Talk:Our Lady of Lourdes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Our Lady of Lourdes is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the 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, you can edit the article attached to this page, or 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 is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Our Lady of Lourdes article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 First posts 2 Articles for Deletion debate 3 NPOV 4 Arguments against 5 Edits of Barbara Shack 5.1 The last change 5.2 3RR rule violation by Barbara Shack? 6 Speculations, theories and facts 7 Links 8 Introduction is an overview, not a place for POV 9 Is James Randi really impartial? 10 Requested move - Title change 11 The Case against alleged miracles at Lourdes 12 Page change to "Our Lady of Lourdes" 12.1 Voting on page name change 13 Commentary 14 mediation 15 The title and the content of the article 16 mediation discussion 17 Bernadette's Opinion 18 British Medical Journal 19 Removal of Merger Proposal 20 Removal of NPOV Tag 21 Article enrichment topics 22 My edit

[edit] First posts

There is no need for the contact the vatican for fake miracles. So I removed that section. NB

Another ridiculous article with the totally irrelevent specualtion that St. Bernadette's incorrupt body may have been interpreted as vampirism by other cultures. Presumably the writer doesn't believe St Bernadette is a vampire and so this is a ridiculous piece of totally irrelevent trivia. Obviously part of the overall hatchet job by this skeptical writer. RC

Added image of Bernadette Soubirous. The image is public domain and is already in Wikipedia.Barbara Shack 19:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Doc ^ask? 10:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

At the time of that debate, the article was named "The Case against alleged miracles at Lourdes." Ikkyu2 03:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The article's not NPOV. Of 2 Keeps, 5 Deletes, and 1 Merge, every single vote in the AfD pointed out that the article title and content violated WP:NPOV as a POV fork.

My solution to this is to move the article to Miracles at Lourdes and tag it with an NPOV template. Discussion welcome. Ikkyu2 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The title Miracles at Lourdes is better. And the part alleged healing is definitely not NPOV. There are many misunderstandings of the nature of miracle (if there is water which can heal it is not because of its physical properties - a miracles is not a medical process which can be reproduced) and more. The article also contradicts itself. In the first it is said there are 67 healings, in the second part it speaks of 100s and more healings. --Benedikt 10:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing my work needed improvement and taking action on it, Barbara. We here at Wikipedia are supposed to do that. Unfortunately, you did not do the appropriate research. If you are sincerely seeking the truth, please do your homework and contact the appropriate agencies to report the possible falsehood of Lourdes so Bernadette Soubirous can be removed from the list of saints, and so Lourdes can be removed from the list of approved apparitions. JBogdan 00:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Bogdan's changes. --WikiCats 10:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments against

I read the arguments against the miracles and I don't understand what this is all about. Apparently the author of these arguments don't have any idea of the events in Lourdes in 1858 and the historical and contemporary critic. So the author just denies one fact after another without any clue why he does that. Is anyone here willing to read some critical books and sum them up? --Benedikt 08:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of Barbara Shack

Dear Barbara, You made some edits to the article, you can see them here: [1] These changes are mainly made in the introduction. The introduction gives an overview of the incidents. You added mainly critical positions and comments in order to give a critical interpretation of the incidents. But the sense of such an introduction is to give an overview of the incidents. The critics are dealt with later. You also make repeatedly statements like the catholic church decided reasonably or unreasonably. What is the sense of this?

Another change is this paragraph:

This dispute allegedly reflected the contemporary quarrelling in France between proponents of the Christian belief and proponents of the Enlightenment on the other hand. Not all proponents of the Enlightenment were non-Christian. Isaac Newton was a Christian and also influential in the Enlightenment.

You totally misunderstood my point. In France of the 19th century there was a dispute between believers and non-believers going on. The believers were Christians and the non-believers were proponents of the enlightenment. This dispute affected the politics and church-state-relationship of that time. The events in Lourdes reflected this dispute. My version of the paragraph doesn't say that all proponents of each side to the side in the dispute about Lourdes but that the dispute reflected the nation-wide debate. Is that understandable?

Your Edit about the placebo effect is also non-sense. You place critic in the introduction instead of placing it in the correct section of the critical arguments.

