Talk:Marian apparition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Paranormal Portal
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Saints Marian apparition 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.
Saints Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Skeptics may wish to check out this coincidence, at Holy Mary of the 3rd Millennium Sanctuary in Rome, Italy ([1]) and here too ([2])

There's a Mary in the ceiling above our piano, caused by a water stain. -Branddobbe 09:09, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you could take a picture of it and upload it, and put it in this page.Roscoe x 20:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think there was also an alleged image of Mary on 12 years old toast, which was then auctioned on e-Bay. Samohyl Jan 21:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
These are all potentially forms of Pareidolia. Dpr 03:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Found a bunch of stuff at Blessed Virgin Mary and have moved it over here, leaving a summative paragraph and a "See Marian apparitions" message. Of this, the Three Secrets of Fatima section should probably be further merged into the main article, leaving only a summary here. But I tire of this topic. --Spudtater 23:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I have worked pretty hard on the Our Lady of Fatima article and it has already a link to the Three Secrets of Fatima article and a summary of same. I don't really think that much space should be devoted to Fatima in this article, which is an overview of Marian apparitions in general. I'll fix it. --Bluejay Young 05:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This article is need a section regarding criticism of said apparitions.

SMYTHe
Provide one.
I still don't see why a criticism or detraction is necessary. NPOV means neutral doesn't it? Why isn't it enough to say "People claim to see the Blessed Virgin" or "there was an alleged apparition" or a "report of an apparition"? --Bluejay Young 09:09, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the dispute sticker?

Give me one good reason why this article isn't neutral enough. I am seriously beginning to think that these dispute stickers are often placed on articles that so-called "skeptics" wish to see disappear entirely from Wikipedia, either that or be completely detracted. It does not matter whether or not the Virgin Mary is real. What matters is the fact that millions of people believe in her, and Wikipedia is here to amass facts. It is against NPOV to force a "skeptical" (disbelieving) point of view on an otherwise journalistically correct article simply because the subject matter is disliked by a small group of people. --Bluejay Young July 6, 2005 11:27 (UTC)

Calm down. Yes, the placement of the tag was dubious and you were right to question it, but let's not overreact. I am a skeptic and I'm very happy to see an article such as this on Wikipedia. --Spudtater 13:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obnoxiously skeptical

This article needs to be re-edited to convey a more NPOV because it completely ignores the fact that there have been many miraculous healings at certain apparitions, and only focuses on the cases in which it might be skeptical. It's actually rather obnoxious that such information is clearly and intentionally omitted from the article. It is without question that it is intentional, because there are clear cut miracles that are attached to certain apparitions. That's why there's a dispute sticker.

If that's the case, then someone with access to one of the books on the Lourdes Medical Office's findings should put in brief accounts of the most likely cases. Then we can say "According to the Lourdes Medical Office, case #153XYZ..." and there we'll have it. --Bluejay Young 21:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Though I doubt that any such miracles are clear-cut (e.g. I saw a documentary about the strongest cases of miraculous healing at Lourdes which seemed unconvincing and also didn't even meet the Roman Catholic church's own criteria for miraculous healing), why not add NPOV accounts of these healings to the article? Ben Finn 14:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I saw that. The Lourdes Medical Office is the source for all that information in any case; a TV documentary can be slanted, and in my experience usually are. There are several books out by the Bureau. I will look around a little. --Bluejay Young 21:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Lourdes, Body & Spirit in the Secular Age talks about the pilgrimages and the political impact of Lourdes
Interview with Dr. Patrick Theillier from the Lourdes Medical Office
It's certainly not NPOV that miracles are proven fact! No matter how deeply you personally may believe, you have to accept that other people disagree, and you have to compromise between your opinions and theirs. As far as healing goes, it's an accepted medical fact that faith does in fact have healing properties; but faith in anything, not just in christianity or the virgin mary. As far as the Lourdes Beareau goes, it has not said that its 60-odd cases were "proven miracles", but only that they were inexplicable to science. However, as this is a Church-appointed department with solely christian doctors (see here), even this should be taken with a grain of salt. --Spudtater 13:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
That's true, but they also have a reputation for being extremely tough. They won't even consider most of the cases presented. My impression was that if an illness has a track record of going into spontaneous remission they won't look at any cases of "miraculous" healing of that illness. A nod to the Bureau in this article wouldn't be amiss, but we'd have to cite specifics. You're certainly right about miraculous healings in all faiths, I read Dan Epstein's book on Aimee Semple McPherson a couple of years ago -- man, what an eye-opener, he actually took a bit of time to explain how faith healings might work. --Bluejay Young 15:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the following.

This is particularly the case when apparitions occur in mundane locations, such as water-stained plaster; or when they turn out to have a conventional explanation, such as the occasion when an indistinct image of Mary on the side of a church which had attracted crowds of people and then turned out to be a poster of Boxcar Willie that had been whitewashed over.

There is no evidence that such a claim occurred. Please source it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It may be useful to, in addition to text, include one or two photographs of alleged Marian apparitions (such a Fatima, Zeitun, etc). - Davide, 21 July 2006

[edit] Removing things that look like images of the virgin

I am removing several items from the page that are not alleged apparitions of Mary, but rather things that look like an image of Mary - the reflection of a window, for example. They probably belong on Wikipedia somewhere, but aren't really what this article is about.

