Talk:Huei tlamahuiçoltica

Untitled

Welcome to add, amend, correct, and delete as necessary to create a good article. I only ask that if you delete something, save it on the talk page for the benefit of the community. Gracias, Rockero 02:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I have discussed the possibility of a merger on my userpage and in discussions with other editors, but I have never gotten around to actually placing merger tags on the articles. I favor a merger, as long as all the information is retained and redirects are made. The problem, of course, is that while the Huei tlamahuiçoltica is the actual name of the work, many scholars, priests, wikipedia articles, etc. refer primarily (if not only) to the Nican mopohua. So many redirects will have to be bypassed or many articles will have to be edited if the proposed merger is enacted.--Rockero 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Title

The title at the top of the illustration reads Nican mopohua, motecpana inquenin yancuican huei tlamahuiçoltica monexiti inçenquizca ichpochtli Sancta Maria Dios ynantzin toçihuapillatocatzin, in oncan tepeyacac motenehua Guadalupe. If this is the title of the book, it should be given in the article (with its translation). It is, um, strange to have an article about a book that gives only a piece of its title (and not a very informative one, at that)... Jorge Stolfi 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The "illustration" is not the title page, but you are correct, the article's title is abridged from the actual title. I've been meaning to add an image of the actual title page, too, which is much more attractive. So I'll see what I can do.--Rockero 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO, it would be better to remove the elipsis from the article name since it is commonly refered like that anyway. The elipsis just make the title look akward and don't quite follow MoS guidelines, if memory serves me well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the policy is, but you may be right about the ellipsis being unnecessary to indicate the abberviation of the title. Compare A Modest Proposal.--Rockero 19:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed english translation

I've reverted this recent insertion in the article of an english translation of the document. Wikipedia is not the place for reproducing the full texts of documents, it should instead be put at en.Wikisource and the {{wikisource}} template used to link to it from here.

The source of the inserted translation was not identified, as far as I could see- this would need to be done before reproducing it at wikisource, since although the original text of the document may be in the Public Domain, any translation of it is quite possibly copyrighted. Unless the translation was published quite some time ago, it most likely is still under copyright, and in which case we'd be unable to republish it at wikisource or elsewhere.

The source of the translation also needs to be identified for verifiability purposes. It could conceivably be someone's own translation not published elsewhere, in which case there'd be problems under WP:NOR.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifications

Two quotes which I don't understand:

• "These facts, including the Montufar-Bustamante debate of 1556, and all arguments debated since have been thoroughly studied by de Guerrero Osio y Rivas."

What statement is this meant to support? By itself, that the scholar has studied the material, leads to no conclusions and imparts no information.

• "Together with many other writings in Nahuatl (all thoroughly studied by experts) make a formidable verification, especially when they are considered together with many codices and writings in Nahuatl using Latin letters and drawings."

I don't get this at all... verification of what?

The points mention study, consideration, verification... but in support of what position or statement? I want to make sure I understand what these sentences are trying to impart. Cleduc 06:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You have to learn to read in context. There is only one debate, its lenghth and duration refer to a single question, Cleduc: Is it historical and real, or is it only a myth? Once you get the point, and to the fact that my interventions are just beginning on this subject, you'll begin to realize why I claim you are vandalizing. Not having any knowledge on this subject is the main reason to stay out!Luisosio 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The context is not clear: it is not evident what debate the quotes refer to, nor what question they answer. If you cannot clarify these statements, and provide a verifiable source for them, they will be removed. Cleduc 19:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And please, Cleduc, you have repeated the same reference with number 1 seven times for a single paragraph! Check the rules, one mention is all that's needed for the whole paragraph: the last one! Thank you.Luisosio 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-work rabbis

I don't claim to understand the point that this statement is trying to make, but the bit about the crumbling sects, putting the rabbis out of work, and the disappearance of Judaism is pretty fantastic nonetheless. There is no source cited. Cleduc 06:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC) What is common knowledge, Cleduc, by definition doesn't require mentioning a source. It's part of general culture. And it's also in the rules!Luisosio 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)It's obvious to all that if both images (The Holy Shroud and Guadalupe) are due to divine intervention, both being Catholic Images, both defying conventional science, then Judaism has been wrong for close to 2000 years: rabbis will be baptized on the strenghth of science alone!??? It's not a matter of guessing, just of adjusting attitudes to reality as we all agree to Monotheism.
Luisosio 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You must back up these highly inflammatory statements with verifiable sources, or they will be removed. The article must provide a neutral point of view; it may include these views, but to do so they must cite a verifiable source and not be original research. Repeating these assertions here on the talk page doesn't help. Cleduc 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how did you manage to erase the long discussion in which you lost. I can't find it anywhere!Luisosio 17:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not deleted any discussion. Read your talk page. Cleduc 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Highly inflamatory? Read the Gospel! That's minimum general culture on the subject! When will you finally realize what this subject is all about? I'm sorry, but if you don't get it, you still have a chance to tackle something you can grasp. In other words: Bibliography is the Gospel, and the two epistles of St. John; plus...plus... and being so widely known they normally are cited as to particulars only. What refers to the radical separation between Christianity and Judaism would lead to interminable quotations!. And you bet, they are what you call inflammatory; so are the Koran and the Talmud! Yet, all of them BELONG in an Encyclopedia! Get real! Being real, knowledgeable, is the first thing to separate a "meddlesome" character from "contributor"! Luisosio 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a global encyclopedia, with a global perspective. Wikipedia does not assume that the reader is conversant with the bible, nor do "we all agree to Monotheism". You can cite these opinions provided they have a verifiable source, but they cannot be original research, and should not be presented as fact: the form "x says y" is acceptable, but the form "y is true" is not acceptable. Cleduc 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I can only endorse the actions and comments of Cleduc, which are fairly in line with actual wikipedia policy, practice and intent.

