Talk:Santa Muerte

Patronage
The majority of Patronage of Santa Muerte arent from the LGBT community, that is only a minority. Why are transexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals etc the first things in the Patronage section? This is wrong information, as they are only a minority of patronage! Excuse my poor english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.215.235 (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The list is not in order of "most important" or "majority" patronage. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent events
I have removed the following from the article and bring it here for discussion:


 * The Santa Muerte is often patronized by drug traffickers, kidnappers, other criminals, or by people who live in neighborhoods plagued by violence. Many of the shrines dedicated to La Santísima Muerte that are located along highways in northern Mexico  were funded by drug traffickers.


 * I am pretty sure Los Zetas cartel worships La Santissima Muerta- I recall seeing a crime-scene pic of a man decapitated and dismembered by them, and his head placed in front of a shrine of this... thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.78.19 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On March 24, 2009 Mexican authorities dismantled 30 capillas dedicated to Santa Muerte in Nuevo Laredo and Tijuana in response to their strong association with drug trafficking and at the request of local residents. José Manuel Valenzuela Arce, a researcher at the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, a Tijuana-based think tank commented, "Destroying these chapels is not going to do anything to diminish crime...  someone who's going to commit a crime could just as easily go to a Catholic church as a Santa Muerte shrine, or go nowhere at all.”


 * More recent anthropological research has traced the origins of the narco-cult of Saint Death to the early 1940s in Mexico City's crowded neighborhoods. It is there where Lady Sebastienne is worshipped as a proxy to violence and drug trafficking, according to Felipe Solis, professor of Anthropological Sciences in Mexico City. Every Halloween night, the followers of the effigy of La Niña Blanca organize parties with mariachi music, food and beverage to thank the figure for petitions that have been granted. It is widely known that The White Girl first saw the light of day in the sun drenched streets of Tepito, a violent and poverty-stricken slum in Mexico City.


 * "This cult has to do with the critical situation that the country (Mexico) is going through", said Solis in reference to the wave of drug-related violence that has been rattling Mexico over the past few years, where rival drug cartels fight over profitable smuggling routes into the United States.


 * The study further found evidence that the cult worship of "La Niña Blanca" ("The White Girl") - as Santa Muerte is also known to her followers - "does not require ethics, because there is no trade off of good deeds in exchange for super natural favors from the worshipped image. Rather, Lady Sebastienne is offered bribes in exchange for favors. The former might include commonplace San La Muerte offerings, such as tequila, red crosses, marijuana, beer, cigarettes and even cigars. From a theological and eschatological perspective, the study further found that "the cult has no relation to Christianity or any other religion, but rather with drug trafficking, prostitution and murder"


 * Lady Sebastienne is worshipped alongside Jesus Malverde, the protector of drug traffickers.

The presence of all of this gives undue weight to recent events and interpretations of Santa Muerte as being somehow exclusively associated with narco-trafficking, crime, and murder. As such, it is inappropriate. Furthermore, the quotes from Professor Solis are not cited at all, though, if a source were named, his interpretation would probably be relevant and notable. However, all of this would have to be rewritten and pared down so as not to give too much weight to this interpretation or the association with drug traffickers. Any thoughts? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 20:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't had done that. You just deleted one of the many opinions in this article. Now this article says little about the clear connection between the Holy Death and drug cartels. Wikifan21century (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Santa Muerte is a deity ..."
is how this starts, which doesn't seem to reflect the first 3 refs (opening bits only of the long Spanish one) who speak of SM more as a black-market saint-type figure within an obviously unofficial Catholic context, or an icon. Obviously the popular conceptions are not going to be precise in theological terms, but I think a shift in phrasing to have more "veneration" or "devotion" etc (which saints get) rather than "worship" (for deities) would better reflect what I have seen of the sources. It seems rather different from Santeria in this respect, which really has deities. The old version just had "is a religious figure", which is unarguable, if a bit chicken. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wears a badge
Headsup: Today's article by Jill Leovy on the Los Angeles Times website shows and mentions the figure as wearing a security guard badge. knoodelhed (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Niño de las Suertes in Tacubaya
I removed the following from the article, and bring it here for discussion.


