User talk:Katsam/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hi Katsam/Archive 1, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.

Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.

How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.

Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism.

Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable.

Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created.

Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one.

Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 03:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC). This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 03:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Virgin of Guadalupe!!

this dialogue partially imported from User talk:Rockero and User:Katsam

Hi Rockero! I found you because I've been working on a new Our Lady of Guadalupe article and found your entries about the Nican Mopohua and Luis Laso de la Vega. I'm pretty un-stoked with the current English article -- I think all an unfamiliar reader would take from it is a vague idea about miraculous eyeballs.

The article I've been working on is half-finished, on my talk page -- maybe you'd like to collaborate on it? Or comment? Also, you say you want to synchronize the English and Spanish versions. I like the Spanish version better, but...are you thinking of rewriting them both? Let me know what you think...Katsam 08:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rockero's comments

Thank you for inviting my comments. The biggest problem with the current article is that it is written from the viewpoint (ie POV) that there was a Marian apparition on the top of the hill of Tepeyac, rather than from the NPOV that people believe that she appeared there. Under the "Origins" section, there should be a discussion of the primary texts whence the Guadalupe legend is derived: The Stradanus engraving, Miguel Sánchez's Image of the Virgin, and Laso de la Vega's Huei tlamahuiçoltica. Sánchez writes that he is recording a much-older oral legend, and remarks that he is surprised that nothing has been written about it yet. (Zumárraga and Durán don't mention anything about an apparition.) Sánchez also goes into lengthy theologies and Biblical exegeses, comparing the Virgen to the flowers of Aaron's staff, Tepeya to Sinai, etc. etc., so some discussion of Biblical influence must also be included, because many aspects of the legend conform to the structure of Biblical stories, as well as stories of Marian apparitions in Spain (Pilar etc.) Also, I find another "origin" of the apparition in the native traditions of religious hallucinations/deliria and in the veneration of sacred objects/images. Writers on this topic are scarce, but I'll see if I can turn anything up. The story needs to be told within the historical context of the Conquest. Then observations of other authors (such as her appearance brought Indians to Catholicism at about the time that Martin Luther's "heresy" led a great number of Catholics out of the fold) can be included and will make sense. The "image" section ought to be a description of the image itself, with dimensions. Controversies surrounding identifications of the media can be discussed here. The eye stuff should be way down at the bottom under the "controversy" section, and I don't think Wikipedia should make too big a deal about it. The "name" section should discuss ALL the possible etymologies that have been proposed. There should really be a literature section, where we talk about the major studies of the apparition/image, such as Miguel Cabrera's important early study. We can mention the Callahan and the other studies here. The popular devotion section should be based on reliable sources, rather than someone's pedestrian observations of La Virgen's popularity. And finally, the controversy section should be specific:What authors say what and in which publications, why these statements are controversial, etc. On another note, I was considering proposing a merger between Nican Mopohua and Huei tlamahuiçoltica..., but haven't gotten around to it. I wrote them before I knew about redirects, so we could have former redirect to the latter. If this sounds like a good idea to you, just let me know (we seem to be among the few that care) and I'll merge them. Also if you want any more input/criticisms etc. I'll be glad to contribute.--Rockero 16:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PS the article should go into the Vatican's ever-evolving stance on La Virgen, too.--Rockero 16:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Katsam & Rockero, I agree with Rockero's comments. I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I just couldn't stand the article as it read on Dec 12. I've actually learned quite a bit on the subject by trying to balance the article. I started my edits trying to cover the issues mentioned in the "discussion" portion of the page, but I couldn't get the article to read like one coherent body. It's a lot better now but I agree that it could still be better.

I think we should be careful about keeping it balanced, but again I don't think that people looking up the virgin on Wikipedia are looking for religious propaganda!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katsam/scratch"

When you get a chance I'd be happy to hear any impressions you have about how the Guadalupe article is coming along. I agree with you that it ought to be in context of the Conquest and, at the moment, I think it's floating ahistorically in space. I don't know who Miguel Cabrera is and hadn't heard of the Stradanus engraving either (I started the world's tiniest stub on it). When you said that the popular devotion section should be based on reliable sources, what kind of stuff were you thinking of? For some reason that paragraph about alcoholism and how much people love the "virgencita" makes my skin crawl, but all I can think of to put there is stuff like "en México hasta los ateos son Guadalupanos" or "Mexico was born at Tepeyac". happy the sun is coming back,Katsam 14:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Rockero's further comments