I think that Cleduc and I have been around here editing on wikipedia long enough to understand the difference between "meddling" and "contributing", and to appreciate what passes muster here and what does not.

Luisosio, if you haven't already I suggest that you review and digest the cornerstone policies of Neutral Point of View, No Original Research and Verifiability (not to mention WP:CIVIL) that Cleduc directed you to above. These are straightforward, but non-negotiable policies here, and IMO a number of your recent edits here contravene one if not all three of these. As editors we should all be willing to work these additions out to a content and standard in compliance with the policies and guidelines here. Any persistence without acknowledging these policies is not going to fly.

Re the particular and problematic phrase "...rabbis would lose their jobs together with Judaism, and many sects would crumble", this remark along with its preceding passage really has zero relevance for this article. I suppose its meant to imply that folks don't want to admit to the authenticity of the apparation and documents because to do so would undermine their own tenets of belief. But that's hardly the basis by which these documents have been disputed, and as an unattributable opinion I don't see it has any business being in the article. Providing citations to Bible passages in no way substantiates this claim.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't get the idea correctly. It has to do with basic definitions, especially with neutrality. A debate demands first rate knowledge on the participants. In a football match, the minimal requirements are: everybody knowing which teams play and with what uniforms: you never admit disinformation or participants without uniform entering the field. When a foul occurs, you have the right to shout foul! When open treason like Schulemburg to his cause takes place, you must state the fact, or you take Schulemburg out of the picture! That is neutrality!
Let me give you the most recent example of your editorial bias: To present a NEUTRAL point of view after Sanchez Camacho was placed in Wiki, it would have been absurd for me to take Sanchez Camacho out of the picture by erasing his claim; thus I presented a fact: Dr. Agustín de la Rosa refuted him on every point and published. No further comments were made, or could have been made by Sánchez Camacho. What did Katsam do? She just went in and vandalized everything I stated to keep NEUTRALITY; she did this by erasing all I wrote on de la Rosa! but kept Sánchez Camacho refuted intervention. What sort of neutrality is that? That's vandalism! Take the second one: She kept Schulemburg's derogative comments, and erased my comments as to the credibility he lost by them thus misinforming Wiki readers on the true nature of Schulemburg's comments. It's obvious that either Schulemburg's comments must be taken out, or his treason must be stated in the same paragraph IF you take neutrality seriously! What's more: an encyclopedia's worth is recognized by its verity, to which neutrality is ordered; not by its neutrality 'per se' disregarding verity itself. Evidence is paramount because verity itself has it for its norm, otherwise, instead of an Encyclopedia you'll be drifting to yellow press publishing.

Where does this lead: 1) I present long-standing encyclopedic evidence here: http://g-infrared.blogspot.com because a sacred image can never be altered freely as Wiki demands, so it can not be up-lifted. 2) Type of evidence: Fitting the supreme standard demanded by museums worldwide to check every detail, in order to determine the slightest falsehood. 3) When someone can be as shameless as Schulemburg risking jail for fraud and gets away with it until now (he made a fortune on people's beliefs, and then entered into a field already discredited to give it new life based only on his position in the Basilica; betraying the money’s source), you can bet he's not alone! Writers you've been taking seriously are in cahoots with him as both, scientific and historical evidence is common ground! Where does that leave Wiki's quest for truth?

It should be obvious to you by now that powerful interests have been active for 213 years (1794 - 2007) fighting historical evidence, endeavoring against the physical evidence of the image's perfection; its brushless technique, and the fact that to perform it with brushes it would have required the unprecedented mastery of four different painting techniques; Such mastery has no historical precedent! And there's also the infra-red. It's no wonder that from the certain date of 1531 to 1794 a total of 263 years the apparition —a fundamentally religious event— was an uncontested issue.

What's more, instead of fact being contested, the apparition of 12 December 1531 provoked arson against the Holy Shroud of Turin on December 4th 1532; less than a year later from a well identified religious sect. Two images were attesting to a single fact! I'm writing a book about it.

This will give you an idea of the fundamental religious context of this whole issue, and the reason that pretending to tackle it in any other context would be misleading. Now you have a better idea of the complexity involved. As to your responsibility as editors, think, where will you leave Wikipedia's quest for truth and truth itself?Luisosio 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry about de la Rosa, I didn't mean to delete him entirely. Here's what happened: de la Rosa contested Camacho's opinion, right? But the information about Camacho was never in the main body of the Our Lady article: it was always in a footnote. (Anything written inside tags reading "ref" is only visible in the footnotes.) So the information about de la Rosa belonged in the footnote, also -- otherwise it wouldn't make sense. I meant to move it to the footnote, but in the midst of doing other copyediting I deleted it entirely. Now it has been replaced. Katsam 00:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Katsam, now I'll add the reference. You can find Dr. de la Rosa's published text reprinted in "Testimonios Históricos Guadalupanos". However, please note it's a lot better to consult before using scissors on text. For example: proclaim is an English word, very different and the appropriate one! The translation "The Drummer's Claim" happens to be totally of mark, and absurd, as it has nothing to do with heraldry. Also, the Schulemburg Case is much too important to neutrality and objectivity. The man could be prosecuted for fraud, if he ever is; Wiki's not to be smeared. I suggest you present the whole truth or take him out entirely. As you can see from my answer, instead of taking your corrections in my hands, I'm presenting my reasons that you may act upon them. Quite different, isn’t it? BestLuisosio 03:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to you on the Our Lady talk page, since this isn't really the place for the discussion. Katsam 18:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced speculation on the collapse of Judaism and replaced with the verifiable fact: thate there are people who claim that any opposition to the supernatural origin of the artifact comes from competing religions. Cleduc 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: although that fact may be true, there is no source for it. The only verifiable source that was provided did not pertain to the subject matter (it referred to the Shroud of Turin) so I removed it altogether. Cleduc 23:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"expert claims"