 * The Niño de las Suertes is a Child Jesus image that has a strong following due to its association with Santa Muerte. While the image was created in the 19th century, its popular veneration is a recent phenomenon. The image was found by two evangelists in the rubble of the Hacienda of San Juan de Dios in Tlalpan. It was handed over to Archbishop Francisco Lizana y Beaumont. As a number of monasteries wanted to claim it, the archbishop decided to make the decision by lottery. It is said that this image favored the Convent of San Bernardo due to the vow of poverty by its nuns. This was confirmed by doing the drawing three times. In the 19th century, due to tensions between the Mexican government and the Church, the image was moved to Tacubaya when the convent was secularized. This image has a skull above the head. This originally symbolized the future Passion, has since made it associated with Santa Muerte and its devotees visit this image as well.

This is a rather long, and highly-detailed, section, but it makes no clear connection to Santa Muerte. It has one reference, which may add weight to the issue, but as it is in Spanish, I have no way of knowing. I believe this should remain out of the article until a clear connection is established. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 16:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The connection was there but someone removed... Ill go find it.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I returned the section as it was originally written. This information comes from INAH and not too many sources more reliable than this.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Worship/Diety
I think the way worship is fraised in this article is incorrect, as well as calling Santa Muerta a diety or pagan idol. Followers of Santa Muerte are not worshipping her as a diety, but venerating her as a saint (against the Catholic Church's position). --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Use of Bible quotation
User:108.52.5.127 has recently inserted the following: "The Bible says in Proverbs 8:36, referring to the personification of Wisdom, 'all those who hate me love death'. The Bible is clear that death is the result of sin (Romans 5:12)." I have reverted this on the following grounds. Firstly, the Bible is arguably a primary source for this topic, since Santa Muerte is, as described in the article, a syncretization of Catholic and traditional beliefs. Secondly, naked Bible references like this do not add any reliable sourcing to the article - the Santa Muerte and the Catholic Church section is already well-referenced with good sources. Thirdly, the implication in this statement is that Santa Muerte is a "foolish" and "sinful" religion. I don't argue that the mainstream Catholic Church don't believe that, but these two out-of-context verses imply that Santa Muerte's adherents "hate" wisdom and that their religion is the result of "sin". It thus violates WP:NPOV. Yunshui (talk) 10:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In defense of the changes which I made, I would say the following:

1) The Bible is indeed a primary source, but since the actual topic at hand in this section is "mainstream" Christian criticism of what, based on all presented information on the page, basically amounts to death-worship, I fail to see what the purported roots of Santa Muerte have to do with the complaint about using a "primary source". I am not intending to educate anyone about Santa Muerte itself in this short section of the main article. I am simply articulating what any knowledgeable Christian or Biblical student would answer if asked why they might criticize Santa Muerte from a biblical standpoint. The article has rightly said that mainstream Christianity is wary of Santa Muerte, but has provided next to no reasons for this. I fail to see why we the readers should not be informed of those reasons. The fact that the most basic source for those reasons is the same source purported for Santa Muerte is highly irrelevant.

2) Apparently, 'naked Bible references like this do not add any reliable sourcing to the article'. I fail to see how one can miss the anti-Bible basis in that supposedly objective statement 'reliable sourcing', but I digress. 'The Santa Muerte and the Catholic Church' section is already well-referenced with good sources' - and that precludes the acceptance of one more good source for the education of the reader? The most basic and essential source to the controversy at hand, at that? I think not, and I can't quite fathom why someone would go to such lengths to deny a Biblical quotation in such a proper context, if not for some underlying bias or indeed misunderstanding of the subject at hand.

3) The implication that Santa Muerte is, as you say, a 'foolish' and 'sinful' religion only affects the person who believes that the verses quoted are indeed authoritative and relevant to the subject of Santa Muerte. A person who doesn't accept the authority of those two verses will not care what they say. The person who sympathizes with Santa Muerte will just have to deal with the fact that the Bible is strongly negative on the subject of death, as I have proven with those two small verses (among others). Whether they would accept the Bible as a fully authoritative source or not, I have no idea, and frankly I see it as irrelevant. Since this is a discussion, I would say that Santa Muerte strikes me much like Voodoo, in that, in my view, both resemble a more-or-less pagan religion painted with a Christian veneer by its practitioners, either by osmosis, to diffuse suspicion, or both. Both have been noted by authorities to worship aboriginal deities under the cover of saints. Are we to judge Santa Muerte objectively by focusing on its veneer, or allowing that veneer to obfuscate its actual nature? I would sincerely hope not.