OK señor. I don't know if you realized what a big project you were taking on, so as I offer you my comments and suggestions, I simultaneously offer my hand as a co-editor/contributor, if you decide that the writing or research is too much for you. If possible, please let me know by tomorrow so I can check out the necessary materials before the library closes for winter break. I'm glad you include the info about the Spanish V de G. But I think it should go at the top, possibly as a template, saying something like This article is about the Mexican apparition/icon. For the Spanish Virgin of the same name, please see Our Lady of Guadalupe (Extremadura). Secondly, the opening paragraph should specify that "Our Lady of Guadalupe" refers to both the apparition and the icon. You can go into the relation between them later. Thirdly, I appreciate the citations. But I must suggest citing the original source, rather than someone else's citation. In the first paragraph, you cite Paz as to the centrality of the Guadalupe image to the Mexican national consciousness. If Paz never wrote it himself but was instead quoted in someone else's work, then the citation given is justified. But if Paz wrote it himself, you should cite him. Basically what I would suggest is a chronological narrative of Guadalupan events. Currently, the lack of chronology is a bit confusing. The section on the origin of the legend should be titled something like "Origin of the Cult of Guadalupe", using cult in the Roman Catholic sense of the word, as in "popular cultus" as one of the qualifications for canonization, and basically meaning a "popular following". Then you can go into the early mentions of Tepeyac (at that time Tepeyacac) as the site of a shrine to Tonantzin, and possibly go into more modern analysis of the Guadalupan cult as a rebirth of the cult of the Aztec mother goddess centered around the historic physical location of her shrine. Then you can go into physical proofs of her cult, such as the construction of the shrine (as early as the 1550s and the first physical evidence of devotion to the Catholicized essence) and records on fundraising on behalf of the Basilica. Then would follow graphic (visual/written) accounts of the legend: First Stradanus, then Sanchez, then Laso de la Vega. (Unless you're convinced by the Catholics that Laso de la Vega's account came first, or that it wasn't really written by him--please discuss if that'd the case.) Shortly thereafter follows the compilation of oral histories attempting to authenticate the legend of the apparition for the sake of the Vatican. But I would really dwell on Sanchez, as he is considered the primary Guadalupan evangelist. Then I would go into the historical role of Guadalupe as a symbol of Mexican nationalism: her role in colonial New Spain (maybe go into the Virgen de los Ramedios/V d G rivalry), her role in the Independence movement, her role in the Mexican Revolution and the Cristero Wars, and possibly her role in the Chicano Movement. In the section on the tilma, I reiterate that a physical description of the work of art is necessary. This is the place for the debate over the media used, whose hand painted it, etc. A full expansion on these topics will allow the elimination of the Tonantzin and Other Virgins section. Gracias, any questions, just ask, and gracias for your work on this subject.--Rockero420 04:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for your detailed commentary. Let me try to address it piece by piece:

Citations: I agree. I think I fixed the Paz citation, but I still have Brading quoting Sanchez, Krauze quoting Morelos, and Brading quoting Bolivar. I'm not sure if my school library will have Sanchez's Imagen, or the letter which sourced the Bolivar quote. I'd be willing to look for those documents after winter break, but right now the weak citations are the best I can muster. (Right now I'm at my family's house and have no books -- the citations I stuck in the article last night came out from a paper which is saved on my laptop.)

I also agree about the disambiguation note and will get to that tonight. Also, you're right that the idea of apparition as opposed to icon ought to be discussed in the first paragraph. TOTALLY RIGHT

As far as a structure for the article what do you think about:

1)intro

2)Origins of the Cult

 a)History of Tepeyac[ac] + relationship to Tonantzin 
 b)proofs of the cult (basilica fundraising, bustamante + montufar, "millions of converts" stradanus, sanchez, de la vega)

3)Mexican nationalism

 a)Guadalupe v. Remedios 
 b)independence 
 c)revolution 
 d)cristero wars 
 e)chicano movement

4)Popular devotion (Elizondo?)