I would like to comment on the claims made by User:Luisosio that he is an expert in Guadalupan studies (eg such remarks as "My being an authority on the matter is not doubtful"). I think it is relevant to do so, particularly given that Luisosio has added opinions and commentary in this article which seem to be attributable only to himself. There is even at the moment one specific citation to Luis de Guerrero-Osio y Rivas (aka User:Luisosio) in the article to back up some particular claim. There is an issue here in being able to distinguish between (disallowable) Original Research and (acceptable) verifiable and reliable sources, that bears investigating.

Another consideration is the attitude expressed in some of Luisosio's comments to fellow editors, such as "Not having any knowledge on this subject is the main reason to stay out!" and "ARE YOU JUST A BARRIER TO PERTINENT INFORMATION?". I think, in effect, that we are being asked to accept Luisosio's 'expertise' on the matter at face value, not to question his authority and judgement, and as persons presumed to be 'without knowledge' to just step back and allow Luisosio to get on with the job of illuminating the article with his unarguable propositions.

But this is not how wikipedia works. There is no minimum qualification for contributing here, and each edit is assessed on its own merits regardless of the real or imagined expert standing of the contributor. Likewise, even if a contributor does have bona fide claims to be a recognised expert in some particular field, they are still subject to the same requirements for neutrality, verifiability and reliability of sources as anyone else, and contributions may be scrutinised and validly challenged where they fail to meet these requirements.

For all I know, Luisosio has read more than anybody alive on Guadalupan materials. FWIW I do not doubt that Luisosio is very familiar with, even devoted to, manuscripts and matters Guadalupan. But this does not automatically qualify him as a recognised expert on it, or an expert in terms of one who is citable and sufficiently notable to be used as a source of information and opinion for constructing this article. While Luisosio confidently dismisses the likes of David Brading (a Professor at Cambridge, writing in his field of specialty, Mexican history) as "un-expert", we do not have anything to go by other than his own assertions made here that Luisosio is a recognised authority in the field. I searched for, but was unable to find, any evidence of independent testimony to Sr. Guerrero-Osio y Rivas' status as an authority, or any citations to his work or contributions. Possibly I missed it; would be happy to correct the record if any are presented for examination.

Luisosio also says he's written a book on the subject, No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo (1999), which is used as at least one citation in this article. However I have not been able to find any reference to a publication under this name outside of Luisosio's own mention of it, both here on wikipedia and on several blogs he (as Luis Guerrero-Osio y Rivas) maintains. Title, authorship or even general searches in at WorldCat & other comprehensive publication indices turn a blank. I don't doubt that such a book was written, but as it seems to be for all intents and purposes undetectable its usefulness as a verifiable source is highly questionable. Was the book self-published? If not, who published it, where is it distributed, is it still in print, does it have an ISBN, can you provide any sources or publications or reports that have cited, reviewed, or even criticised it? These are the kinds of indicators needed to establish whether it has potential use as a verifiable source.

Actually, the most explicit reference to this book that I was able to find comes (again in Sr. Guerrero-Osio's own words) from a petition for political judgement or denuncia lodged by Sr. Guerrero-Osio to the Mexican govt. This particular petition (one of several he has been pursuing since 1998, it seems) appears in the Parliamentary Gazette of the Mexican govt's Chamber of Deputies' LVIII legislature (link is here, #575, published 22 Aug 2000. One of the two denuncias listed here is his complaint against the Secretary of the Interior at the time, Diódoro Carrasco, alleging "genocide and treason". In the text of this complaint, after the section apparently endorsing Holocaust denialism and sandwiched among allusions to a Zionist conspiracy of sorts, Guerrero-Osio reproduces under the heading "LA BASURA EXPULSA LA CULTURA" as evidence a fax he'd sent the President. In this he mentions his book No se puede tapar... and that he'd apparently attempted to have almost 3000 copies of it distributed for sale among the newsstands in Mexico City (operated by the Unión de Voceadores). However only less than 5% were sold, something (if I'm interpreting it correctly) he attributes to some deliberate suppression or concealment by the govt. This petition and the several others that had been lodged are later dismissed as "notoriously inadmissable and untenable", but nothing specific said about the fate of the books, and a 2002 article in La Jornada mentions no evidence was provided in support of the claims.

If the above is correct, then a 3000 copy print run of a (self-published?) book, offered for sale at newsstands in Mexico City but which the author says sold only about 150 copies or less, is not really in the ballpark for consideration as a citable reference, IMO.