You strike me as yet another editor who hasn't the understanding or appreciation of the subject at hand to deliver a truly objective verdict, which necessarily means presenting both sides of the story. Santa Muerte seems to be getting a real tongue-bath, if it's suddenly unacceptable to simply quote two small passages from the Bible, supposedly its central text, for fear of offending its sympathizers. And I can pretty much guarantee you, there is not a Santa Muerte practitioner alive who would claim to not be a Catholic and thus a Christian, please don't fool yourself on that score.

In my experience, it would seem that getting informative changes to religious pages to stick is probably one of the hardest things to accomplish around here. A truly objective person would indeed see the hand of bias at work. I recently had someone delete my changing (with detailed explanation) of the Arabic word 'Allah' to its English equivalent, 'God', only to revert it shortly afterward, claiming to have been mistaken. The very idea that someone would take it upon themselves to meddle in an area of which they have no knowledge, out of some misguided and frankly overblown zeal for 'the rules', resulting in the loss of any real clarification for those seeking it, is appalling considering our aim in this endeavor. It would seem however that many here see it as their aim to target any discussion of religious scripture as 'unacceptable', and worthy of swift deletion into the memory hole, regardless of context, content and informational benefit to the community at large. It's just sad and I can't see why I should pretend that this bias does not exist just because everyone's pretending to be so objective.

Just to clarify, I made no personal statements or factual statements. I simply quoted two small verses of the Bible that might explain why mainstream Christianity has a criticism of Santa Muerte, based on the source both claim. The change was deleted several times by one person and I responded by reposting it each time. My reasons for doing so are, I hope, well-enunciated here.

These two Bible quotes drew an enormous amount of criticism from this person - as 'irrelevant soapboxing', 'naked quotation', 'not reliable sourcing', and if that wasn't bad enough, 'out-of-context' (!). Such an inordinate amount of unreasonable, petty and simply wrong claims, for such a small yet fitting addition to the text, lay bare their attempts to appear objective even while needlessly pursuing such a course. I don't know what it means to this person that after several deletions and re-additions, the proposed change stands as I intended it to. Hopefully we are seeing the last of these childish and fruitless deleting-games. Either way, I stand by my additions. Though it be impossible for any person to attain the robot-like objectivity seemingly demanded here, I feel, and feel that I have shown myself to have been, in this instance, more objective than my supposed corrector, and more committed to the stated goal of this community, which is to provide correct information regardless of any bias against it.

108.52.5.127 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I spoke too soon, as the change is deleted yet again. Why should anyone bother to try to impart knowledge here? Nothing but an uphill struggle against facetiousness, bigotry and arbitrary sanctions. Objective my ass.

108.52.5.127 (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps my reverts were a little bitey, if so, I apologise. Perhaps an easier way to explain my objection to this inclusion would be by analogy. Suppose I go to the Pillow article and insert a section claiming that the Catholic Church opposes pillows on Biblical grounds, citing Ezekiel 13:20: "Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows." Any half-competent editor would revert it. Suppose, however, that I cite references showing that noted theologian Archibald Souphat and papal commentator Cardinal Milkweasle both claim that the Pope objects to pillows on precisely these grounds. That would be far more likely to remain in the article. In the same way, this insertion is basically original research: you are stating your opinion, correct or not, that the Church objects to Santa Muerte because of these two verses. Cite a reliable source showing that this reasoning is supported, and the verses can stay in. Yunshui (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bible quotes are about death in general, not the Mexican phenomenon of Santa Muerte. They are not the same thing. Santa Muerte is a personification, interpretation or deification of death, not death. For this reason, the quotes do not add information. Above the arguement is that the quotes mean something only to those that beleive in them... and nothing to those who dont. So whatever relavance they have is only to a select segment of society, not the general reader to whom the article is intended. The purpose of the quotes is to argue against the veneration/worship of Santa Muerte, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To say, using the bible verse Proverbs 8:36, that Christians are supposed to hate death is not a correct translation. To many Catholics, Santa Muerta is very similar to the Angel of Death, which is a Christian (and other Abrahamic religions) idea. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that Santa Muerte has been exposed by the word press as the murdering cult that it is, I hope you fools sleep better at night knowing how your "objectivity" saved the day yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.127.184 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