5)Tilma

 a)physical description 
 b)interpretations of the image 
 c)debates about media

The Tonantzin stuff, you're right, could collapse into the "Origins of the Cult" section. From what I remember, there isn't really a whole lot evidence of a Tonantzin cult at Tepeyac, besides that letter by Bernard Sagahun --

But I would like the article to discuss somewhere La Virgen as the protector of indigenous rights, La Morenita, etc; maybe that can happen in the "popular devotion" section. The Elizondo book I referenced is very romantic in its exposition about Guadalupe as the spiritual connector between indigenous people and Catholicism:

"The most scandalous form of perversion for the Nahuatl world was the abandonment of the traditions and religion of the ancestors...But Juan Diego will astonish and surprise everyone. The Indian Mother of God changed everything and made new ways possible for everyone. He will be a Christian but not a traitor. Now the spiritual mestizaje begins as all begin to share in a common mestizo soul....Juan Diego is the new mestizo who is no longer ashamed of the ways of his people and his ancestors, nor fearful of and subservient to the ways of the dominant. Rather, rooted in his abused cultural ancestors and in solidarity with them, he goes...to offer a new alternative to those in power." -- Virgil Elizondo

Besides some discussion of Elizondo's ideas I'm not sure what to do with the popular devotion section. I think it is a very important part of the article but I'm not certain how to handle it in an encyclopedic manner. I would like to remove the stuff about problem drinkers and the people crawling on their knees from other cities (unless we could find a picture of them or an article about them or something similar), but want very much to find a way to impart the fanaticism and romance and sublime elements of the cult of Guadalupe...

Then, I'm disgruntled about the "tilma" section and would like to do away with most of it. I don't know if that's unwikipediac of me, but aside from the eyeballs part, which I find funny, there's something unappealing about "scientific investigation of miracles".

If we're going to discuss the image at the end of the article, it would make sense to have a copy of the image down there, but then the top of the article would feel lonely! Maybe we could put the Posada print of Juan Diego at the article head??

It would be terrific if you wanted to actively co-edit. I'm stoked to find someone who knows so much about the subject! Caveat: I won't have library access -- access to books, anyway -- until the first days of the New Year, so my ability contribute during 2005 is limited. But I look forward to working together (and I'm going to point Ignacio over here as well). cuidate! tu amiga, Katsam

Whoops

Sorry for breaking up this discussion--hopefully you can sort it all out??--PAZ--Rockero 08:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahi me perdonas por haber presumido que podía hablarle usando el género masculino. Eso no se puede presumir. En cuanto a sus preguntas acerca de las citaciones. La obra de Sanchez va a ser dificil de encontrar, aun en las mejores bibliotecas. Citando a la obra misma debe de bastar. Como usted no conocía a Cabrera, no se sienta mala porque yo tampoco conocía el Códice de Escalada. Pues parece que todos tenemos mucho que aprender.

OK sorry for speaking in Spanish. I shouldn't presume that either. Anyways, I agree with most of the proposed restructuring, although I think "Popular devotion", since it carries into the present, should go closer to the end (just before controversy, IMHO). And the reason I criticize the "pedestrian evaluation" is because there are plenty of sociological studies on the importance of la V. de G., and citing them would enable the elimination of observations by people who haven't really studied the matter. As far as the indigenous connection, I think that could be discussed the way it is developed (although admittedly only partially) in the Nican Mopohua article, as a part of modern developments of the Guadalupe legend. That is, the relationship between the apparition and the native population (originally interpreted as "what has been hidden from the wise has been revealed to the babe and the suckling" (i.e. Indians), and later as a special gift to the humble (non fecit taliter omni natione)), ought to be explored. Of course this was developed by later theologians of liberation. I've got my hands full this break with Mexican-American/Chicano Wikiproject. And I also have to study for my CSET. But my virgencita, and the early documents about her, are my pet project, so I will be glad to co-edit/help out when I am needed. Thank you, y que le bendiga ella,--Rockero 08:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Osteopathic medicine

Hey, thanks for the help with the copyedit! Happy Holidays and Happy New Year! -Parallel or Together ? 14:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Biofeedback

Wow, that was fast. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 07:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be hard to find experts able and willing to write unbiased encyclopedic text. For example this edit [1] is quite possibly from Dr. Jiri Tyl, BF expert, with publishing history, who wrote the FAQ on http://www.biofeedback.cz/ and who brought this technique into Czech Republic. The anonymous IP is from Czech Republic (where he lives), the edit mentions Barry Sterman (who lectured Tyl in the US) and traditional story about cats and at the end Dr. Tyl gets modestly labeled as significant organiser of practitioners in Europe (a gross exaggeration, I know a little bit about this). This kind of spamming is big, big problem on Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 10:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

how the basic ecology of this place works...: idiot with most of free time wins. I got somehow cynical after year here.

