Talk:Mystical City of God

=Article Source=

Untitled
This entire entry is a copy of the article at the following pages:
 * 1) http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Jun/jun10tim.htm
 * 2) http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Jun/jun17tim.htm
 * 3) http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Jun/jun24tim.htm

While that source permits copying, it does say that it must be attributed and no changes may be made. So this entry violates that restriction by being a near-copy, but doesn't make enough changes to both avoid such problem and to render the tone of the article encyclopedic. I think the page needs to be rewritten to address these issues. LizardJr8 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: Re. to LizardJr8

First, the third mentioned URL is not included in this entry. Also, please read again the disclaimer in the Daily Catholic website, I believe that the article can be revised "without taking anything out of context." The article was revised again to render the tone encyclopedic. Also, the article mentioned in the "Sources" Tim Duff of Daily Catholic who has written the original articles and also the main menu in Daily Catholic where it is to be found. Better e-mail him to find out what he thinks.
 * Sorry about that. Totally my bad. ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 10:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the article - The research section
-Having not defined the characteristics and basics about the literary work it is impossible for the unaware reader to get the point in starting with a research on the aforementioned book. -The research part should be placed at the Middle of the article like I had tried to when the literary work has been at least introduced. I'd do should you agree.

-Also bear in mind that articles in wikipedia shouldn't sound like a personal reflection or eassy, a tag has been placed.

-There should be more than one source for the article and the results of the research cover a good extension of it. If it has been determined the book is good to read, the article shouldn't sound like a point being tried to be made, but as a statement.

190.28.190.94 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

What an absolute utter mess!
I started this article, but had not looked at it for a while. It has turned into a garbage dump with copyvio bold text all over, random edits, etc. Needs to be reduced by 90%. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is clear the article was just a copy of a third party Internet article on the book, however, its current size does not make justice to the relevance of the book and all the theological discussions it has started (Bear in mind the book stated as divine revelations facts that were not totally accepted by the time of its original publication (many of them were later proclaimed as Dogma of Faith)). Also The book itself is central part in the process of beatification (or even canonization) of the Author (Although the process several centuries old and doesn't seem to be moving).
 * For those of us who have read the book (and specially in Spanish) it is very important to give the recognizance it deserves (Also from the literature point of view as it is regarded as one of the finest examples of usage of the Spanish Language on a written form because of its style, prose and grammar)
 * Of course it means to put together a variety of sources but that's what it takes to write any article. I'm going to add an expand tag. 41.215.31.238 (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I started the page because I think the book deserves a page. But it deserves a "good page" not an alphabet soup. So if you can do it with good sources, please expand it. But the page must make it very clear that the book has been "very controversial" and the Vatican people have played ping-pong with authorization a few times. History2007 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On Saint Mark
Book 8, Chapter 3:


 * "The Evangelist Mark...likewise wrote it in Hebrew and while in Palestine...The great Queen appeared to him seated on a most beautiful and resplendent throne. Prostrating himself before Her, he said: 'Mother of the Savior of the world and Mistress of all creation, I am unworthy of this favor, though I am a servant of thy divine Son and of Thyself.' The heavenly Mother answered: 'The Most High, whom thou servest and lovest, sends me to assure thee, that thy prayers are heard and that his holy Spirit shall direct thee in the writing of the Gospel, with which He has charged thee.'" (Book 8, Chapter 3)

This is a historical error and contradiction of Sacred Tradition. Saint Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek while Saint Peter was preaching in Rome, because Saint Mark was a disciple of Saint Peter.

Oct13 (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mystical City of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130907094738/http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_08_Chapter_03.htm to http://www.sacredheart.com/The_Mystical_City_of_God_Book_08_Chapter_03.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)