Talk:Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nitpicky, nitpicky![edit]

Very minor editons made to ensure the neutrality police, suince some phrases were written in purple prose and sounded like borderline propaganda. Pleasse remember to keep yourselves neutral. Lunamaria 11:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am curious how the "associating" with Freemasons caused the saint's brother to commit suicide ? This is problematic, given the RC Church's fixation upon anti-Masonry (especially in Europe and Mexico), not so much a problem in the USA. It would make just about much sense to say that the brother committed suicide after eating an apple. What's the citation / proof for this sinister inference? Jamesclaude (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems[edit]

This article contains text included "with permission". Unfortunately, text so encumbered may not be included in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. It needs to be licensed under the GFDL. If the contributor who added this text and message actually owned the text and intended this license to apply, the "with permission" line needs to be removed since it clouds the issue. If the contributor did not own the text, it needs to be removed. Since this may well result in a virtual blanking of the article I am unwilling to do that myself, but post this here in the hopes that the problem can be otherwise resolved. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the contributer, I own both the text of the article and the website. How then should I ensure the article remains?

Since you indicated that you release the text under the GFDL, I have restored the article. Thanks so much! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other[edit]

  • Saint Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows (history · last edit) from [1]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB: Note at "Source" section of article says "with permission", so this is a non-GFDL compatable license problem at the moment. Article also seems to have been heavily edited since problem content was added. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any way to salvage this, or should it just be deleted? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the copyright holder of the article and the website I hereby grant permission for its use herein. saintgabrielpassionist@yahoo.co.uk
      • Thanks, but Wikipedia can only use the text if it's released under the GFDL, meaning that other content reusers can also use it. If only Wikipedia has permission, then we aren't able to use it. Do you give permission for the work to be copied by others as well as Wikipedia? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I give permission herein for anyone to use the text.

saintgabrielpassionist@yahoo.co.uk

He is a self-confessed saint. I think we should take him at his word. —Ian Spackman 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The prayer[edit]

User:Rwflammang restored the prayer to the article with the following comment

restore prayer. This prayer is what he best known for in many circles. May as well remove Gettysburg Address (also propaganda) from Lincoln article)

This is more than a little odd, as the article on Abraham Lincoln doesn’t include the Gettysburg Address. (Nor, indeed, does the latter article include the text of the address.) So if, as Rwflammang says, this prayer is a notable text (and I have absolutely no reason or desire to gainsay that), I suggest that the Abe-example is followed: an article is written about the prayer, the date and circumstances of its composition, problems (if any) of translation, its signficance, etc, and then this article can refer to that article.

Alternatively, if the prayer is notable, but only just so, add a paragraph to this article about the prayer, the circumstances of its composition, its translator, its significance, what those “many circles” are, etc.

But let’s not leave the prayer floating in the infobox devoid of any meaning.

Here is the text and (slighty dodgy) source as quoted:

Prayer of St. Gabriel
I want to break my own will into pieces, I want to do God's Holy will, not my own. May the most adorable, most loveable, most perfect will of God always be done.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/saintgabrielpassionist/writings.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian_Spackman (talk • contribs) 14:57, 8 November 2006

Speaking of the source, I found a mention of it in an internet news bulletin published by the Passionists. (Its the penultimate item in the bulletin. Scroll down.) Perhaps this improves the credibility of the source? Also, the first sentence of the prayer can be found in the Catholic-Forum page about St. Gabriel and in an article on Catholic Online. The Catholic Online article calls it St. Gabriel's "motto for daily living". The entire two sentences of the prayer are found in a blog by Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf. Yes, normally, blogs cannot be cited as verifiable sources, but in this case, an exception can be made. This blog, titled, "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" is totally dedicated to translating prayers from the Latin to English. Also, the author of the blog is a notable person, as given on the blog:
  Fr. Z is Moderator of the Catholic Online Forum and the 
 ASK FATHER Question Box. The WDTPRS columns appear weekly 
 in The Wanderer.
Yours,
Savio mit electronics 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A Religious"[edit]

Several times this article uses the term "a religious", as in "...[he] had promised to become a religious if he were healed." My question is, "a religious" what? Another apparent term of art is "attend", as in "...entered the religious life after several calls that he didn't fully attend until almost...". I have a problem with the usage in both cases. If these are Catholic jargon, fine, but they still seem odd. Mike 16:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'A religious' is the noun to describe a member of a religious order, e.g. He was a Franciscan religious. I don't understand the problem with 'attend', the usage is normal in English; to attend to something. See Definition "take charge of or deal with; "Could you see about lunch?"; "I must attend to this matter"; "She took care of this business" " User:Matthewafallen 21:30, 07 January 2007

Rating[edit]

I've taken the liberty of rating this article (Current revision) as "Low" in importance and B-class in quality. There are not many different references in the article and there are some grammar/spelling issues to address, but it seems like it has the structure needed for expansion. Of course I'm not going to act absolutely authoritative on my ratings here, but I feel that most people would agree with my assessment. Feel free to express your opinions here. Alekjds 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gun Saint[edit]

I have removed this piece to a more appropriate place and lessened its content. I don't think it ought to be placed under 'religious vocation' as does not seem to have any relevence to that area. It is also really a rather minor detail (akin to the information about the festivals) and perhaps the SGP Society ought to have a separate page. User:Matthewafallen

There ought to be something on this page about St. Gabriel's association with handguns, particularly a recounting of the episode between him and the mercenaries. The connection is significant, and the story appears on New Advent, so it is definitely not a fringe issue. Even if it is "dubious" or discouraged by the Passionists (as some editors have asserted), it should still be cited because of the significance of that material, though with a disclaimer. Trinite 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the incident related on NewAdvent. Also it is only mentioned in one of the many biographies of St. Gabriel (Son of the Passion by G. Poadge) and is utterly absent from any other biographies before then - either in Italian or English which leads me to wonder as to its credability. I therefore ask why the material cited by the St. Gabriel Possenti Society (which is only based on the Poadge biography) ought to be considered significent. Matthewafallen

I am not quite sure which incident you are referring to, but you only have to glance at the picture to realise that this article is a pious fiction. People who like both sweet-looking children and guns will like the article. These are the kind of Wikipedia articles that you have to take along with the porn-star ones. Total garbage which shouldn’t be in here. But fighting the people who write them is pointless: they will just re-write them. I can’t stop them. You can’t stop them. They will claim (or deny) the n’th amedment and carry on doing it. The best thing, I think, is to try to write articles about real people who are genuinely interesting. —Ian Spackman 14:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In doing some research on the history of handguns I came across a Mother Jones' piece from 2013 that suggests that this incident with the handguns might not have happened at all. Is this up for debate? Yadojado (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I merged the content of the Saint Gabriel Possenti Society article into this article, making it a separate section at the very end. (There was already a paragraph there.) The SGPS article - only four sentences long! - presented the story of Gabriel and the marauding bandits differently than this article, with no mention of its being questionable - and it only had one source: a blog about St. Garbriel. Lightbreather (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gabriel_of_Our_Lady_of_Sorrows&oldid=1207337472"