The tag is probably OK, but as far as I know it is not collected in some repository and no people get bugged. Pavel Vozenilek 10:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

BBC World Peer Review

Thanks for your ideas regarding the peer review of BBC World. I have added more information regarding the Bhopal hoax as you suggested. Would you mind taking a look at letting me know what you think? Wikiwoohoo 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested, would you be able to have a further look at the BBC World article now, since its been a little over 7 months since the last peer review. The peer review page is here. Thanks a lot! Wikiwoohoo 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Otpor!

Of course, I would be very very glad to help you out with the article. But, I will be very busy this weekend (because of the DEATH OF MILOSEVIC, I have to write a lot of articles for Serbian Wikipedia) so I can help from Monday, sounds good? All the best, Boris Malagurski ₪ 19:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Katsam,I was a member too,and I want to tell you something,althought whole youth was against Milosevic at the time and we were all against his goverment,even so,now we see what Otpor really was,it was financed from outside the country by Soros and other Western people.

Most famous member of Otpor was most-translated Serbian writer every and former President of Yugoslavia Dobrica Cosic(born 1923) and he said recently:"If I knew that Otpor was financed from outside of SErbia,I would`ve never joined"

Other important members were Zoran Djindjic(later prime minister of Serbia) and Vladan Batic(later Minister of Justice in Djindjis goverment.Also Milan St. Protic(later Major of Belgrade and Yugoslav Ambasador in USA) was a member.

Let me tell you,Otpor was a big cheat for Serbian youth and for the whole nation and Im honestly sorry that I was part of 5. oktobar.Dzoni 01:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Give me your mail and I`ll send it to you. And as for you question"was it good outcome by bad causes",I dont really know,I`ll tell you 5.oktobar is called "Plishana revolucija",what would mean it was revoulution without blood,only one girl fell in front of Bager and got killed,but it was acident,but Im not really sure it was "good outcome",average month pay back in 2000 was 50 marks,now its 200 euros,so you can see it aint no big difference,but we gave all our ex leaders to the Hague,and now new polls show that more then 90 precent of people is against Hague Tribunal:

Ex Minister Vlajko Stoijkovic of Police killed himselg in front of Serbian Parlament after being accused by hague

Ex President of Republika Srpska Krajna killed himself in Hague jail last month They now killed President Milosevic,he wrote a letter to the Russian Goverment day before he died in which he said:"They are trying to kill me"!!!!

Why Im telling you all this? BEcause from 5.oktobar we started to send people to Hague and I remember on the night of 5 to 6. oktobar,when President Kostunica was on national Televison for the first time after revoilution an he was asked what he thinks about Hague he said:"We`ll see,but in not a problem,we wont send Milosevic there,because we will judge him hear"....And he lied,they send many Serbs,many of them proud Generals.

And as for 5.oktobar,it wasnt just the youth,ect. my Grandfather was 77 at the time(born 1923) and he was there,they throwed tear-gas at us and my Grandfather kept crying for 5 or 6 hours,they were insade the Parlament and insade the Police Station Stari Grad(Stari Grad-Old City,its bacisly center part of belgrade)so Police was inside and they they throwed tear-gas and many people cried,but they surrended later and joined the people,and Army declined to go on its people and it was end.

On 6.oktobar Milosevic made a talking to the nation in which he admitted that he lost. You may want to read book from Protic:"5 oktobar-Failed Revolution",because Protic was one of main organisators of 5.oktobar.

I will send you e-main with all that info that you asked for,but first you gotta tell me whats your mailDzoni 17:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree to some extent with my former colleague from Serbian Wikipedia. Dzoni, I'm not sure where you're getting statistical information, and I fear you're just making it up.

First of all, the avarage salary in Serbia in 2004 was €306.77, now it's even higher. The average salary in 2000 was 83.5 denmarks, which is 7.7 times lower than the average salary in 1990. So, Milosevic, in fact, did destroy the economy to some extent, and it did start to boom during the time that Đinđić was Prime Minister of Serbia (untill his death on March 12th 2003).