[edit] The last change

•  :"Scientific and medical examinations commissioned by the Catholic Church" may not be impartial. Skeptics in many cases will not be convinced unless observations are done by agents guaranteed to be impartial like James Randi.

is just a non-information. The article states often enough that the Catholic Church issued the examinations. To insert names of persons who have apparently nothing to do with the topic is on the brink of spammig (advertisement of James Randi).--Benedikt 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 13:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)This is informative. It suggests that the Roman Catholic Church is not guaranteed impartial and their appointees are not guaranteed impartial either. The Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal suggests that the Roman Catholic Church heirarchy are frequently irresponsible and more interested in concealing unpleasant truths than in putting things right.

Answer me a question, please: What has James Randi to do with Lourdes?

And where does catholic church guarantee that their appointees are impartial? Where does the article say that? --Benedikt 16:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you have an idea of Lourdes which goes beyond the Wikipedia articles on that topic. I suggest you, Barbara, that you buy yourself a book about Lourdes or perhaps two, one critical and one positive. Then you can begin adding some useful information about the phenomen. In the moment you just edit by placing critical statements everywhere in the text and thereby destroying the readability and objectivity of the text. --Benedikt 08:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Barbara, I removed the links pointing to sections inside the article. Users are able to scroll. And if they would remain we had to include links from the critical paragraph to the pro-paragraph. That's unnecessary. Don't think that people are that stupid that they can't read an article as a whole. --Benedikt 16:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User Benedikt wrote: "Answer me a question, please: What has James Randi to do with Lourdes?" - It has everything! The same pattern of dishonesty and opportunism the Catholics always showed throughout their history. This is a fact, mister. 201.51.49.12 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR rule violation by Barbara Shack?

The following discussion has taken place between me and Barbara Shack on her talk page in an attempt to resolve the non-NPOV status of the page and its factuality. This will be a case to report to the administrator if she does any more reverts after today without doing her research. JBogdan 10:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing my work needed improvement and taking action on it, Barbara. We here at Wikipedia are supposed to do that. Unfortunately, you did not do the appropriate research. If you are sincerely seeking the truth, please do your homework and contact the appropriate agencies o report any new findings. JBogdan 00:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 12:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Objective people like James Randi do not take Lourdes seriously.

Having looked at the page on James Randi, it does appear true that he is probably objective, and that he has done much good in exposing frauds. One thing about Lourdes needs to be clarified. The water DOES NOT HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC POWERS. It is simply an instrument used by God when He chooses. When He does not choose that it will cure, it will not cure. Also, if you read the documents, Bernadette only says she saw "a lady," not the Blessed Virgin Mary. An investigation done after the fact came to the conclusion that the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to Bernadette. Regarding miracles, the Lourdes Medical Bureau's job is to investigate cases that may possibly be miracles and determine whether there is any way it may have possibly occured naturally, but it is not their job to determine what a miracle is. See the website for details. The apparition at Lourdes is not required to be believed by Catholics because it is not an integral doctrine of the Faith and is not public revelation, but private revelation. The Church has CONDEMNED other "apparitions" because they are not of God. Apparently you do not understand the Church's position on apparitions, but neither do I have time to explain it here. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is available online here. JBogdan 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not do your research before reverting the page. Also, another user corrected us. The "miracles" can also be consummated by participating in a Eucharitic procession on the premises, i.e., the water does not have scientific healing powers, nor should it, as I previously stated on the page. If you do not do the apropriate research, further reverts by you will be reported to the administrators as violations of the WP:3RRrule. JBogdan 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculations, theories and facts

In Wikipedia:Verifiability it is stated:

One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.

This article lists a lot of possible explanations of the incidents in Lourdes. But though it may be possible that B. ate certain mushrooms and had the apparitions because of the consumation I ask whether this is relevant for the article. According to the guidelines Wikipedia articles should refer to facts, theories, claims that have already been published. I don't see where someone has suggested that. And if someone suggested that we should name names (or as we say in Germany we should "Roß und Reiter nennen" (name horse and rider)). Of course this argument doesn't apply to all critics in the article but I want to clear this topic in general before I go on. --Benedikt 16:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

