Talk:Our Lady of Guadalupe

Technical information is available despite your claim to the contrary

See 2 books: The Wonder of Guadalupe by Francis Johnston, published in 1981, and the more recent Guadalupe Mysteries: Deciphering the Code by Gorny and Rosikon. The main issue is that you present the image as a "painting," but it isn't, although some parts of the image were over painted (and those parts flaked off). What these books show is that the image is akin to a photograph - centuries before photography was invented. Key to this appraisal is the reflection found in the pupil of the eye which is a reflection of the people who were in the room when the cloak was opened. Another key understanding is that the Spanish priest interpreted Juan Diego's name for the woman as "Guadalupe" because the priest was very familiar with the Guadalupe in Spain. But what Juan Diego said in his own language can be phonetically rendered as "KAY-ta-lopay" with an entirely different meaning.

I am not editing your article because I don't have either of the books I just cited in my possession. Ldotj (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

1. The Wonder of Guadalupe is not scientific and cites other religious sources.
2. Guadalupe Mysteries: Deciphering the Code was written by a journalist (Górny) and a photography (Rosikon). I am a bit wary of trusting it due to both lacking training in art history or even religion. However, it does look like the pair have made other books on Marian apparitions. The two do seem to be very devout Catholics, which makes me hesitant to believe that the book as an unbiased source. Again, I haven't read it so I could entirely be wrong.
3. I can't find any scientific, valid sources that state that the image was somehow a picture.
4. Juan Diego's validity is mentioned in the article with it not being very likely.

While it is fine to mention all of this as folklore, these aren't technical information. Bellakine (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in Latinx Pop Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 2 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samgiraffe, MarlynZuno (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is monumentally biased

Incredibly, this long article includes no information from skeptics and debunkers. It presents miracle after miracle, myriad historical narratives presented as fact, and none of the readily-available scientific and historical dissent. I say "dissent" only relative to this article; outside of this article, it is more like "consensus".

Come on. Get some editors who can treat this like a real historical topic. It's okay to piss off a half billion people. 71.167.255.2 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially under "Pious beliefs and devotions", ⅝ of the mentioned sources are from Catholic organizations (Alleanza Cattolica, Interlupe, Catholic Education Resource Center, Messenger of Saint Anthony, Mother of All Peoples) that believe in the icon's mythology fully (I believe Morenita is also Catholic, but its article is focused around if Kuhn actually investigated the figure and not supporting the various mythologies). I haven't delved deep into them, but they almost all seem to mention a scientific original that is not quoted (Mother of All Peoples being the exception) or even have the source cited. Bellakine (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas

Someone added this content to the "visual arts" section on 12 December 2023. It is about Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas recreating the face of the Virgin of Guadalupe with Artificial Intelligence tools. The content got reverted as WP:Undue. There is or used to be a rule about significance not being symmetrical. Just because going to a Britney Spears' concert was the most important event in Joe Smith's life does not mean that it should be mentioned in the article on Britney Spears. I do not know whether there is an article on Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas, but if there were, then the content belongs there.