There is still no proof of the murder of Milosevic, but it is highly likely that he was poisoned.

Yes, Kostunica did promise to not send suspected war criminals to the Hague, but they had no choice, the U.S. wanted to impose new sanctions, and the country has had enough of those. It wasn't up to them to decide, they had to do it.

It is true that Otpor was not just about the youth (although, a huge percent of them were youths). And there is also a misconception that the October 5th Revolution was organized by Otpor. No, it was organized by DOS (Demokratska Opozicija Srbije - Democratic Oposition of Serbia), who was led by Vojislav Kostunica. Protic had very little to do with the organizing of the Revolution, but he inflates his role in his book. I recommend watching the BBC documentary called "Fall of Milosevic", it is a 2-part series and it acurately documents what happened on Oct. 5th 2000., unlike the opinionated book of Mr. Protic.

--Boris Malagurski ₪ 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like my website :-)

I guess e-mailing me the questions would be the best solution, because then I could concentrate more, and probably give a more acurate answer. [email protected]

I read in your user page that you're interested in the BBC World Service, I don't know if you saw my comment on BBC World yesterday, they showed it on TV several times.

I would also like to ask you how come you're so interested in Balkan history. Also, don't make the questions about my opinion, I will only give out facts and information, no opinion.

--Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

did you recieve my e-mail? --Boris Malagurski ₪ 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well,Boris,ako vec oces da pricamo na engleskom,Kostunica also had nothing to do with 5.oktobar,everybody knows that Kostunica did not even knew that 5.oktobar is going to happen.Djindjic is responsable for 5.oktober "Fall of Milosevic" Part 3 that was showing yesterday on USA and Soros-funeded television b92 said it clearly that Djindjic made 5.oktober happen.

AS for Kostunica,he showed that he have no charachter,that hes a moral zero,and after making all those cinical remarks about Djindjic and his expeditions to Hague,now kostunica changed his wicked mind and he is arresting people(like Milan Lukic who was arrested while in hospital)and sending them to Hague.

Off course,people recognized that Kostunica have sold out their hope since he became prime minister.When he started as prime minister he had great range of support,now only about 8 precent of people support him and his party.

Finally,last,but not the least,Boris is lieing about average pay,because theres no way in hell that its 300 Euros,its very funny,because he dont even live in SErbia.If he lived here he woulda known that average pay in much closer to 200 euros,and saying that its 300 euros would aonly make a local Serbian population laugh.

It is clear that Kostunica and this Goverment destroyed Serbian economy,and thats why so may people visited the Museum wheres Milosevics body to pay respect,because they know it was MUCH BETTER while he was in power.

Just wait and see his burial on saturday,there will be at least 300.000. people ,most probably even more.Dzoni 13:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarian Pho

mmm pho - do you have a good recipe?

KPSU

Hi Katsam. Thanks for your work on the KPSU article. The portland radio station articles have been a lonely place for awhile so I've gotten careless: blindly editing without checking or really looking first. I hope I didn't mess up any edits you had underway. If I did, feel free to revert and I'll apply them again, if you wish. —EncMstr 07:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the bit about corporate sponsors because of this. I'm guessing those are financial sponsors.

No, I didn't see any pleas; I found the KPSU article either here or here, and methodically continued my rhythm of the same research and edits to each radio station.

Stub status is for known incomplete articles. KPSU is further along than many of them, but I'd guess it's like 1/3 of the way to completion. After adding reasonable treatments of station history, philosophy, participation, anecdotes, etc., then it's probably time to remove the stub—really a request for assistance. —EncMstr 18:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason for putting it upfront is because so many are commercial broadcast radio stations. This is to address the article style where an article says what it is first. Also, for popups, only the first few sentences are visible, so if an article doesn't say what kind of critter it is upfront, retrieving the whole article and digging for it is often necessary. You'd be surprised at how many articles don't say they are radio stations...anywhere. —EncMstr 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The way you changed it is good. Are you hestitant about the corporate sponsorship? Look at the phrasing of KOPB-FM. Does that seem undesirable?

