User:Mannanan51/sandbox

Dummies guide to archiving my talk page[edit source]

Help:Archiving a talk page

1. Open the talk page for edit.

2. Create an archive by searching for "User talk:Xxanthippe/Archive N" where N is the Nth archive.

3. When search tells you that this page does not exist create it by clicking on the red link.

4. Copy the contents of your talk page into this archive and add ((archives|auto=yes|search=yes|)) as the first line [replacing the brackets with {} ].

5. Save this archive and delete the transferred material from current talk page. Finished.


 * Well, no. On page 7 Carden clearly states: "Acceptance of the homophobic interpretation of the story has never been an issue in critical scholarship". Interpreting this statement as contrasting conservative Christianity and Rabbinic teaching is a.) not what he said, and b.) not substantiated, as is the supposition that "the traditional interpretation" is "(ie.Jewish)" Assuming arguendo that is the case, the argument appears oblivious to the effect of Philo on early Christian thought; specifically Origen, Clement, Augustine, Jerome et al. -as is generally recognized. The characterization of Britannica is just that, a personal characterization. In fact, it clearly refers to "Modern scholarship" proposing another interpretation; Carden clearly states that views only began to change in the late 1990's and he doesn't even mention Chrysostom. At present, the statement therefore fails verifiability for the reasons given above. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think I would backdate that considerably. While you may choose to think this is a matter of the expression of "wrong thoughts", a review of the lengthy discussions above indicate it concerns rather:
 * "No 'common sense' reason has been provided that justifies the ridiculous number of hatnotes that were pumped into this article."
 * "...the whole lot seems to suffer from death by a thousand details, with no intelligent sense of overview."
 * "very large unreadable walls of very poor text, without regard for quality, relevance, or sourcing"
 * "among the most destructive editing ...seen in 15 years".
 * Given your use repeated use of "superfluous hatnotes", "massive and poorly considered transclusions", spooky piped-links, and an entirely idiosyncratic use of templates, I would hesitate to consult you for guidance on correct "process". Cheers. Mannanan51 (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, no, it's not. That depends on the sources. (N.B. Footnote 6: a blog which states "This is a compilation from various Internet Sources".) So far, with the exception of Dayton and the Monastery -which say nothing of her, apparitions, nor any alleged prophecies, all I see are citations to Traditional Catholic websites, touting so-called prophecies that support their current views. People repeating tall tales, no matter how much they like them, does not constitute a verifiable fact. Where are the academics? the feminist historians? the social anthropologists who write on post-conquest religion in Latin America? I've looked, and all I find are these semi-apocalyptic proselytizers. The more I look, the less I see. If any Pope in the last thirty-five years actually declared her "venerable" that's should be the easiest thing to establish -there have been only three, but the article makes the claim without saying who or when. ...It is telling that that there is no mention of her in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is long after this alleged event occurred, -not even in article on the Archdiocese of Quito, where you might expect at least a blurb. Nor do the Conceptionist sisters make any mention of her, an apparition, or even being in Ecuador, nor the Archdiocese of Quito appear to say anything. On the other hand, Mary Anne de Paredes, her contemporary is established.


 * I am beginning to think that this is no more than popular fiction, and would have proposed this article for deletion years ago were it not for the references to a somewhat related devotion in Spain and the Philippines. Spain is actually Virgen de la Buena Suerte and has some legitimacy in Madrid. It should be separate or at least that portion restored to the original page. These are two different subjects. One can be at least marginally supported with RS, whereas, OLGE not so muck. Mannanan51 (talk)