life enhancing conversation with you here. History2007 (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was just stating that you should build a consensus, as is suggested by Wikipedia policy. But by your actions, it is easy to see how you could misconstrue such a simple suggestion as "deep thought", since you would be incapable of ever thinking of something so simple or so common. :-) [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I will give your comment some deep thought. History2007 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not agree, History2007. The image from Beniaján you want to delete is being showed in the article long time ago (I think it was the first). In fact, this image resumes all the iconography of Our Lady of Mount Carmel: the Scapular and the Purgatory. In the other hand, this photo is one of the most famous carmelites virgins in internet (it's known all around the world). Finally, the image you have choosen for the article is not too clear (where is the Scapular of Mary?). Wich one is more representative? I would like ask about this question to other users. Regards. --79.145.81.53 (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In that image the child Jesus is holding the scapular, or I can use another representative image in any case. However, the last line of this very article clearly states that those purgatory images were based on an incorrect doctrine and were condemned. That image is NOT representative. It can not be the main image since it contradicts the article. History2007 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still think the image not contradict the article. The 'sabbatine' tradition is inserted into the actual list of the indulgences and privileges of the Confraternity of the Scapular of Mount Carmel, as it appeared in old decretes, but it was deleted the prohibition of show Mary in Purgatory. Now (as well as it always was, including during the years of the prohibition) it's one of the most traditional and popular representations of Mary of Mount Carmel.79.145.81.53 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Purgatory would benefit from being cropped tighter. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:3O[edit]

Third opinion[edit]

E. Ripley (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. Also, please provide an easy link to the two disputed images.

Viewpoint by History2007
High quality art & high quality image: Statue of the Virgin Mary giving the Scapular to St. Simon Stock, Santa Maria della Vittoria Basilica, Rome, by Alfonso Balzico, 19th century.

This is a controversial image and not representative of what the Carmelites themselves use. The Sabbatine privilege page clearly states that:

Today, the Carmelite Orders, while encouraging a belief in Mary's general aid and prayerful assistance for their souls beyond death and commending devotion to Mary especially on Saturdays which are dedicated to her, explicitly state in their official catechetical materials that they do not promulgate the Sabbatine privilege. [1]

Therefore, a less controversial image must be used for this page, without fires, etc. The fires are not a Carmelite tradition, as the Sabbatine privilege page points out. I think an image similar to what the Carmelites use on their page is more appropriate. This is a page about the Carmelites, we should take a hint from what they use on their websites.

Strategy:

1. Let us look at Carmelites.
2. Look at external links
3. See how many Carmelite websites use images with fire on their front page.

It is simple. The fire image is not representative. It must change. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I apologize for my ignorance in advance, as I really am not at all versed in Catholic theology, but I want to make sure I understand. As I read it, according to the Sabbatine privilege page, the Carmelites no longer accept the belief that one could be freed from Purgatory through the Virgin Mary's intercession. Yes? And so, assuming I've read that correctly, your objection to the anon's preferred image is that it contains representations of Purgatory? I want to make sure I'm clear on where you are and what your objections are. — e. ripley\talk 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and no problem and no need for an apology. A simple, non-theological way is this: This Carmelite website has a traditional image, a Virgin Mary with the Child holding a scapular. Just like the statue that was replaced. In general, you just need to look at their sites and pick a similar image. Carmelites do not use fire on their pages. They use teh Virgin with scapular, or the Child holding it. It is a simple comparison. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your answer. How do you feel about the image on the Sabbatine privilege page? It's interesting to me that it would seem to suit you for this page, while the anon's image might actually fit better on that page, given your arguments. This is really neither here nor there, just a comment. — e. ripley\talk 20:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh the other image is nice - I added that one! It fits there because it has a large scapular. I have many Marian image galleries on Wikimedia - I use the same user name there. I know Marian images, e.g. see my article: Marian art in the Catholic Church, so I know what I am doing on this topic. But the anon image will not fit there either, for it is again non-representative, and the best representation would be a simple image here to represent the simplicity of Carmelite life - like teh image that was there before, or another simple image, but nothing like this fire fanfare. History2007 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As a higher quality piece of art, I added an image. It will work great, and is high quality. By the way, the statement that: "this page talks about Our Lady of Mount Carmel and its iconography, not about the history of the Carmelites" is not accurate. The page starts: Our Lady of Mount Carmel is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, in her role as patroness of the Carmelite Order. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