One problem with this article is it does not take into account the value of suffering. Suffering is a route to either help us get closer to God or to help us merit graces for others. Not all people will be cured from this water, nor should we expect it to be the case. Our Lord chooses who is cured and who is not, just as in the Gospels. The water is not a scientific formula, so no, we cannot expect it to be used in President Roosevelt's Bath and cure anyone. What about St. Peter's shadow or Elijah's mantle or Our Lord's touch? Nothing scientific to it, because it is GOD who chooses to work miracles that we may believe and follow Him. If a miracle will not accomplish this, why should He throw pearls to swine?JBogdan 19:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a major theme in Bernadette's life and even made it into the movie, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia per se. What you'd have to do is find an article on the value of suffering as it applies or is exemplified by the story of Bernadette's life and link to it and the justification would be this is one of the real reasons Bernadette was canonized -- because she exemplified this virtue. --Bluejay Young 06:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just worked on the "Healing" section. Please improve on it if it needs it.JBogdan 21:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Barbara, you reinserted the links I deleted from the link section. Please note that all these links are already linked inside the article. It is not appropriate to link web site twice in an article. And please note that some of these links doesn't deal mainly with the incidents of Lourdes but only touch the topic in a short section. Please take a look at Wikipedia:External_links. --Benedikt 16:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 13:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)It is not normal to have a link in an article unless there is a reference at the bottom.

[edit] Introduction is an overview, not a place for POV

I deleted the reference to the placebo effect from the first paragraph. The introduction gives an overview of the topic and is not the place for interpretations of the incidents in Lourdes. There is room for that in the paragraphs after the introduction. --Benedikt 16:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)I’ve transferred the whole last paragraph to Apparitions and Miracles & Alleged Healings If the section on the alleged placebo effect is too long or too contentious for the introduction so is the rest of the paragraph.

At the top of the page the article had tried to say the Catholic Church confirms this apparition and other religions dispute it. Would it be better to say something like "This article is exclusively related to the Catholic Church. It does not pertain to other religions"? Also, why does the Catholic Church confirm it if other religions doubt it? The facts should be obvious in themselves and not be related to one's religion because an event either occured or did not. We here at Wikipedia are supposed to find what DID occur. Also, I fixed some of the first paragraph to mage it more legible, and also removed some of the sentences that are explained further in the article.JBogdan 19:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is James Randi really impartial?

I have made a slight edit, changing "

"The Catholic Church has commissioned various scientific and medical examinations of the Lourdes miracles, and on these grounds it is possible to impugn their impartiality. Critics are unlikely to be convinced unless observations are done by agents such as James Randi, whom they consider to be impartial."

I did this in order to remove the accusatory and prejudicial tone of the passage.

Randi can NOT be considered "impartial" and who is giving the "guarantee" anyway? Possibly other people might be able to imagine Randi saying that some paranormal phenomenon or other is genuine, but I can't - he has built his career on "debunking" and until such time as he does endorse some paranormal as real, then I see NO reason to assume that he will ever do so. I understand that if there is NO such thing as paranormal phenomena, then he will never do that. But he seems to allow no chance of such things being real, and that is NOT a scientific attitude and he is NOT an "impartial judge".

Moreover, it is possible to create a very large number of different hypotheses to cover any set of facts, and so it is laughably easy to generate any number of "counter-explanations" for miracles or any other phenomenon. But that is a LONG way from actually PROVING any of the alternative explanations are true, and proving an alternate theory true is the ONLY way to prove the paranormal theory false. So ultimately, all that is left, is the FAITH and BELIEF that the miraculous phenomenon did not happen. And as long as we are dealing with faith, then why is one faith better than another?

ALSO: The use of the word "HOAX" is completely uncalled for: that is essentially a conspiracy theory. If someone wants to call it a "hoax" let them cite some reliable evidence and sources for it. Otherwise, I do not think that we need this page to be merely another instance of Catholic-bashing.

(Incidentally I am neither Catholic nor a Christian, which I say for the benefit of those bigots who who will find that to be important.)

(Excuse my "non-WP" formatting, will go over the tutorials very soon, I promise!) User Hi_There Hi There 15:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't need to mention Randi at all. Many people are not aware that in investigations of this type, the Church appoints an advocatus diaboli -- literally, a devil's advocate -- whose job is to prove that no miraculous event occurred, that the claimed event was a hallucination or hoax. This work was done at the investigation of the Lourdes Spring and later when Bernadette's cause for canonization was turned in. It so happened that many Church officials had strong reasons for wanting to believe that Bernadette's apparitions were not real. These ranged from social prejudice because Bernadette was an illiterate of the lowest peasant class, to disagreement with the Immaculate Conception doctrine which had just been handed down and which Bernadette seemed to be confirming by telling people her lady had called herself "Immaculate Conception". This made her look like a shill who'd been set up by others to promote this dogma. It would have been very easy to find an advocatus diaboli for the Lourdes claims. Non-catholics often have the impression that we catholics all think alike and are mere sheep who believe what we are told to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth, and it has been so since the earliest days of the Church. Stories like this give us the opportunity or choice to believe, but are strictly optional. --Bluejay Young 00:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move - Title change

