Talk:Rocamadour

Comments

The introduction seems to fail WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(N)POV is not the issue here IMO, it's just written like a tourist brochure. I'll see what I can do. Markussep ^Talk 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An interesting introduction. But more could surely be made of the historical origins of the shrine. There are certain names, feasible dates and archaeological materials. Instead of saying this amounts to no evidence, the various hypotheses could be weighed against one another. After all, this is the material we have: let's work with it. I visited the shrine twenty years ago and was impressed and intrigued by it. Ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.172.121 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand this introduction about Rocamadour. I red the tesis of Jean Rocacher (note 2), and Book of miracles edited in 1996 (latin and french), and others, and I live near this city, and I can't understand how it's posible to write this introduction after reading the book of Rocacher (for example). Just an example: the manuscripts written in around 1172 present other facts than the discovering of the body of Saint Amadour. We know this famous discovering in 1166 by a chronicle of Robert of Thorigny... and this abbot of the Mont-Saint-Michel didn't know the legend of Zacheus, which appeared at about the XIV century. The legends are very important to understand the history of Rocamadour, and we need true facts too. But this introduction presents legends and facts with a true part and a false part. We need another presentation, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Phlippoteau (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Literary references

I've removed the baffling sentence about One Hundred Years of Solitude, but most of the "Literary References" section is made up of passing mentions. The fact that Cortázar may have named a minor character after this Rocamadour is potentially interesting to Cortázar readers, but probably not to people who are interested in Rocamadour. Can we eliminate most or all of this section? 850 C (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rocamadour. 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/20050423192723/http://www.rocamadour.com/ to http://www.rocamadour.com/

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) 01:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)