Viewpoint by B. Lan

Essentially, this page talks about Our Lady of Mount Carmel and its iconography, not about the history of the Carmelites and papal decrees. I think we would not eliminate the usual image of the Virgin linked to Purgatory and the Scapular.79.145.81.53 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You say "usual image" - can you elaborate more on this? — e. ripley\talk 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Our Lady of Mount Carmel has been related with Purgatory from centuries ago, with prohibitions or without them. This is a mistical tradition, popular and universally acepted (and we can find a lot of paints and sculptures about it, all around the world). We don't speak only about what is right now, neither about what the Holy Church has forbiden. Finally, the image in question does not show a fire fanfare; please, look all the sculptoric group and try to get its complete meaning. Nowdays, this holy image is venerated still inside a church, and people pray in front of it (carmelites priests too), so I think it must not be so much heretic. 83.49.55.209 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually you did not answer the question about what was meant by "usual image". Moreover, I have not seen you provide one single reason, really not one reason why the fire image you propose should be preferred. What is the advantage of that image, apart from the fact that you have reverted to it? I see no advantage, but see the disadvantage of not being liked by some Carmelites. So why should it it be given a preference over images that Carmelites use more often? There is NO advantage except the fact that it comes from close to your geographic location. And that is no justification. History2007 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Third opinion by E. Ripley

Here is my summation of the arguments I've taken into consideration and my final thoughts about both them and the disputed image.

  • History2007: Argues that an image featuring a scapular should take precedence over one featuring the flames of Purgatory because current theology holds that Mary no longer intervenes to release people from Purgatory, and that the article should represent the current belief more than the past belief.
  • Anon: Argues that the image that includes a representation of Purgatory should take precedence because this article is primarily about the iconography of Our Lady of Mount Carmel; because the image that features flames is still revered in churches and by some Carmelite priests; because the image that features flames is a highly popular representation of the subject of the article; and because, current teachings aside, Our Lady of Mount Carmel has been traditionally associated with relief from Purgatory.
  • Xanderliptak: Argues that for 400 years the church accepted Mary's intercession on behalf of those doomed to Purgatory (compared to the 400 years it's been since then), which puts the Purgatory image on equal footing with the scapular image. He argues that History2007's representation amounts to recentism and that we wouldn't allow a political party or controversial figure to decide what images should be included or excluded.

History2007 (and, by association, Xanderliptak):I find both arguments somewhat persuasive. Though Xander is correct that we would not allow an entity to dictate what image choices we use, to use a secular comparison, if the Democratic Party decided to suddenly change its image from a donkey to an owl, we'd likely use the new image more prominently (or at least placed higher) than the old one. Of course this is a double-edged sword, because it also in some ways supports Xander's argument; given the balance of history, we certainly wouldn't simply NOT use the old donkey image. Given that, it seems appropriate that a representation of the Purgatory image also be included somewhere, since it was an accurate representation for hundreds of years.

Anon: I find your argument that the Purgatory image should take precedence because the article is primarily about the iconography of Our Lady of Mount Carmel to be curious, since the vast majority of the article describes the image of the scapular and how it relates to current worship. I may be misremembering, but I don't think the article mentions Purgatory anywhere (this should probably be corrected with some historical information, by the way). I can make no judgment about whether the Purgatory image is more popular than the scapular image since no evidence was provided for either side.

Based on the arguments presented here, I would say that the scapular image should feature higher, but that there should also be a place for the Purgatory image. 400 years of its historic use is not nothing and probably deserves some mention in the text, which the Purgatory image could illustrate. Further, it's clear that there are some strong feelings on both sides and I think that it would be a good idea to put this question to the people who participate in WikiProject Catholicism, who may have some opinions and arguments that are better informed by their own theological scholarship than my own. — e. ripley\talk 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

E. Ripley, thank you for taking the time to provide the opinion. Actually, the purgatory image was and is within the gallery. It was its existence in the gallery which prompted comments from Elizdelphi, who used to edit many Carmelite pages. Therefore, I will move the non-purgatory image to the top of the page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Catechesis and Ritual for the Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Prepared under the direction of the North American Provincials of the Carmelite Orders. 2000. Online text of the Catechesis portion of this booklet

Protection[edit]

Our lady of Carmel by Pietro Novelli, 1641.