• Miracles connected with Lourdes → Miracles at Lourdes … Rationale: To comply with WP:NAME Listed in Talk since 29 March, consensus reached. Page by that name already exists - need help. … Please discuss/vote at Talk:Miracles connected with Lourdes - copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

This article was called Miracles at Lourdes and for some reason it was changed (without discussion) to Miracles connected with Lourdes.

The Wikipedia guidelines for Naming conventions says that we should use the most common name of a person or thing. The most common name for the issues discussed in this article is Miracles at Lourdes.

I move that the title be changed back to Miracles at Lourdes--WikiCats 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC).

If there is no other discussion, I will change the title to Miracles at Lourdes. --WikiCats 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion, Wikicats. JBogdan 20:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Move has been listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves for help by an admin. --WikiCats 12:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops! If it was only about the miracles at Lourdes, changing the title would be preferable, but because it also talks about Bernadette's incorruptibility, it really should keep the current title. Unless, of course, we change the http address and keep the same hyperlink names and title at the top of the page. Maybe we should also add redirects to this page. JBogdan 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think talking about Bernadette's incorruptibility is a problem. This issue is using a common name in simple English. Would you agree to let this go through? --WikiCats 14:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It should not be a problem, as long as we add a redirect also. JBogdan 10:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --WikiCats 00:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. Also, we should add a redirect for the old name. (this qualifies for my OK by me to admin.) JBogdan 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --WikiCats 02:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• OK I this was a slightly messy move but I think I got everything, I've left the links to old targets where they appeared in archives, if I did miss anythng, please get back to me. --Alf ^melmac 10:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited, then zilched a paragraph which was nothing but dissertation. It should go in an essay or something and be linked from this article but shouldn't be in the article itself: --Bluejay Young 06:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

(It said: "There is no discernable pattern showing the purpose of any hypothetical entity working miracles. Any such entity could prove its existence by, for example raising the dead or replacing amputated limbs. In Mediaeval times when doubting the veracity of the Catholic Church's claims was punishable by excommunication, imprisonment or death, it was more common to hear local tales of extreme miracles. Rationalists may fail to understand why an entity which wants to heal and can heal would help so few of the sick pilgrims. Therefore rationalists may assume no such entity exists. [2]")

[edit] The Case against alleged miracles at Lourdes

I also got rid of this section (I'll paste it here for discussions). It is speculation on the author's part and what needs to happen instead is research and quoting from sources.

I agree that this side of the story needs to be told. It was very important in Bernadette's day, and some of the principal advocates for a natural, scientific explanation were the Catholic investigators on the review board. The church-vs-enlightenment thing at Lourdes was very real and Bernadette had to stand up to some awful grilling by local and Imperial police. Many of these men actually were Catholics themselves but thought she was hallucinating or putting on a hoax, or that she'd been put up to it by others. They didn't believe a word of it. You got some sense of this in the film. --Bluejay Young 07:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It said: There is no reason to assume that scientific and medical examinations commissioned by the Catholic Church are impartial. Neither is there reason to assume examinations by doctors of the Medical Bureau, regardless of their religious persuasion, have any bias at all. Critics in many cases will not be convinced unless observations are done by agents guaranteed to be impartial. Some would argue that if there was proof of everything there would be no need for faith, which is the basis of most religious teachings.

"Possible natural explanations for the apparitions and the Candle: Hallucinations can happen for natural reasons. One possibility would be that hallucinogenic fungi were mistaken for edible field mushrooms. Mouldy grain can also contain hallucinogenic material, see Ergotism. This explanation, however, fails to take into account that no one else in the area, including the family, reported any supernatural experiences."