All of this is not to say that Luisosio is not welcome to or should not be contributing here. My point is, that on the face of the available evidence those contributions should not be citing his own work or opinion, as it would seem to constitute unverifiable original research. And I don't think we should take heed of any self-proclaimed authorative status to these contributions, which ought to be treated just like any other. Diversity of opinion is fine, but any opinions expressed in the article as to the veracity or otherwise of the Guadalupan events and documents must be appropriately attributed. It should be possible to treat what is after all a belief sincerely held by many with some sensitivity, without however crossing the line into uncritical endorsement and partisan censorship intended to neuter notable scepticism. My 2c, leastways. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

To justify my expert claims ON THE DEBATE which still rages in this very same comments, the book I published refers precisely to THE DEBATE; so you get the idea, bibliography on the debate, being scarce, has left my book uncontested. You yourself recognize this as you can't mention a single refutation.

Secondly, as the editor you are, I quote you from above: ""ARE YOU JUST A BARRIER TO PERTINENT INFORMATION?"]. I think, in effect, that we are being asked to accept Luisosio's 'expertise' on the matter at face value," you should have checked the reason for my capitol lettered rebuke. It was due to Cleduc taking out pertinent evidence on the matter, no less than http://g-infrared.blogspot.com ; and that, after many unjustified interventions where civility would have led to proposing changes before making them! I challenge you to prove me guilty of similar conduct, as you will have to admit most of what I've written still stands as important contributions to an otherwise totally biased original page.

Thirdly, the last 25 lines above are proof enough of your activities as an editor, Katsam certainly has your approval to vandalize.

Fourthly, I thank you for investigating me, and for contributing to my denunciations of my government. If you had the guts to do this with your own government equally needed of correction, you'd have a better U.S.A. And don't be mislead by my not having been successful in putting my government's top officials in jail. You wouldn't have achieved it either, but from a civic standpoint it has been a total success: Well grounded in law, NOT A SINGLE LINE WAS EVER DISPROVED BY ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE BY MY GOVERNMENT!

Why don't you try something like it, and then come back and argue on that point.Luisosio 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not an American, and have never lived there. I live in Australia. Cleduc lives in Canada. Don't know about Katsam, but it's not really relevant what nationality any of us are.

As far as I have been able to ascertain, every one of the denunciations you lodged against various govt officials came to naught, and were dismissed. I'm no expert in the Mexican system, but it would seem as the complainant it was rather up to you to provide evidence for your allegations, which I think the text (in Spanish legalese) of the published resolutions (not in your favour) mentions as one of the reasons the vexatious complaints were turned down.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

And please, don't mislead everyone. Your comment above, referring to an article in La Jornada DOES NOT REFER either to my book, or to the Virgin of Guadalupe, or to Huei (please correct this); it refers to a group of diputados charged by law to examine my request to jail the then Governor of Mexico City stating that I had not given evidence to prove my case against her. An idiotic comment to close the case in a single instance procedure! Worse, since all the necessary evidence for the case was public and had appeared in the headlines.Luisosio 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well,CJLL Wright; you're not correcting that misleading reference to La Jornada. Any Spanish speaker will realize immediately your intent to confuse the only issue relevant to these talks with my denunciation of Rosario Robles which is not an issue in these discussions; but most don't speak a word of Spanish and will take your misleading reference quite seriously. I think you owe it to THEM!Luisosio 03:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Patience, Luisosio, if you please. I am not online 24hrs a day, and do not even edit here every day. As it happens, this weekend I am rather busy with a number of engagements, and so do not at present have the time to put together any detailed response. Rest assured, I will do so as soon as time permits, it may be in a couple of days. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do read Spanish, and yes, I found the parallels striking: the same pattern of questionable sources given undue weight, baseless accusations, and abuse of process by Luisosio that have characterized both his contributions here on Wikipedia and his official complaints. Thank you for bringing it to light. Cleduc 07:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Since I do now have some more time to spare before going out this evening, I'll endeavour to respond to the challenge to 'set the record straight' on the La Jornada article I had mentioned and linked to earlier. I am not quite sure in what way you (Luisosio) think I am being misleading (or is it the article itself you think is misleading?)

Either way, that article seems to be rather straightforward reportage on the outcomes of various denuncias against public officials (not all of them lodged by you). Of the two of yours that are mentioned in that article, the allegation against Rosario Robles I did not make any reference to, as your complaint against this official (their support of abortion in cases endangering the woman's health, if I recall) was not relevant here.

What was relevant was the denunciation lodged against Carrasco which did in fact mention your book, both in your original complaint and in the La Jornada report which noted these complaints' dismissals. The relevant extract from the La Jornada article I reproduce here:

"En el mismo caso se declaró improcedente la denuncia de juicio político contra Diódoro Carrasco Altamirano, quien fungiera como secretario de Gobernación, a quien Luis de Guerrero Osio y Rivas acusó de traición a la patria y genocidio, porque "según el denunciante, quien afirma haber entregado 3 mil libros de su autoría a la Unión de Voceadores para su exhibición, únicamente se mostró 5 por ciento, de los cuales el señor Guerrero deduce que el denunciado ordenó la reducción de la divulgación de dichos libros, y el denunciante no presentó prueba alguna de sus afirmaciones".

Por tal hecho, la subcomisión declaró improcedente la denuncia porque de los antecedentes y pruebas remitidas no se desprende conducta alguna que permita exigir responsabilidad a Diódoro Carrasco."

