Talk:Veronica Lueken
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Veronica Lueken is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article may need an appropriate infobox template. |
Hi. The accompanying entry is a wholly new analysis of Veronica Lueken, and as you can see from the copious references, it does not simply reproduce content from the Last Days Ministries website. I am not the author of the original deleted piece, so please, don't delete my take on this person and her worldview!
User: Calibanu, 17: 14, 16 May 2006.
To the previous person who vandalised this entry. Kindly do not do so any further. I have deleted your previous edit, as it was in violation of NPOV requirements, contained claims without independent verification, and also duplicated statements made elsewhere in the text. I have retained the St Michaels World Apostolate Mission edit, as it includes valuable information about what occurred after Mrs Lueken's death. Please note that I have striven to be as neutral as possible in recording the details of this woman's life and desist from any further excessive amendment of this entry.
User: Calibanu 10.28, 5 July 2006
[edit] Cite sources
Hi, I've noticed that this page has a very nice set of references at the bottom. However, each assertion needs to have its own reference, so that a reader does not have to search through the sources to find out where a particular line came from. You can read more at Wikipedia:Citing sources, or leave a note here if you have questions. —Mira 04:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mugavero & Objectivity
There are three Ad hominem attacks on the late Bishop Mugavero: one each time his investigation and denunciation is mentioned. This adds nothing to the reader's understanding of Veronica Lueken or her movement or of his investigation into her visions. Is it being suggested that he did not believe in her visions because he may have been gay? I'm sure the writer's disagreement with the Bishop's conclusions is strong enough to be stated rationally, not by simply attacking him as gay. Anyone familiar with her visions knows that they are quite powerful and that they do question the authority of church leadership. His conclusions, then, seem pretty straightforward, whether one agrees with them or not. So why question their authenticity based on his private life or unrelated performance?
Also, for the record, there is only one source for the claim that Mugavero was gay: a lawyer who is making a case against the church accused the bishop at a press conference (picked up by the Guardian and Daily News).
I ask that you remove the unnecessary repetitions of this and qualify the accusation by stating the context in which it was made.
As for objectivity, why not include information about the factional split between followers of Veronica Lueken into the Our Lady of the Roses Shrine and St. Michael's World Apostolate factions, which is the most important event in the movement since Veronica Lueken's death? The only mention of her husband, Arthur Lueken, is in passing, even though he became President of Our lady of the Roses in 1997 and presumably played an important role in her life. At least why not include the our lady of the roses website? Njsamizdat 14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Njsamizdat. As the original author of this article, I would firstly like to thank you for your objection to its earlier vandalism. Secondly, I was interested to read about the schisms that have occurred within the Bayside circle since Veronica Lueken's death. Originally, I compiled this from available non-web source material, and as I noted within the text, there has been no detailed analysis of the sect since Mrs Lueken passed away.
If you could provide the article with any documented evidence about the aforementioned split from either an online source, newspaper article or any other publication, then please do not hesitate to add such a reference to it.
[User Calibanu] 11.37, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibanu (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey now! This article has made a 180 turn. Your original is terrific. Njsamizdat 18:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [[]]