The KBOO article is quite good. Some enthusiast really went to town on it. I think I added only the info box and some minor rephrasings. —EncMstr 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you associate corporate with predominately negative meanings—not necessarily the, er, wholesome dictionary definition. Independent dentists are almost always a corporation (an LLC), as are the local flower shops. ADM is a corporation too, though more like a Boeing 777 than a Cessna 150, though both are airplanes. Corporation does not equal megacorporation (A little surprising to me, Merriam-Webster says there is such a word).

Isn't it PBS which is funded, in part, by the TLAs? OPB seems like they are more locally supported (like Les Schwab). I think this page is a bit misleading: my employer was a "member" for years donating thousands of dollars for an occasional random mention, but belonged in the 16% "corporate support", not the 64% "member support."

Thanks Katsam. It will be great to have a another good portland radio station article. Google has over a hundred thousand results for KPSU so I expect there is plenty of worthy material. Best wishes and thanks, EncMstr 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pho recipe - you might like this

Curried Seitan Nuggets

1 8 oz package seitan 1/2 cup nutritional yeast 1 t garlic powder 1/4 t ground cloves 1/4 t cayenne 1/4 t tumeric 3/4 t ground coriander 1/2 t ground cumin 1/2 t ground cardamom 1/2 t black pepper 2 T tamari coconut + olive oil (something to keep the olive oil from burning) or peanut oil

Drain seitan. Blend all the spices, then mix spice mixture into nut yeast. Dip seitan into tamari, then into nut yeast spice mixture. Heat oil in pan. Toss in seitan cook till brown on all sides. Drain on paper towel.

You can really alternate proportions on those and leave spices in or out (try to keep the black pepper, garlic powder, coriander and cumin though). Be careful with the cloves and cayenne. You could also try boil the seitan in some fake chicken broth for 30 mins if you want a more curried chicken like experience. Let me know what you think if you get the chance to try it. Also let me know if you know a way to get them crispier.Mujeresliebres 05:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NDI

I say go ahead with your proposed section on criticisms, but while you're at it you could do the same for its Republican counterpart, i.e. the International Republican Institute --Thorsen 07:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer from Falun Gong talk page

Katsam, Im a Falun Gong practitioner, if youd like to listen to what i have to say, i can answer your questions briefly from our point of view. Many people see Falun Gong in different ways, some criticize it and some other people practice it, youll hear many things from many people but in the end its up to you to make up your mind about it. Falun Gong or Falun Dafa is a cultivation system of mind and body, there are the 5 sets of excercises to practice and there are the books for reading which contain the teachings of Mr. Li.

The purpose of our practice is to assimilate to the principles of "Truth Benevolence Forbearance" and letting go of attatchments, all this is substantiated by the practice of the excercises which provides you with gong, gradually cleans your body and evolves many things for you. A religion can be a cultivation system but not necessarily a cultivation system has to be a religion, so Falun Gong is in no way a religion of some sort, we dont pray or worship any gods at all and there are no "churches" or enrollment sistems, people practice voluntarily and you can start or stop whenever you want.

Well, actually I believe that it depends on your definition of religion. Falun Gong has very spiritual and ethical beliefs, so some people might consider it a religion by virtue of that. It's up to you. I don't think there's a term that can accurately describe what Falun Dafa is, it's a way of life, spiritual discipline, cultivation practice,... Mcconn 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You can practice wherever and whenever you want and as long as you want, There are practice sites where you can go if youd like to share your practice and time with other practitioners too. There are no ranks in falun gong, there is an assistant who teaches the excercises to new people and coordinates the group practice. Mr. Li is often reffered to as the "master" by the students because of respect but he never asked to be called this way.

According to our point of view, to be practitioner is to be a person who wants to be better everyday and who wants to improve himself in all the aspects of his life but as you may have noticed, not everyone is perfect and we can all make mistakes during the process of cultivation, everyone has their own attatchments and personal problems that they have to overcome but with patience i think anything can be achieved, so this is why some people feel compelled to practice it more than other types of Qigong.