Since you are quite proficient in written english, perhaps you might care to offer a translation of this passage, and editors with some proficiency in spanish can likewise affirm or counter the translation. Here is my paraphrase translation:

"In the same case (or manner) the denouncement(complaint) against Diódoro Carrasco Altamirano the then Secretary of the Interior, who Luis de Guerrero Osio y Rivas had accused of treason against the mother country and genocide, was declared inadmissable/inappropriate. [The accusation was leveled] because "according to the complainant, who claimed he had delivered 3000 copies of a book he had authored to the Unión de Voceadores for display/sale [on their newsstands], and that they only displayed/sold? 5% [of these books]. From this Sr Guerrero deduced that the accused [Sr. Carrasco] had ordered this reduction in the display of the said books. The complainant [Sr. Guerrero-Osio] did not present any evidence in support of his assertions." By that, the subcommission declared the complaint inadmissable/improper because the background and [lack of] evidence presented did not show any existence of responsibility on the part of Sr. Carrasco."

Parenthetically, it's not clear to me where "treason and genocide" comes into it, but I guess it's not important for our purposes (discussing this article and how it may be improved) to go much further into the basis of your dispute with the govt.

The only point in bringing this up has been part of an attempt to establish whether or not your claimed book is a verifiable source that can be used here on wikipedia. I think it is unreasonable to demand that we show some evidence that your book has been refuted, when it appears that your book has hardly been read at all, by anyone. A book that is so undetectable that no references to it show up anywhere, other than where you yourself are talking about it, does not in my mind come anywhere near reasonable criteria for being a valid source-- which per wikipedia policy must needs be independently verifiable.

That's all I have time for at the moment. Hopefully we can return to discuss ways to improve the balance and standing of the article itself.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple, but first of all an apology: I didn't read the whole article which does begin with a different case, my denunciation of the Head of the City Government (Rosario Robles) for pretending to legalize abortion at that time (2000); however, this case proves as to the way all cases have been handled as all facts were common public knowledge, it was absurd to pretend then, as in all cases, that public policy and legislative proposals required proof of being real, or as if applicable law required an undercover agent to prove it's secret recipe! What had to be analyzed and refuted was the applicability of article 149-Bis of the Federal Penal Code, had they a chance they would at least have given —as was their duty— a reason as to why it could not be applied to this particular case. Of course they didn't. The article is still there and is applicable. Where would you be had you been aborted? Would you call it homicide or can we proceed to take less from your life-times and get away with it? This is the reason I remain unchallenged! Not a big secret, specially when you realize governments exist to protect their citizens rights, the first of which is life, and the absurdity of tolerating the death penalty on the only —so innocent beyond doubt— you could bring no charges against them unless you consider human life a crime by itself! In the case of my books it's even more convenient for this talk. You don't challenge the president of Mexico publicly without proof, and then proceed to bring charges publicly against him and his Minister of the Interior without proof. Our Constitution establishes clearly you can at your own risk (resposibility). The proof's there, as book merchants want money for their wares, and not their wares to keep! It was notorious that the books weren't exhibited to the public except in such a small percentage that I didn't even worry to spend more money on proving its daylight under the sun. What's the benefit for this talk? Very simple, had the book been doubtful in content, it would have been immediately denounced as such! As simple as saying "It wasn't exhibited because it's worthless!" Of course nobody even thought of it! So, it helps my assertion as to the worth of my book's content. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisosio (talk • contribs)

"Inexplicable image"

I've removed the paragraph about the image; it has nothing to do with the Huei tlamahuiçoltica, which is what this article is about. I found a better place for it on Our Lady of Guadalupe. Cleduc 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you touch on Huei's validity, you touch on the validity of the apparitions for Huei has no meaning outside of them. Evidence is evidence.Luisosio 22:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits and reverts

There have been multiple reverts recently of edits by Luisosio and other users. The most recent version has several problems.

• In the first section, there is an unsourced assertion that scholars who do not support a divine origin are "ignorant" of a infrared photograph. This is pure opinion and cannot be proven, unless a reliable source states that those authors profess such ignorance (unlikely), or that the authors died before it was published (demonstrably untrue).
• The second section added ("Brading's quip") cites Valeriano, but does not make clear what Valeriano says and what statements are being made with what I suspect is improper synthesis; it is unlikely that De La Torre (1982) refutes that specific quote from Brading (2002). Furthermore, the style of this paragraph is persuasive ("?" "!") and not encyclopedic.

These edits are not encyclopedic, do not cite reliable sources (at least not in any plausible way), and represent opinion rather than fact. Cleduc 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

These pages are not meant for misleading Wiki users Cleduc. You have have shown your intention of misleading our readers through childish arguments and the elimination of crucial evidence. All you have to do Cleduc, is to give us the reference (author, work, page) where they do mention this pìece of evidence. It couldn't be simpler Cleduc, or could it? How about they themselves as the reliable source of their ignorance for not mentioning it? Or your own ignorance --real or pretended-- on infrared as scientific proof?

Secondly: You state that a paragraph "is persuasive" and thus you're right to eliminate it; do you mean to tell us Brading's sarcasm --which you endorse and thus keep-- carries no persuasion of the type that fits your whims? The paragraph you pretend to eliminate is essential to establish Brading's ignorance on his main subject's essential functions: Valeriano was the authority in charge of officially producing this type of documents! For such was Valeriano's role! (De la Torre)

Thus, you are additionally twice misleading our readers: first, by endorsing Brading's sarcasm as to holding a grain of truth; and secondly, by eliminating this paragraph you intentionally deprive our readers from fully evaluating a fundamental piece of documentary evidence versus Brading's published work!