Yeah, you can see that I edited this, but then realized it was dissertation material and didn't belong in a standard article. I would need to see a source for the idea that Bernadette ate the wrong (or right) mushrooms. I have never seen this in any of the criticisms of the Lourdes visions. Mostly what I see is the repetition of the complaints about her in her own day; that she was of the lowest class and probably just said she was seeing something to get attention or possibly help raise $ for her destitute family. --Bluejay Young 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility would be that Bernadette was overworked and tired, possibly suffering from Sleep deprivation. At the time the apparitions began, Bernadette was enrolled in school trying to learn using an unfamiliar form of French. When not in school she was helping her mother with daily tasks and watching over her younger siblings. If the girls rested on their way to gather wood that day, she may have become drowsy. If the girls did not rest she may have been so tired that she was close to falling asleep on her feet. In that state it is possible to experience hypnagogic hallucinations and hypnopompic hallucination. These are considered natural phenomena. Hypnagogic hallucinations can occur as one is falling asleep and hypnopompic hallucinations occur when one is waking up.

More of the same. I've never seen any documented criticism of Lourdes that attributes the visions to her being exhausted although by her own report she was walking a bit behind the other girls due to her asthma -- she was not supposed to run or get herself tired or chilled, which is why she didn't cross the Boly brook when they did. --Bluejay Young 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Notably the spring appeared, ‘a few days later’, after Bernadette dug in the sand. An alternative explanation is that some people went to a place roughly where the vision had occurred, not knowing the exact place. A pre-existing spring that had previously been overlooked might have been mistaken for the spring reported by Bernadette.

I've never seen this one either. --Bluejay Young 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

According to Dr. Pierre Romaine Dozous, the principal observer of the "miracle of the candle", he was sufficiently close to Bernadette to observe that the candle was continuously in contact with her skin. While Dozous was not an unquestioning believer in the Catholic Church and strove for unbiased reporting, it is not outside the realm of possibility that his observations were influenced by the other witnesses, who were likely to be devout Catholics with a need to believe in a supernatural occurrence.)

I tried to work with this but to no avail. I have Dozous' report somewhere. I could quote it if need be. --Bluejay Young 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What Ms. Shack doesn't seem to recognize is that her proposed explanations are intriguing, but have no place on Wikipedia unless she can source them. I think this is called original research. The Lourdes inquest was an exhaustively detailed fact-finding commission. If they considered ergotism or magic mushrooms in determining how to deal with Bernadette's reports, I have never heard of it. If it were present in the commission's study, it could be included, but under no other circumstances. Therefore it does not yet belong in this article.

Frankly I don't even know why this article exists except that Ms. Shack created it after she was told to stop including her speculations on the main Bernadette Soubirous article. She seemed particularly annoyed by the "miracle of the candle". I'd be just as happy to get rid of references to same, inasmuch as that was a relatively minor, trivial incident. What I'd like to see is Dozous' testimony before The Commission and his reports of the other stuff he witnessed. --Bluejay Young 17:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary

If you have discussion, please put it here. I cleaned up the language on criticisms. Wikipedia is not a place for attacking a subject, but a criticism section is proper. Please write in a detached voice. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The material added in was edited not removed. you doubled the material what was edited. Please comment here on the edits. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Second revet please talk out ewhat I said before. You have double added material without checking. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk* --Bluejay Young 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your edits were fine. I missed the worthy of belief part. There was so much to fix. Thanks! Dominick ^(TALK) 12:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wish she'd stop putting things back in. --Bluejay Young 01:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

Hi. I'm the mediator from the mediation cabal who has taken Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28 Miracles at Lourdes. As requested by User:Bluejay Young I am not a Roman Catholic but rather a Jewish Atheist, which means I don't personally believe in miracles at all. That being said I generally take mediation cabal cases on religious issues (for most of the debates I'm very neutral) and am knowledgeable about Christian doctrine. I've never read any of James Randi's books and other than the most basic knowledge (kids see Virgin Mary some people go to fountain where they saw the vision and get healed) I had no knowledge of Lourdes prior to taking this case. Clearly there is some minor bias here but it was specifically requested.

OK lets get started.