Aside from placing more emphasis on personal character than other qigongs, when Falun Gong was being spread in China it also gained a reputation of being really effective in improving both mental and physical health. I think a lot of people started practicing it for this reason too.Mcconn 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

About the persecution, our point of view on the matter is that there came to be so many falun gong practitioners in China that the government decided to "supress" them in order to prevent that the Chinese people would start following principles different from the Chinese Comunist ideology. Supression or persecution, however its called, something is happening. Some other people may deny it, the government might say there is nothing going on but we believe its very clear that there is something going on. You can identify the practitioners at the practice sites while they do the excercises or you can just ask, true FG practitioners dont lie, if they dont want to say something, perhaps they wont say it, but whatever they say must be true, thats the way it should be. But i wonder now, how can you supress this practice by just telling people not to do it? we think there is something beyond that, which is torture. If you want to legally forbid something, you have to have a reason for it, so if you dont have it, you come up with it.

Well, I think another reason that persecution happened could have been of jealousy and fear on the part of the dictator Jiang Zemin. That's simply put, but it's actually quite complex when you get into the specifics. Here are a few points, but certainly not everything. It's easy to see how jealousy could develop over Falun Gong's huge popularity, with Falun Gong practitioners out-numbering CCP members by at least 10 million. Plus, the CCP, a government that controls everything in society (and through force), had no part in aiding the spread of this huge social movement (which happened out of freewill). Plus, unlike an organized religion, they had no way of "infiltrating" Falun Gong and manipulating or controlling it (unlike their State Christianity and State Buddhism). Without an organization or administrative body there was no structure to infiltrate. It was sand through their fingers. And from the CCP's perspective, if you can't control it, eliminate it. So, as a result, a genocide has been happening now for seven years. They can identify practitioners by initiating a nationwide campaign to have schools and workplaces force their students and employees to officially denounce the practice (Yes, this has happened). Those who refuse are usually practitioners. There are also spies everywhere. Plus, most practitioners try to tell people the truth about the persecution and what Falun Gong is (since the gov demonized the practice), so that's another way to possibly caught. There are lots of ways it happens, but altogether if you understand how much this government controls it's people then you'd understand how they can basically find out anything about anyone. It's just like big brother. (Also, I don't think the practice sites that Andres menioned above still exist in China. A public practice site wouldn't make any sense at this time in China.) Mcconn 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything i just said is the FG practitioners point of view on the matter and in no way it represents the opinion of everyone present on this talk page, perhaps later on you might listen to the critics point of view, again all i can say is that its up to you to make up your mind about it. If youd like to see some pictures or know more about the practice from the practitioners point of view, you can go to this webpage www.falundafa.org --Andres18 14:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

here's an interview with Margaret Thaler Singer, author of Cult in Our Midst. ftp://download:[email protected]/SPDB/kfsp/mag.wmv

rtspt://media.kaiwind.com/SPDB/kfsp/mag.wmv?userid=guest&token=a641039de2de650675aa65e7161731d9

both links lead to the same video. --69.231.130.102 20:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll watch the interview. Katsam 03:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the Macedonian language

Thanks for the feedback. - Francis Tyers · 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Our Lady of Guadelupe

Notitiae, bulletin of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 2002, pages 194-195. Lima 15:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Guadelupe

I was lamenting that myself earlier. Personally I think the article is much more even-handed than it was when I first saw it, so I'm puzzled too. If the person who put the tag on doesn't come back within a few days with a substantive point that they feel should be addressed, I don't think there's anything wrong with taking it off. In fact, I'll take it off myself. Don't let it get you down. MLilburne 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

V de G

Hi S.

You have really done a lot of work on "Our Lady"'s article, and it is looking a lot better. I think you may be onto something in needing to go deeper into the "controversies" surrounding the apparition and the documentation about it. The story is so long and convoluted, our readers need to be able to access the whole thing, but they don't necessarily need to know it to get through the main article.

Secondly, there was some discussion about the possibility of exploring devotion to la V de G today. Well, one big way that devotion is manifested is through the construction of home or personal altars, which has been on my to-do list ever since I made it. There is info about this aspect of devotion to her in books on Chicana art, as well as some books about popular/folk religion or popular/folk Catholicism, especially as it contrasts with more orthodox versions of the faith. I'll see what specific titles I can find for you.

I'm sorry to say I know nothing about the role of la Virgen in the Cristero Wars--I think you may be confusing the post-Revolutionary conflicts with the early colonial conflicts.