In other words, you are now exposed as an enemy of the enlightenment of our Wiki readers by your own words and actions; you have been continuously vandalizing evidence; scientific, documental and historical!Luisosio 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Once More

You still haven't answered Cleduc, not even the first paragraph! I repeat:

These pages are not meant for misleading Wiki users Cleduc. You have have shown your intention of misleading our readers through childish arguments and the elimination of crucial evidence. All you have to do Cleduc, is to give us the reference (author, work, page) where they do mention this pìece of evidence. It couldn't be simpler Cleduc, or could it? How about they themselves as the reliable source of their ignorance for not mentioning it? Or your own ignorance --real or pretended-- on infrared as scientific proof?

Secondly: You state that a paragraph "is persuasive" and thus you're right to eliminate it; do you mean to tell us Brading's sarcasm --which you endorse and thus keep-- carries no persuasion of the type that fits your whims? The paragraph you pretend to eliminate is essential to establish Brading's ignorance on his main subject's essential functions: Valeriano was the authority in charge of officially producing this type of documents! For such was Valeriano's role! (De la Torre)

Thus, you are additionally twice misleading our readers: first, by endorsing Brading's sarcasm as to holding a grain of truth; and secondly, by eliminating this paragraph you intentionally deprive our readers from fully evaluating a fundamental piece of documentary evidence versus Brading's published work!

In other words, you are now exposed as an enemy of the enlightenment of our Wiki readers by your own words and actions; you have been continuously vandalizing evidence; scientific, documental and historical!Luisosio 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep the sarcasm, erase the answer. You stand here arguing my book is thoroughly discredited! A book you haven't even read!

That is rather serious!

You speak of NPOV, by citing Brading an Poole who reject basic evidence?

You mock neutrality by the very authors you cite; doubly by backing their inept attacks on evidence, and even triple it by leaving their falsehood uncontested while eliminating irrefutable answers! And you expect us to believe you are not out to mislead our Wiki readers intentionally even with your hypocritical emphasis on Neutral Point of View? If neutrality is ever going to mean anything in these pages, you'd better begin with the sources!

My challenge stands!

Against you, Katsam and Wright!Luisosio 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this point by point in an attempt to clarify these very clear positions, since my previous responses apparently haven't sunk in. There are no new arguments here.

• When I said the paragraph was "persuasive" I was referring to the style, not the content. The words used did not state facts, but attempted to persuade. Note the use of a rhetorical question (ending in a question mark "?") and the use of an exclamation (ending in an exclamation point "!"). These are very straightforward identifiers of a sentence that attempts to persuade rather than simply inform. However, I deleted the paragraph on the basis of content: I could have fixed the paragraph's style, but the content was not salvageable because it was clearly original research.
• Clarification for other readers: I did not "pretend to eliminate" the paragraph; I deleted it. The English "pretend" does not mean the same thing as the Spanish verb "pretender", which can mean "to attempt".
• "a book you haven't even read" – As has been established, your alleged book cannot be considered a verifiable source. I would check out your alleged book if it were available, although I do not think that would make it qualify as a reliable source; perhaps if a scholar were to review and critique it, that would give it more weight. But of course they would have to see it to do so, which brings us back to WP:V.
• "leaving their falsehood uncontested while eliminating irrefutable answers" -- that's an interesting statement.
  • I don't know whether their statements are "false" and I don't care: what I do care is that their statements are verifiable.
  • Second, I find that any statement can be refuted with further evidence.

On Wikipedia we have a rule that requires verifiable sources for evidence. It's an easy rule to follow, and an easy rule to enforce.

Lastly, this is not a duel. All contributions will be held to WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and the continued personal attacks will not be tolerated. Cleduc 05:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Luisosio's conduct

An RFC has been entered on Luisosio's recent conduct. All interested parties are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Luisosio. Cleduc 02:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's your answer Cleduc

The evidence, Cleduc, is in these very same pages of Huei. No one will have to travel far to certify your attempts to mislead Wikipedia readers and impoverish its contents.

Right under Recent edits and reverts (above) you stated:

§ “In the first section, there is an unsourced assertion that scholars who do not support a divine origin are "ignorant" of a infrared photograph. This is pure opinion and cannot be proven, unless a reliable source states that those authors profess such ignorance (unlikely), or that the authors died before it was published (demonstrably untrue).

I now paste what CJLL Wright with Cleduc’s complicity cut off from the following paragraph:

Some contemporary scholars have written skeptical or critical texts about the origin of the image and the texts. Sousa, Poole and Lockhart concluded that Laso de la Vega's narrative was based on Sánchez's Image of the Virgin Mary..., and that the icon was most likely painted by human hands, possibly those of Marcos Cipac de Aquino, an Indian painter from the school of Fray Pedro de Gante.[6] These scholars, however, remain ignorant of the infrared photograph taken by Cataño for the Basilica in 1946. Yes, to call him shameless is an awesome euphemism. Where, to begin with, is the “unsourced assertion that «scholars who do not support a divine origin are ignorant of an infrared photograph»?” «Scholars who do not support a divine origin of an infrared photograph» could refer to hundreds of scholars, even with the possible exception of “Sousa, Poole and Lockhart”. You’ll have to ask them! In other words: Where do the words ‘divine origin’ appear in my brief sentence? AND where do they relate ‘divine origin’ to photography ―infrared or otherwise?

What they do refer to, is the fact that if the three above mentioned had known professionally of this photograph they would not have attributed an awesome image to a youngster called Marcos who never painted anything we know of, of similar quality, or even of much inferior quality! For there is nothing of similar quality in Mexican or European art! Furthermore, there has never been a famous painter by the name of Marcos ―least of all an Indian― in all Mexican history! A single question has been used to settle this comical issue: Where’s the second work of art Marcos painted? I hope someone will break this news tactfully to Souza, Poole and Lockheart.