1) I noticed User:MamaGeek's suggestion about making the additions to Incorruptibility and then I'd imagine a link at both this article and the Bernadette Soubirous to the Incorruptibility discussion. What are people's feelings about that compromise suggestion? jbolden1517^Talk 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

2) Does anyone object to a Randi and Lourdes article discussion Randi's position on Lourdes in full detail with links to the Randi, and Lourdes articles?jbolden1517^Talk 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I object because I can't see what James Randi has to say about Lourdes. I've done a search on his page and he doesn't offer in-depth information about the incidents. We could link to http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html from the current article but I don't see that he has said anything substantial about Lourdes which would justify a new article. --Benedikt 15:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Now a comment for both sides:

Barbara -- The institution doing the investigating holds as a core tenant a belief in substance theory in particular they wholly reject materialism and logical positivism. For the purposes of this article "objective" does not mean in accordance with rationalism as you and I interpret it but rather in accordance with rationalism as they interpret it. You are free to link to other articles but this article discusses (and should discuss) Lourdes primarily from a Catholic perspective. A few links or small comments are fine, but what is important about Lourdes is what it claims occured and how it fits into other aspects of French Catholocism. I want you to step back for a second, and I want you to understand you are making detailed scientific arguments that a story involving a ghost popping down from heaven to tell people to drink magic water which heals people every now and then but not very often might not be true from a skeptic's perspective. That ain't exactly earth shattering and its not going to be the focus of the article on Lourdes or even get equal play. What I think you can hope for and I think is reasonable is that wikipedia neutrally report the fact that there do exist explanations from these events from a naturalistic perspective and link off to them.

JBolden, thanks for pointing this out. It is really neccessary to point out that Lourdes reflected the dispute between Materialists/Rationalists and Romantics/Catholics at that time. Lourdes made an important impact on the politics of France as well. But I also would like to point out that Lourdes also resulted in overcoming Jansenistic thinking at that time.

You know, I visited Lourdes a few times and I never read a critical book or even a scientific book about it. And apparently no one else participating in this discussion has read such a book. I'm still not willing to buy such a book because imo I'm not in charge to do this as proponent of Lourdes. But we really someone who knows all the arguments and can name the "What?" and - likewise important - the "Who?" This article always lacked this knowledge and instead made general speculations. So I Guess we are at a point where some research is need. --Benedikt 15:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

BlueJay et al -- This article as currently constructed is written from a Catholic miraclist POV. It asserts that a magical event did occur at Lourdes.

• her body was found to be "incorrupt" — preserved from decomposition, perhaps by supernatural means.
• The people were healed and "medical examinations ... failed to find any other explanations"

This needs to be addressed kind of carefully. Obviously we want the article to read smoothly, but to do that we are going to need a disputes section. Another alternative is footnotes. Wikipedia has no position on whether the Virgin Mary healed a bunch of people and that means that at its core this article cannot take that position. You may want to start a conversation about whether you want to:

1. tone it down a little
2. have footnotes scattered
3. included a full featured dispute section (no evidence or argument just hitting the core points of the skeptical positions)

jbolden1517^Talk 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this. I have absolutely no objection to presenting a view other than a "miraclist" one on these subjects. I simply insist that it be done properly. Plenty of contemporary criticism of Lourdes and Bernadette exist -- good, solid, primary source stuff. [from BlueJay Young]

A quick comment here. By in large Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources. As much as possible we want to be a tertiary source WP:NOR.

1. primary sources document the evidence
2. secondary sources analyze the evidence
3. tertiary sources document the existing analysis

jbolden1517^Talk 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lourdes Bureau is made up of an equal number of Catholic and non-believer doctors. The Bureau does not certify healings as miraculous, only inexplicable. You know that most of the time, fifty years or so down the road they're going to find an explanation. The Bureau's doctors themselves know this. Frankly, my suspicion is that most of the reportedly instant, permanent healings (the only ones the Bureau considers) are of autoimmune diseases, and those are notorious for being affected by thought and emotion, particularly intense religious experience. That's why most of the reported cures take place during the Blessing of the Eucharist ceremony, and not after bathing or drinking.

My problem was not with the idea of putting in "it could have been this or that natural explanation", but the way in which Miss Shack did it. Things like ergotism and psychedelic mushrooms are clever speculations, but are irrelevant to this article in that they are not part of any contemporary or modern criticism of Lourdes -- at least, none that I have ever seen. Most of the ones I've read confine themselves to Bernadette's having either consciously made up a fantasy (as the Medjugorje kids are reported to have done), or staged a hoax to earn money for her destitute family, or having been made a shill by the Church wishing to promote the Immaculate Conception doctrine that had just been certified. As for the "she-vampire" remark, it is again clever, but irrelevant in a discussion of Lourdes, unless Miss Shack can prove that this possibility was brought up during the investigation. She has to cite sources relevant to Lourdes, not write a speculative essay -- she can put that on her website and link to it (and she can delete the dead link to CSICOP's Lourdes article). In addition, she has to allow others to fix up her badly written sentences and delete her repetitions. This will make the article more professional looking. [from Bluejay Young]