I am including a relevant photostatic copy of a newspaper article detailing the Marian apparition at Fatima -- Rising Suns 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
That sort of thing ("things that look like an image of Mary - the reflection of a window, for example") belongs on the page on Religious pareidolia MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muy Historia

In Muy Historia 4 / 2006, page 65 [3] I find (my translation):

The Church recognizes ten miraculous Marian apparitions: in Zaragoza, in the year 39, before dying; in London, in 1251; in Guadalupe, in 1531; in France, in 1830; in the Alps, in 1846; in Lourdes, in 1858; in Fatima, in 1917; in Belgium, in 1932 and 1933; and in Zeitoun (Egypt) in 1968.

Does the Catholic Church really have exactly ten recognized apparitions? --Error 01:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't counting Pontmain or Knock, which were both approved ages ago. --Bluejay Young 08:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Zetoun, for one, is not an apparition approved by the Catholic Church, it belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church. The list you cited is otherwise so defective that Muy Historia proves it can never be regarded as a reliable source of information. But, that being aside, I think the reported apparations of Our Lady subsequent to the seers of Our Lady of Fatima are all doubtful, at best. pat8722 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virgin Mary World Tour

I had to laugh at the reference on the obligatory detraction link to the "Virgin Mary World Tour". Back in the mid-80s, when she seemed to be popping up just about everywhere, a friend of ours seriously proposed a t-shirt with that on it, and on the back a list of reported sightings. --Bluejay Young 02:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Garabandal - officialy said to be false by the Church. Mejugorie - still undecided. Others - I don't know.

They're actually still open on Garabandal. The reason people think it was officially declared false is that a bogus "commission" was set up in '66 which refused to interview most of the witnesses and tried to coerce Conchita into signing something saying that she'd faked the whole thing (according to her mom who was present, she wouldn't sign, so they wrote her name). This was not a canonical commission but a local, so-called "special" commission which was not officially authorized and did not follow the rules for an official investigation. Despite a report from an expert neurologist saying that there was no natural explanation for what he had witnessed, the commission concluded, not that it was "false", but that there was a natural explanation for all the events. An official, Lourdes-like commission has yet to be called for Garabandal and might not be until/unless all of the predicted events occur. Medjugorje, on the other hand, has been condemned by diocesan and cantonal clergy, and it's well known to have been a teenage prank used to advantage by self-seeking Catholic Charismatic priests -- who were dismissed for their part in the hoax, and continued illegally to administer the sacraments after their dismissal. --Bluejay Young 16:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medjurgorje: preying on Catholics to make money

Do any of you question how much profit is made from these visions at Medjurgorje? 82.59.184.210 17:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you sure put a lot into this. Medjugorje is NOT one of the Catholic-Church-approved visions. In fact, there is a ban in place against all official pilgrimages there. I appreciate your efforts here, but what was the point of your long edit to this talk page? Did you have something to contribute to the article? Did you want to start the criticisms section? In the meantime, I'm removing most of your edit to save this talk page for serious discussions of the article. MamaGeek Joy 12:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That should go into the article on Medjugorje, and as a matter of fact I worked pretty hard on that article to include the discoveries of E. Michael Jones and Michael Davies as to what was really going on behind the scenes there. You should start your own website like those guys did. --Bluejay Young 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography: New Entries

I've added the work of Mike Carroll, Perry and Echevarria and Zimdars-Schwartz to the further reading section because they provide useful historical and sociological information about veneration of Marian apparitions.

User Calibanu 11:34, 01 June 2006

How about a list of recent sitings in the news, such as the Pizza Pan Mary in Texas(?) and the Overpass Mary in Chicago.

[edit] Table is displayed out of place

I was reading this article and saw that the table with the "Marian apparitions" is displayed in the bottom of the page, after the "See also" section. It should be displayed in the section "List of Marian apparitions".

I tried to edit the sections and correct the mistake but couldn't see where the problem is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.29.230.103 (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I'll try to see if I can move it. --Goodface87 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
yeeeaah boyeeie! I did it! First edit too. I tried to change up the code and I thought it worked, but the table still ended up on the bottom. That preview button lied to me man. Well, the table looks a bit different style now, but the info is the same and same format. The problem was that it didn't have that end tag |} lol that simple. --Goodface87 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Good job! Thank you! 201.8.144.241 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:JohnPaulIICOA.jpg

Image:JohnPaulIICOA.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for the table

  1. That the table have two sections, one for Past apparitions, and the other for Present
  2. That there be a more complete explanation be given for fully approved by the Catholic Church -- does it mean a finding of constat de supernaturalitate (i.e. supernatural) or something else?

patsw (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I always thought constat de supernaturalitate and complete approval were not the same thing, because the church believes that something can be supernatural without being necessarily from heaven. The entire content of the visions (other than secrets, such as at Fatima) and the messages given by Our Lady or whoever are examined in excruciating detail and approved only if they are completely in accord with doctrine. I will look around and see if I can get more complete information about this. In the meantime here's an example of a 1930 approval letter written by Bishop da Silva about Fatima]. --Bluejay Young (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Table quality

The quality of the * marks placed for approved apparitions on this page is very questionable. E.g. this Wikepedia lists Akita as approved, the Akita webpage itself says it is not. This table can not be relied upon. I will try and clean it up the * marks at a later date. In the meantime, whoever has time, please list the approval source below, so that will help in the effort. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)