The other thing it does refer to is obviously that if Sousa, Poole and Lockheart had known of this infrared and hid the information from their readers, they would be the most dishonest trio amongst American Scholars!

Now just think, where from the above can any one come to the startling conclusion that “this is pure opinion and cannot be proven?” And worse: “unless a reliable source states that those authors profess such ignorance (unlikely), or that the authors died before it was published (demonstrably untrue).” ???

Where has this left our Wikipedia readers? Totally misinformed on the issue, of course!

After being incessantly accused of incivility, to the extreme of having “An RFC has been entered on Luisosio's recent conduct”; you’ll have to agree with me that shamelessness will have to be redifined in Wikipedia’s pages to begin with; as shamelessness is something clearly surpassed on these pages by Cleduc, Katsam and Wright (who signed the infamous clipping).

I, after all, out of good manners didn’t clip out all the foolishness of Sousa, Poole and Lockheart. I duly balanced it with a phrase for the benefit of our readers.

Let’s go to another case, so said Cleduc: • “The second section added ("Brading's quip") cites Valeriano, but does not make clear what Valeriano says and what statements are being made with what I suspect is improper synthesis; it is unlikely that De La Torre (1982) refutes that specific quote from Brading (2002). Furthermore, the style of this paragraph is persuasive ("?" "!") and not encyclopedic. These edits (he refers to both) are not encyclopedic, do not cite reliable sources (at least not in any plausible way), and represent opinion rather than fact. Cleduc 04:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC) This was the ‘bone of contention’: Some contemporary scholars uphold the notion that Becerra Tanco, Florencia, and Sigüenza y Góngora endeavored to authenticate the events of the narrative by placing its original authorship in hands that were both native to Mexico and of greater antiquity than the mid-seventeenth century. Since Mexican petitioners to the Vatican for official recognition of the miracle relied on Sigüenza y Góngora's testimony that the story predated the publication of both the Nican mopohua and Image of the Virgin Mary, ecclesiastical writers have continued to cite Valeriano as its author.[8][9] The discovery in 1995 of the Escalada codex was trumpeted by Catholic historians and proponents of Juan Diego's canonization, but viewed suspiciously by mainstream historians and scholars of religion, who questioned its timing (just as Pope John Paul II was considering sainthood for Juan Diego), and its content (it bore the date 1548 and the names of Juan Diego, Valeriano, and an "authentic" signature of Bernardino de Sahagún, a find one critic likened to "finding a picture of St Paul's vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, drawn by St Luke and signed by St Peter."[9] To which I had added:

However, Brading's quip rather than leading to unbelief might be the confirmation of authenticity needed, as it brings to light the difference between St. Luke and St. Peter on one hand; and Valeriano and Sahagún on the other on a simple question: what reason could the first party of Luke and Peter have had to: first, draw the vision; and then, sign the drawing? None of course, absolutely none! What about Valeriano and Sahagún? Valeriano had very good and commonplace reasons: Valeriano was a Colonial authority dependent on the Viceroy. [12]He began as Governor of San Juan, and on proof of his great personal competence he was appointed as Governor to all Mexican Indians, a post he held for 35 years. So, in his official capacity he had the Official Seal of Authenticity on these matters. It would have been one of the most commonplace operations of his job. Valeriano was Sahagún most brilliant disciple, and lifelong associate; thus, as attaching two signatures is normally required by law as would pertain Valeriano's official functions, there is an adequate basis for admitting this particular codex as historical evidence.

These two paragraphs monumentally ridicule Cleduc’s following statements:

§ “The second section added ("Brading's quip") cites Valeriano, but does not make clear what Valeriano says and what statements are being made with what I suspect is improper synthesis;” ―When it should be obvious that Valeriano is not quoted for saying anything! But mentioning Valeriano for saying something in it, is certainly improper synthesis! § “it is unlikely that De La Torre (1982) refutes that specific quote from Brading (2002). As stated by De la Torre, Valeriano was the authority over all Mexican Indians, and it has always been supreme authority’s privilege to certify, personally or through employees official documents. So De la Torre needed no crystal ball to refute Brading for the same reason the Texas State Congress didn’t have to know the names of the culprits to be jailed, fined or hung following its laws for its laws to be real or make sense! What doesn’t make sense, is having Wright’s an authority over an encyclopedia, of all cases for Ripley! And Cleduc with Katsam also ignoring these essentials to minimum culture! § “Furthermore, the style of this paragraph is persuasive ("?" "!") and not encyclopedic.

Just join me for a brief tour of the paragraph they left standing:

“Some contemporary scholars uphold the notion that Becerra Tanco, Florencia, and Sigüenza y Góngora endeavored to authenticate the events of the narrative by placing its original authorship in hands that were both native to Mexico and of greater antiquity than the mid-seventeenth century.” A thing already discredited and disproved by the existence of a c. 1556 copy of the Nican Mopohua in New York, but here dishonestly emphasized! And then a lie and a calumny: “Since Mexican petitioners to the Vatican for official recognition of the miracle relied on Sigüenza y Góngora's testimony that the story predated the publication of both the Nican mopohua!!!!

“The discovery in 1995 of the Escalada codex was trumpeted by Catholic historians and proponents of Juan Diego's canonization, but viewed suspiciously by mainstream historians…” A paragraph that’s certainly unpersuasive? “was trumpeted by… but viewed suspiciously by mainstream historians…” Just monumental hypocrisy!