This has been going on for several months. If you look at her version in February it doesn't have the same problems. I have a feeling the issues in the current version are a reaction to the revert wars of the last few months. I need to talk to Barbara to find out. jbolden1517^Talk 02:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[Emile Zola discussion snipped as no longer relevent]

[edit] The title and the content of the article

At the time I had my "dispute" with Barbara the article tried to sort out arguments for and against the supernaturality of the incidents happening in Lourdes. The titles suggests that the article only deals with articles about the miracles and not with the apparitions. I object renaming the article to Our Lady of Lourdes which is also a feast in the calendar of the catholic church. In my opinion we should return to the state the article had some months ago and put the content about the apparitions themselves in another article. We then had one article just portraying what happened in Lourdes and another one reflecting the contemporary and current dispute about the healings. --Benedikt 15:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediation discussion

Barbera logged in on the 3rd and didn't reply to anything here. I've left a note on her talk. I'll give her a week from now. If still no action then we'll just start going ahead with the overhaul you all want. jbolden1517^Talk 12:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK weeks up. Start your overhaul. I'll monitor. If she shows up then I'll intervene otherwise I'll stay out of it. jbolden1517^Talk 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone still here or should I just close the case? I'll close case in 1 week if I don't here from anyone jbolden1517^Talk 14:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I guess the problem is that nobody is out here taking a critical stance of Lourdes. Like I stated above we would need someone who knows enough about the matter from a critical perspective. Apparently there is none. Therefore there is no need to leave the case open (although I'm not the originator). --Benedikt 15:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right. If you want to start your overhaul while I'm still around you should probably start. jbolden1517^Talk 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the critical stance part, what we need is contemporary documentation from church authorities investigating it. --Bluejay Young 11:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernadette's Opinion

Bernadette said she saw a "Lady" (she was not even sure of it herself at first, as is evidenced in her testimony)--the Church was the one who did the investigation and came to the conclusion that the "Lady" was the Blessed Mother. Hopefully I can rework the article to show that. JBogdan 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British Medical Journal

We should delete the reference to the British Medical Journal. The referred article is a travel report in the student edition of the bmj and not worth quoting. --Benedikt 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Merger Proposal

The proposal to merge Bernadette Soubirous with Our Lady of Lourdes will be removed. At the time of the proposal, the two pages were very similar; however, they are now clearly distinct topics. The former is about an individual person. The latter is about the apparitions themselves, the site of the apparitions, and miracles connected with them (excluding Bernadette's incorruptibility). JBogdan 00:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPOV Tag

The NPOV tag has been removed. Hopefully my edits will be satisfactory in making the article NPOV, and also correct under the WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Some of my changes are as follows:

• Words such as apparition, miracle, and cure have been removed when feasible. However, in quotes from documents and other sources, it has been necessary to keep the original wording.
• The introductory paragraph on disputes between the Enlightenment and others was removed. The divide is not between Christianity and the Enligtenment; it is between Catholics (actually, maybe I should say "loyal" or "practicing" or "faithful" Catholics, but I will not get picky here) and non-Catholics (again, this term might include some "Catholics," but I will not get picky either). Since this is an article about a Catholic related series of events (and does not apply to other religions or beliefs), it is not necessary to give the opinions of other faiths, but, as in all articles, I have tried to keep it unbiased and factual. The examination of the events and the Catholic Church's position on the matter is explained in other paragraphs, and for an unbiased approach best left out of the introductory paragraph. I also mentioned that Bernadette "admitted to her mother" that she had seen a "lady;" Bernadette never wanted it public in the first place, and she only wanted to keep it as a secret among the three persons who had gone out that day.
• The categories were changed to fit together better. "Additional events" belonged under the "Appearances and Events" category, not as a separate topic. The Catholic Church's Position did not belong under "Additional events." The scientific analysis was moved to the appropriate locations.
• I removed the "Taken from Ecrits de Saint Bernadette" from one of the references. Wikipedia policy is that you must see for yourself what a document says itself if you want to say the quote came from it (or however it goes). This did not qualify to have it cited as being that without my prior checking (it was one of my own references), but the reference is still OK.
• Dr. Pierre-Romaine Dozous's examination is only mentioned once now (rather than twice!) Apparently there was a second case regarding a candle if the material in the article is to be trusted--I left a mention of it in case someone wants to research this further.
• Mentions of the water being the source of healing were removed, and I moved the scientific analysis to the appropriate places.
• The links to incorruptibility and natural mummification were removed. They belong on the Bernadette Soubirous page. I do not know if I will get to doing it.
• The mention of the low number of healings was removed. I also removed the mentions of the water being a cure when possible. The Catholic belief on healing should suffice to explain any matters.
• The Criticism category was full of arguments and counter-arguments. As in all cases, verifiable and reliable reference is necessary. Wikipedia policy is that it is better to have no content than bad content. I removed both sides of the arguing where possible. The scientific analysis is explained in terms of what the process is; I removed mentions of "verifiable" as well as I could (thinking of it now, oops, I didn't!--I know of one more I can remove).
• Several links were removed. Two were from Infidels.org--not what Wikipedia would consider a reliable resource. One was from HiddenMysteries--not considered a reliable resource for Wikipedia purposes. One was from Edwardtbabinski.us--unfortunately, the site appears to be a self-hosted site, which is also not considered reliable in most cases for Wikipedia. If the site was a true expert's website, it might be usable. Unfortunately, the site appears to be use of a pseudonym. I did not see any reports or reviews that were purely scientific--(meaning, in a sense, that the reports, reviews, etc. covered matters that taught or discussed facts that were not attempts to prove something disputed). Zola's link on Gutenberg.org might be a good reference on Zola's article, but, according to Wikipedia policy, not on this article.
• Mentions that science might find or not find explanations for the events were removed. There is no need for speculation regarding future scientific discoveries on this article. The appropriate places are the respective articles for the diseases or for "future discoveries," etc.
• The studentbmj is NOT the British Medical Journal; However, it does include information on the scientific methods used in analysis. I moved the link to the "External links" category and gave it an appropriate title. I did find an article that actually is from the British Medical Journal which, although it does not get into scientific analysis, does give a brief description of current pilgimages and doctoral privileges.

Hopefully this is enough. Got to end now--I should be on Wikipedia later today if it does not storm here! JBogdan 10:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noted the use of capitalisation in some section titles, such as: The First Appearance of the Lady. Normally we would put: The first appearance of the Lady. --WikiCats 11:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. Also, the "miracle of the candle" mention that I place-saved in the "additional events" section has been removed. I added a link on the 6th apparition that explains what went on ("miracle of the candle" is not really a good description of it). JBogdan 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article enrichment topics

Looks a lot better now, JackofOz. (I should have fixed it sooner, but you did a better job than I would have). Some topics for further enrichment of the article might be details on the Church's investigation of the events (such as opening date, dignitaries present, how long it took , matters discussed, etc.) and any civil intervention in the matter (local authorities making it illegal to go there, legalizing going there--was it the Emperor's intervention?) Also, there had been a section on "The Song of Bernadette" novel and movie some time ago, and it apparently is no longer here. Should it be readded? JBogdan 10:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done the references for the article. --WikiCats 12:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That also needed to be done, but what I meant was that these are additional points this article can cover.JBogdan 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My edit

The sources I used said Toinette, not Marie, was the sister who was with Bernadette on the way to get firewood. If it really was Marie, a reliable reference must be used. A link was added which, although might be good for the article on the book's author, is considered a point of view, and not a reference on Lourdes. As for "reported": I had done the task of balancing both sides of the argument some time ago. If the term is going to be used, the recipient of the report should be specified, or good editorial skills should be used to find a different wording. Also, did you know that this article is on both answers.com and reference.com, along with virtually all the Wikipedia articles? And to top it off, although the articles are occasionally updated (I saw some of my more recent edits to the Moses article on the sites also), it cannot be edited like on Wikipedia and the article is listed with other articles from professional encyclopedias!JBogdan 22:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The section on the site being a shrine of Persephone (added by an IP address) is being removed until reliable references are used. I checked the web and there are a few sites that say it, but they would not fall into the encyclopediac quality necessary, and there does not seem to be any other data about the site being such a shrine other than that it "was." Is there any info on what Persephone's shrine was like, or when it was built, when it was demolished, why it was demolished, what happened to the site itself, the architecture of the shrine, etc. JBogdan 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)