theological contradiction
If Santa Muerte is an idol, "the worship of which has been rejected by God since the Old Testament" then what about making an idol out of or worshiping Christ? The Church baffles me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Catholicism, and all mainline Christianity for that matter, worship the Trinity - which Christ is a part of. Therefore, according to the religion, Christ is not an idol, Christ is God. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute between User:Thelmadatter and User:Rachesnut
I have disputed edits made to this article by Rachesnut. Initially I thought there were no citations to the content changes but it seems that there are citations from the editor's own book, as he noted to me on my talk page. I have told him about WP:COI and requested copies of the pages he is citing so I can verify. I especially disagree with his assertion that the belief has been prominent only since the early 2000s. (I can believe that it has grown exponentially since then but it was prominent before that). I have left most of his edits in hoping for confirmation only taking out some undue talk on the importance of owls in European and Mesoamerican lore as well as the disputed statement on prominence. However, instead of discussing this with me he is simply reverting my edits and accusing me a vandalism.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no obligation to provide pages of my book to Thelmadatter (whose disregard for detail is evident in her misspelling of my surname). She can get it at a library or purchase it. Moreover there is no inherent conflict of interest in citing one's own published work in an article. Who is Thelmadatter to determine that my contribution on owl symbolism is "undue?" Thelmadatter does not own this article (or the hundreds of others that she edits) and will not dictate to other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachesnut (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Rachesnut is now going into blatant self promotion on that last edit.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not the only Santa Muerte expert mentioned by name in the article. If it's "blatant self-promotion" to have my name appear once in the body of an article on a subject in which I have considerable expertise and have published the first book-length study in English, I plead guilty as charged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachesnut (talk • contribs) 00:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You probably shouldn't be the one to add your name to the article, or to write content relying heavily on your own work (I don't know that you have done this). That being said it is unreasonable for Thelmadatter to request pages from a book that is publicly available. That is not how wikipedia works. It does seem verifiable that Dr. Chesnut is a recognized expert on Santa Muerte and it would clearly be wise to make the best of an expert's interest in contribute to the article rather than to antagonize or accuse of COI (which expertise is not). I do encourage both of you to stop editwarring, since it only damages your case and the article. Discuss changes here on the talkpage instead. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise words. Much of the content was written 4 years ago or so, and is woefully out of date. I've mostly attempted to update content and repair faulty sytax but have been contested at every turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachesnut (talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part, as an interested editor, I am willing to go along with the knowledge of someone more informed on a particular subject. However, I must say that your syntax has often been far from exemplary.  The word is syntax, not "sytax".  Of course, I mean no disrespect.RyanChamberlyn (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So glad you caught my typo RyanChamberlyn. Thanks! purepecha (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are significant problems with the way this is unfolding. @Rachesnut, you have a conflict of interest, not because of your expertise, but because of your book. It is true that Thelmadatter does not have the right to demand copies of pages from the book, but the way the book is being cited is not helpful, either. It shouldn't be cited to Amazon's page for selling the book. It should be cited as a book using some form of reference like cite book, and it should include page numbers. @Rachesnut, your editing is similar to many other experts who edit articles at Wikipedia. OTOH, you have something valuable to offer, but, OTOH, you don't know how to comply with Wikipedia procedures. I already blocked you once for edit-warring. Although you did not make a formal unblock request, as I noted on your talk page, if it had been anything like the e-mail you sent me, it would have very probably been declined by another admin as evincing no understanding of why you were blocked or how you should behave in the future. Since expiration of your block, you have returned to the article and continued to edit disruptively procedurally but perhaps beneficially substantively. I don't know because I don't want to get into the content issues. I left you a warning, which, as far as I can tell, you have chosen to ignore. I'm sorry to dump all of this here on the article talk page as I usually reserve such comments for the editor's talk page, but it might as well be in full view for the sake of the article and for Thelmadatter's benefit as well as Rachesnut's.


 * So, here's the deal. I don't want to see any more edits in the next few days to the article by either of you. You can work things out here on the talk page, and you can use dispute resolution mechanisms if you can't achieve a consensus. If I see disruptive editing by either of you to the article, I reserve the right to block either of you or protect the article if I deem that to be the better choice. As a final note to Rachestnut, please don't mark all your edits as minor. Read the guideline on what constitutes a minor edit at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please take note of the correct spelling of my name: Rachesnut (no middle "t"). Happy New Year!purepecha (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my name, Bbb23. For the record, I did indeed make a formal unblock request, which was never answered by an admin. presumably because the block had already expired. purepecha (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thelmadatter posted this on my talk page last night, "First of all, there is no "Santa Muerte" rosary. Ive been at that event in Tepito (I live in Mexico City) and it is the normal rosary."