If were to be mentioned in the article on Our Lady of Guadalupe, it would mentioned AFTER the existing content in the "visual arts" section - unless of course you think that this new content is vastly more important than the existing content in that section - but if that were the case, one might wonder why there was not a stand-alone article on Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas's version of the face of the Virgin of Guadalupe which he generated with Artificial Intelligence tools. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Toddy1, hope everything is well. I was the one who originally added said content. Afterwards it was taken downin good faith by another user. We exchanged ideas on his Talk page about why I originally believed to have this added. And he eloquently expressed his concerns. Since it got taken down, I haven’t touched it or even attempted to add a different version. You bring some interesting points, especially that the information should have been added after the one that was already there — which I agree. I also agree any information shouldn’t outweigh the actual article (i.e. the Virgin of Guadalupe proper). What I don’t agree with you is the comparison of a John Doe going to a Britney Spears concert. The image and the story has being reported by media here and there since 2021 in Mexican, Latin American, and some European media. Granted the artist or even the image is not a household name (I actually knew about him through a Facebook Catholic group where the diocese showed an ad using this same image and hence started searching for him in media), but the same (going by your example) could be said about the American artists mentioned there (from the perspective of a Mexican or Latin American). What the other user explained to me is that they were mentioned in Academic papers, or let time pass. So I wanted to add balance, by showing what other artists outside the US are doing with the Virgin of Guadalupe. I originally added this information because it was under the section of Visual Arts. I didn’t add it in any area affecting the description, history, and other information about the Virgin of Guadalupe proper. Again, this is under the section of the artistic portrayals. And this portrayal has made an impact at least media-wise and among the Catholic and non-Catholic community in Latin America. Would that fall as part of the Virgin of Guadalupe’s popular culture art impact? I believed so, and that’s why I added it. I am still learning about how Wikipedia works, and this amicable discussion let me learn more. This is my reasoning, and I hope I didn’t create that much of a problem or wiki-storm. Also, please check the Talk discussion, if possible, where me and the other user exchange interesting points. I hope you have a great day (or night). Thanks in advance! TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 07:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Explanation on why I added Virgin of Guadalupe recreation by Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas again♦

This is an explanation of why I added, for a second time, the information in the Visual Arts section of Our Lady of Guadalupe related to the recreation made by artist Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas.

I added the information taking into account suggestions made by wiki users. For instance, the paragraph is smaller (even smaller than it already was) as to not take precedence over the article proper. I added the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe in a small scale. The information was added after the paragraph that was already there. And sources, yes, more sources.

Now questions and answers about what the edit I added:

One user said that this information shouldn't be here because news of it broke just this year. No. News of this image broke since 2021. And follow-up news have broke ever since, reported by multiple news outlets in Mexico, Latin America and some in Europe. Granted, in the US it wasn't that much reporting, and perhaps this is a reason why this information was looked down. Especially since only American artists are mentioned in the section.

A user said this was trivia, and it was the same as reporting on Wikipedia on a fan of Britney Spears going to a concert. The image was reported by a myriad of news outlets in Mexico and the Spanish-speaking region. It was reported by official Catholic news outlets.

The artist in question hasn't been mentioned in journals. False. It was reported in an MIT journal. The artist's work (not related to the Virgin) has also been mentioned in other journals.

The section is about Visual Arts pertaining to the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe, and it is about enhancing the article as a whole. But mentioning only American artists or only 1 artistic movement can be biased, and it sure is when there is a plethora of art related to the Virgin of Guadalupe. Indeed, one can not mention every single artwork related to the Virgin of Guadalupe but those noteworthy. Because we would fall into what that wiki user mentioned of mentioning "trivia". That I understand. That is why I put a lot of sources. But realistically I can not put sources on every single word, but hey I almost did that.

One of the reasons I started editing in Wikipedia was the great misinformation put in my hometown's wiki page by many English-speaking wiki users. And one constant I often hear, especially by American wiki users, is the "since I haven't heard about it, it sure isn't true" matter-of-fact mentality. Which, ironically, is the contrary to what Wikipedia stands for. Especially because we have the ability to not only prove through sourcing but also via these amazing communication channels. And perhaps this is why Wikipedia has stood the test of the passing of time. Because we deal with facts in an encyclopedic way.

Something tells me -- given the explanation above -- that my edit on the Visual Arts will be challenged. And hopefully it would be on good basis not on faux good-faith. And hopefully after this explanation, I would avoid any wiki-edit wars and wiki-storms. But again, the topic in itself is controversial, and thus I understand. TepeyacPilgrim (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

With attentiveness to systemic bias, the existingcoverage here really doesn't seem to merit inclusion on this article. There are some very notable depictions of Jesus, Mary (including under various titles), and other Christian figures that lack mention in their subject's article. This is by design: [WP:NOT|Wikipedia isn't just a collection of facts]], but rather an encyclopedia. If a printed academic encyclopedia devoted to Marian titles wouldn't include mention of something, neither should Wikipedia (with some exceptions). I also worry that there is an element of promotion involved here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)