And I repeat: I, the supposed uncivilized deserver of an RFC respected Brading’s idiocy. I didn’t simply clip it out like Wright did to my illustrative and fully justified paragraph! And even left standing as a well behaved newcomer the monumental hypocrisies while these vandals kept cutting away everything at pleasure!

What have these hoaxes given our Wikipedia readers? At least we know who is responsible! It’s time to take action.Luisosio 07:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any new arguments here, just further original research. It is obvious you disagree with the research cited, but you must cite a verifiable source on the matter. You can't just make it up, or synthesize it out of multiple sources. That's called improper synthesis and is against official policy. Cleduc 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Codex Escalada

I am currently involved in a cooperative re-write (via Talk) of the article Codex Escalada. I am mystified as to the appearance here of the paragraph discussing that document (issue, relevance), especially because of the offensive use of terms ("trumpeted") and the prejudicial quotation of Brading (which is not in itself a contribution to scholarly discussion of the evidence). The whole paragraph can be construed as inflammatory and fails to give a neutral overview of the topic it introduces.Ridiculus mus (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now deleted the passage in question. For archival purposes, I copy it here:-

The discovery in 1995 of the codex Escalada was trumpeted by Catholic historians and proponents of Juan Diego's canonization, but viewed suspiciously by mainstream historians and scholars of religion, who questioned its timing (just as Pope John Paul II was considering sainthood for Juan Diego), and its content (it bore the date 1548 and the names of Juan Diego, Valeriano, and an "authentic" signature of Bernardino de Sahagún, a find one critic likened to "finding a picture of St Paul's vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, drawn by St Luke and signed by St Peter." - Quotation is from Brading (2001, p.345)

quote of deleted passage ends. Ridiculus mus (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent and incorrect references to scholarly views on authorship

While it is true that "ecclesiastical writers have continued to cite Valeriano as its author", the context appears to be an attempt to imply that Becerra Tanco, Florencia, and Sigüenza y Góngora were all consciously constructing a false trail leading authorship of the HT back into the 16th century. This may or no may not be the case (and perhaps I am over-reacting), but it is mere speculation and no sources are offered in support of the claim that this is the view of "Some" - or, indeed, any - "contemporary scholars". However, so far as concerns the tie-in to the canonization of Juan Diego, it is only the the authorship of the Nican Mopohua which is relevant. The implication that only "ecclesiastical writers" support (a) a 16th c. date for the Nican Mopohua and (b) Valeriano's authorship, is contradicted by the observations in the lede to the section "Nican Mopohua" where we find this:- "It is probable that the Nahuatl manuscript used by Lasso was the original by Valeriano which is actually in the New York Public Library. Most authorities agree on this and on the dating of when it was written: c. 1556, even O'Gorman." Miguel Léon-Portilla as well as O'Gorman are two prominent non-ecclesiastical Mexican scholars who accept (a) and (b). In general, this final paragraph seems dubious on several counts and I archive it here pending its deletion.Ridiculus mus (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here follows the dubious passage:-

Some contemporary scholars uphold the notion that Becerra Tanco, Florencia, and Sigüenza y Góngora endeavored to authenticate the events of the narrative by placing its original authorship in hands that were both native to Mexico and of greater antiquity than the mid-seventeenth century. Since Mexican petitioners to the Vatican for official recognition of the miracle relied on Sigüenza y Góngora's testimony that the story predated the publication of both the Nican mopohua and Image of the Virgin Mary, ecclesiastical writers have continued to cite Valeriano as its author. [notes and references are to 2 "ecclesiastical" sources: http://www.ewtn.com/jp99/Guadalupe.htm and http://www.sancta.org/nican.html]

quote ends.Ridiculus mus (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The text ("Publication and authorship") currently states this:- "The responsibility for the composition and authorship of the Huei tlamahuiçoltica is assigned by a majority of contemporary Nahuatl scholars and historians to Licenciado Luis Laso de la Vega, vicar of the sanctuary of Tepeyac." and the cited source is Sousa et al (pp. 42-47).

The citation in no way bears out the text. In the first place, Sousa, Poole and Lockhart are presenting their own opinion and they do not pray in aid or cite any other scholars; in the second place Sousa et al. summarize the results of their philological investigations (which, on p. 4, they characterize as "provisional") by saying " . . we have seen here several different reasons to believe that Laso de la Vega was strongly, directly involved in the writing" (p.44); and "The evidence, then, is not conclusive. The texts are surely compatible with the hypothesis of two writers, one doubtless Laso de la Vega and the other an indigenous aide. (p.46); and "We are prepared to assert that by all indications Laso de la Vega took a large part in the composition of the Nahuatl texts in all sections of the work . . (p.47)

The text here is incorrect as it stands and needs to be conformed to the cited source. Ridiculus mus (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ridiculus mus (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This, the last sentence under "Publication and Authorship" is highly disputable:-

Since Mexican petitioners to the Vatican for official recognition of the miracle relied on Sigüenza y Góngora's testimony that the story predated the publication of both the Nican mopohua and Image of the Virgin Mary, ecclesiastical writers have continued to cite Valeriano as its author.[17]

The cited ref is a hagiographical website which simply asserts Valeriano's authorship. It is pure editorialising to ascribe to "ecclesiastical writers" any motive whatever, unless there is support for it. The implication that the canonisation process hung on Valeriano's authorship of the Nican mopohua is false. As it happens, the verdict of Mexican non-ecclesiastical writers is also in favour of Valeriano, so the point the article is trying to make here is of no significance. Unless anyone cares to defend it, I propose deleting the sentence. Ridiculus mus (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)