Anyone with some familiarity with devotion to the White Girl, knows that there is a specific rosary dedicated to Santa Muerte, which while predicated on the Catholic one, is rejected by the Church as heretical. I am in possession of the printed version of the Santa Muerte rosary read at Dona Queta's service on the first of each month. In addition, a 30 second Google search will lead to numerous sites that contain the full text of the rosary. Here's one...http://foro.univision.com/t5/La-Santa-Muerte/EL-ROSARIO-DE-LA-SANTA-MUERTE-FAVOR-DE-NO-ESCRIBIR/td-p/267117376 purepecha (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you made the request, Rachesnut, but the usual place to do so is on your talk page, and you didn't do it there. I'm going to assume your content comment is directed to other editors, not me. As an aside, why do you sign using "purepecha"? It's not required that your signature more match or closely match your actual user name, but it's preferable (see WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For what its worth... I never demanded he send me text from his book. I requested it in the spirit of consensus seeking because I know I dont have the right to it. I figured that since he is supposedly the author of the book, that would be an easy thing for him. Other authors I have had contact with for other projects have happily helped me out with such. I still dispute the "Santa Muerte rosary" thing despite the web pages. The rosary is said along with invocations to Santa Muerte but the rosary is part of the veneration. The pages do not show a separate and distinct form of the rosary. Im also not happy with the personal attacks on me from rachesnut, implying or outright stating that I am stupid or ignorant. I have been very polite to him offering help (see his talk page) but Ive received nothing but disparaging remarks. As per Bbb23's request, I will hold off on editing, not only to respect the editor but also since I dont know that information is not in the book.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Those of you who know Spanish can judge for yourselves whether the following "First Mystery" is part of the standard Catholic rosary or belongs to one directed to Saint Death...

PRIMER MISTERIO- Es entregada la Guadaña a nuestra Santisima Muerte,que por la majestuosa entrega en tu mano derecha de la Guadaña justiciera y atraves de nuestro Señor Padre,ella salve a los pecadores del mundo entero y convierta muchas almas.Amen. (Guia)Oh preciosisima y divinisima Santa Muerte. (Respuesta)Cura los rencores y envidias de todos tus fieles seguidores santisima Muerte. (Guia)Oh preciosisima y Divisima Santa Muerte. (Respuesta)Salvanos a nosotros y al mundo entero. (Guia)Santa Muerte mia,amada madre,bendita eres entre todos los seres y bendito el momento de mi comunion contigo,Amen. Amada madre intercede por nosotros tus hijos ahora y en la hora de nuestra muerte,Amen. Gloria al padre al Hijo y al Espiritu Santo como era en un principio ahora y siempre,por los siglos de los siglos,Amen. Santa Muerte amada madre en la vida y en la muerte amparanos,Santa madre defiendenos de nuestros enemigos y amparanos ahora y en la hora de nuestra muerte,Amen. Gloria al Padre,al Hijo y al Espiritu Santo como era en un principio,ahora y siempre y por los siglos de los siglos,Amen. (Todos) Que la preciosisima Santa Muerte que surge de tu reino,el templo de la divina sabiduria,tabernaculo del conocimiento divino y luz del cielo y la tierra nos cubra ahora y siempre,Amen.

Thelmadatter, you have been anything but civil in your unreasonable requests to provide you with pages from my book and in reverting most of my contributions. Again, you don't own this article and cannot be dictating to other editors. Living in Mexico City isn't tantamount to being knowledgeable about devotion to the Bald Lady, just as living in Richmond, VA, doesn't mean that one is more knowledgeable than others about the Civil War. There is still much in the article that is out of date, and I sincerely hope we can collaborate in updating and improving it. Feliz 2013 alla en chilangolandia! purepecha (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Catholic connections?
I haven't studied the subject much, but all the articles I read never state there is a implied or official connection between catholic believes and Santa Muerte. Everything I read states that 2 totally different beliefs? In what was are the catholic church and Santa Muerte similar? If an environmentalist left Green peace, started a baby seal clubbing group, Denounced the teachings of Green Peace, was in turn denounced by green peace, would we then write an article saying that green peace is clubbing baby seals? Sorry I don't know why the authors of this article and fringe members of the media are trying to make a connection. Is the use of the word "santa"? Is that the only thing the 2 organizations have in common? I would think at least part of the article should be written from the perspective of a member or someone who understand what this group is about. Surely someone somewhere has source material from the group perspective.Mantion (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, most of the followers of Santa Muerte are practicing Catholics, although not all are. The religious services in order to venerate her are almost identical to the Catholic Mass, and even include an invocation of the Holy Trinity, and often also of St. Michael the Archangel, the Virgin Mary, or St. Jude. She is seen as an angel and is venerated like a Catholic saint. -- 152.13.249.240 (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"especially in his hometown of Sinoloa," should be corrected to read "especially in his home state of Sinaloa,"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.44.207.245 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Officially registered" in Los Angeles
The article says "There are fifteen officially registered religious groups dedicated to her in Los Angeles alone,[2] which include the Temple of Santa Muerte.[56]"