Keep working this out on the talk page guys. This doesn't warrant protection yet but it might if the editing conflicts don't settle down. RlevseTalk 11:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention to folks watching this page that I'm still digesting everything, and waiting for the anon to answer a question above. — e. ripley\talk 18:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the basic idea is straightforward:
  • This page is about the Lady of Mount Carmel, the protector of the Carmelites, as in teh first paragraph of the page.
  • It should hence reflect "Carmelite imagery" as it is in the world - it should be like what the Carmelites use.
  • Carmelite webpages and literature do NOT use fire.
What should go on the page is another story. But this current image can not. Carmelite pages usually have a Virgin Mary with a Child holding a scapular. Or an alternative is this very Carmelite image by Pietro Novelli, actually called Our Lady of Carmel. Why not use an image that directly refers to and is named after the page? Most direct solution. And this image is VERY appropriate given the brown background, the Carmelite color. And it includes well known Carmelite's under the protection of the central Madonna figure, almost (but not exactly) in the "protection under the mantle" theme of Virgin of Mercy, as the protector. So it is very appropriate.History2007 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your statement that this page "should hence reflect 'Carmelite imagery'", as this is a secular encyclopedia and not an arm of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Simply because the Church decrees something does not mean Wikipedia must conform to such declarations, but simply offer that information alongside any other prominent dissent. The fact is that it was only in the last 400 years that scenes with Purgatory were forbidden, but for some 400 years prior to that they weren't. That still gives us 400 years of history and imagery that were created in line to contemporary Church doctrine. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 05:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No, not at all. In fact, it is the Carmelites who might be construed as "almost differing" here. The image I suggest does not support the Holy See, but Carmelite tradition. You have got it backwards. History2007 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So are you saying what the Holy See says on Carmelite imagery is irrelevant? Then the Church doctrine that prohibits images of Purgatory you used to support your cause are equally irrelevant. You can not cite Church doctrine as evidence against your opponents and then claim that the Carmelites are independent and separate from Church dogma. Anyways, Wikipedia is not an arm of the Carmelites either. If current Carmelite doctrine prohibits scenes of Purgatory, that does not negate the 400 years where such scenes were permissible; in fact, since such scenes were not only permissible but common (the image of Purgatory seems to be taken from a church and has not been replaced in these last several centuries, so such imagery can not be that offensive), it warrants at least equal mention and representation in this article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 06:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No I just said that your logic is flawed. And this latest statement is also inconsistent. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

E. Ripley, I think the IP is not coming back, so can we conclude this please? As for Mr Liptak, he is my personal WP:WIKIHOUND from Leo XIII, so do not worry about that yet. History2007 (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, ff my logic was flawed, it is only because I was following yours. I must still object to your notion that the image must be used because it is what the modern Carmelites would prefer. That is hardly an argument for or against anything. We do not let political parties decide what images they may include or exclude in articles, nor do we allow such privilege for controversial figures, and not for religious groups either.
Also, I would like to again mention my user name is Xanderliptak, not Mr Liptak (though you are getting closer with each try). Please take the time to read and understand this, and correct it.
Yes, we ran across one another at the Pope Leo XIII article. You seem to edit some of the most important, controversial and popular articles concerning the Catholic faith, and when you do that you will run across the same editors from time to time. So I was not Wikihounding you, sorry to disappoint your paranoia or whatever it is. I merely suggested you discuss the matter before attempting protection, as there was no vandalism to protect against anyways. However, you ignored the advice, seemingly insulted that I would suggest you talk to an IP user, and became hostile towards me. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 10:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I think it is WP:WIKIHOUNDING, and I will leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
If you think that Xanderliptak is wikistalking you, you should probably raise that issue at WP:ANI or open a user conduct RFC, but this isn't the place to discuss it. We need to focus here on article content. I found Xanderliptak's arguments about article content to be reasonable, separate from any animosity that may lie between you two.
I would however caution Xanderliptak to mind WP:CIV, though; statements like this are really over the line and detract from an atmosphere where reasonable people can collaborate. — e. ripley\talk 15:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I merely was matching the tone and fashion of the remark directed towards me. I was civil, and only suggested that this issue be discussed. I did not enter into the argument for or against, so there was no need for sarcasm or indignation. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually E. Ripley, Mr Liptak has made worse comments than that before, and I just do not pay attention to them. Not worse getting upset. But thanks for your comment. History2007 (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to tolerate that sort of thing. I'd recommend pursuing a review at WP:WQA if it continues like this. — e. ripley\talk 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but insults only hurt if there is a grain of truth in them. Not the case here. I could not care less about what he said. But thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Patron of Chile[edit]

It must be added that she is the Queen and Patron of Chile, the Chilean armed forces and Carabineros de Chile (Chilean police). --A2falcone (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)