As far as the Chicano Movement goes, it is tough to pin down exactly what role she played. As far as I know there is no book specifically on the topic. She was used as an emblem, particularly by the UFW, so it would be great to find, say, a quote from Cesar Chavez on her. My area of expertise is in the art of the movimiento, so I know that her image figures prominently into Chicano and (especially) Chicana art. There she is used as a symbol of Mexico, but also as an iconic representation of the Mexican woman. In this role, she has been reconfigured and reinterpreted, often in ways that traditional Guadalupanos have found offensive--the V de G series by Yolanda Lopez is the one that most stands out. In fact, there is a great quote by YL on the Virgen that is recorded in the documentary on Chicano Park. She says something to the effect that, until the Chicano art movement, the main image of the Mexican woman was the Virgen, a static, silent image, whose hands are folded in impotence and eyes nearly closed in passivity. It would probably fit well into the article. If you can't find the video, I can check it out again from my library and supply you (or the article) with the quote. As I mentioned, some traditional Guadalupanos were offended, and I even heard about a group called Los Guadalupanos that would go to art exhibits and do protests and things like that. I suppose I should see if I can find any documentation on the subject--I am just really pressed for time right now. Maybe I'll get a chance over the holiday break.

As far as the NPOV dispute goes, I tend to give little creedence to IPs that place such labels, especially when they do so without making concrete criticisms or suggestions. If it remains on there for another day or so without any discussion, I'd say just remove the tag.

The other thing I thought I'd run by you is about the main image: I feel that that little bit of black at the bottom really diminishes the quality of the image which is perhaps the most important aspect of the article. Think we should try to find another one?

Once again, I just wanted to express my gratitude for all the work you've done and if I can get some work done, I will. PAZ, --Rockero 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see any of the images you listed on my talkpage--maybe they got deleted somehow? There was one other aspect of popular devotion that I wanted to mention, and I will have to see if I can dig up the texts where I read about it-- and that is promesas: Promises devotees make to la Virgen, usually some sort of personal sacrifice, in exchange for favors such as cures or what have you. And did I mention pilgrimages to Tepeyac? They are probably already mentioned in the article, but if we're going to be reorganizing at some point... It was a big deal when Fox visited the Basilica (I think it was either during his presidential campaign or shortly after his election) because there is some law against public officials making such appearances. He wasn't charged or anything but it did cause controversy. Thanks for your kind wishes, --Rockero 19:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

One more thing I wanted to run by you: What do you think about creating a category for the people that have been influential in the development of the cult and who have contributed to the understanding of the apparition and its ancillary phenomena? We have articles on a lot of them now: Stafford Poole, Guillermo Schulenberg, Luis Laso de la Vega, Miguel Sánchez, etc., as well as the articles we don't yet have: Antonio Valeriano and Xavier Escalada, for example. And then there are others who figure prominently into the story: Bishop Zumárraga, Juan Diego, Octavio Paz, Yolanda Lopez, Miguel Hidalgo, Joaquín García Icazbalceta, etc. Category:Virgin of Guadalupe-related people seems too broad, and Category:Guadalupanos would be inaccurate. Maybe we could have Category:Guadalupan writers as a sub-cat of Cat:VdGRP? Any thoughts?--Rockero 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandugo

Hello! I saw your message in the talk page, and went right down to it and made the revision as you suggested. You make check back and give me your honest feedback again. Thank you very much for you valuable input. Its really appreciated. Best regards. --Pinay06 16:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Number of last edit"

Are you looking for the article history? There is a link on each article to its history. Each revision does have its own unique identifier. I hope that this is helpful. Jkelly 16:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Lady of Guadalupe

Katsam, why waste all those edits just to revert the article to your last version? Lets not get into an edit war over this issue. I believe the article has a heavy POV as it stands, lets work it out! Schicchi 15:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Eskaya

Hi! After the good input on Sandugo, may I also ask you for input on Eskaya? Thank you. --Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tonantzin guadalupe in a cactus.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tonantzin guadalupe in a cactus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Eyedetl.jpg

Hello Katsam, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Eyedetl.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Katsam/scratch. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Guadalupan stuff

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is the best resource; a bit dry, but it points to other good pages. The best counsel I can give is to not let a troll rent space in your head, and don't allow yourself to be dragged down a level. Sometimes it is exceptionally difficult, and then I recommend taking the long view and getting a bit of distance. The best way of dealing with difficult editors is to avoid becoming one yourself. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Cleduc 13:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)