What constitutes "officially registered" in the state of California? Religions are not "officially registered" in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.1.164 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing this mistake. "officially registered" does not appear in the Spanish source given. I have removed the offending phrase. Elizium23 (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Overreliance on Chestnut and lack of additional perspectives
It seems to me that this article relies too much on the work of a single scholar who has also written a lot of the article. Chestnut is a recognized expert, but there are many other scholars who have worked on Santa Muerte and their perspectives may be missing. We should do some work to find out where Chestnuts views can be supplemented by alternative views from other scholars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

History
I would like the article to be somewhat less absolute in its statements in the history section and to provide some of the arguments and evidence for positing a direct continuity from Mictlancihuatl through the colonial period to contemporary Santa Muerte worship? What is the evidence that the worship was kept secret in this period, as opposed to it having dissappeared and been re-adopted in the 20th century? Moreover, it needs some geographic and social specificity as to which groups in mexican society might have maintained the worship in this period and where.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Santa Muerte. 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/20091016071830/http://semanal.milenio.com/node/331 to http://semanal.milenio.com/node/331

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) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A page about Enriqueta Romero?
Enriqueta Romero seems to be a very relevant person in the religious movement. She is cited multiple times in this article and there is a good number of journalistic content about her. Yet, there is no Wikipedia page about her. Is there a reason for that? --Brandizzi (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

On sourcing in general and the Santa Muerte in particular
This is English language Wikipedia, which is subject to a lot of confusion by Americans about Mexican culture and history. It is important for non-Mexicans editing here to understand a couple of things.
 * If we are going to use sources about Mexican society, culture or history, they should be Mexican sources and ideally Mexican academic sources.
 * Such sources take precedence over American sources in general, but particularly sources from US media. If there is any debate (two conflicting views) on anything regarding Mexico, the debate should be sourced with Mexican academics. Mexico is not Somalia. It has had functioning universities since long before the United States exists. Actually, since long before the English colony of Jamestown was founded.
 * We should not use blogs as sources. I think this should be clear. Not blogs, not Californian magazines about tacos.
 * The Santa Muerte is not an Aztec ritual. It didn't exist until a few decades ago. There is literally no knowledge of it existing prior to the 1970s. It has no link to indigenous people of Mexico and particularly not to Nahuatl speaking people of Mexico. Claiming otherwise is racist and slanders this ethnic minority. Mexico is not "Dusk till Dawn". Why it exists and has spread can be explained by the dynamics of modern day Mexican society.
 * We should be wary of stereotypes and indigenist fantasies when writing about Mexico. Yes they are prevalent in the US and even among uneducated people in Mexico, but there is a consensus among Mexican academics that most of these myths are fabricated.

Gracias.--Frijolesconqueso (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Usage of the word "cult" and NPOV?
While "cult" has two distinct meanings, as seen in Cult and Cult (religious practice), I think it's somewhat undeniable that, when discussing a religious movement which is associated primarily with a particular ethnic/cultural group, and to a lesser extent the LGBTQ+ community, and which has faced governmental and institutional repression, care should be taken to observe WP:NPOV. What are others' thoughts on this? Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Did not see the footnote in the first paragraph. My fault for not being a close reader, but perhaps changing it from a small "a" to "note" would improve visibility for what is a very important footnote for the article. Edited 20:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

"the veneration of Santa Muerte is its own religion"
I was confused by the following sentence in note a: "The reason the word 'cult' is used rather than 'religion' is because the veneration of Santa Muerte is its own religion."

Should there be a "not" between "is" and "its"? Noaht2 (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)