Talk:Our Lady of Fátima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.


Portugal Portal
Our Lady of Fátima is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do:
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.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Saints Our Lady of Fátima 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
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Sufi =

As one who believes that providence manifest itself differently at different time it behooves us to investigate fatimah and the fact that it was a center for Muslim pilgrimmage and worship long before 1917; the "Miracle" of fatimah is that the "Sun of Faith" was manifested to begin the Last Judgment in a unprecedented way; the 3 children being the "Bab" or "Gate of Heaven" by which only those who believe in them can enter the Kingdom; whether Jew; Christian or Muslim. Thus we are saved by our faith alone in this respect: although to see the 3 children as the 3 tiered "Door of Noah" we must lookk at the present day "Ark of Salvation" in light of the old one: whoso entered that Door escaped the Flood; those who enter this "Gate" escape the Wrath of the Lamb. Furthermore the "Pearl of Great Price" happens to be "the Gate of Heaven". For thoses who would dispute these simple facts please contact me or write your comments here. What I have added is therefore valid as being the view held by my church> please let it remain in the interests of Equality and scholarship between the religions in the aspect of their Unity; the Fruit of the Tree of Life.Unicorn144 13:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Christian (non-Catholic?) POV

HEY - I've just seen a vision of a virgin - do I get made a Saint? What do you mean you don't believe me. OK how about this. I'm a devout catholic and I've just seen a vision of a virgin damn. Sounds better already doesn't it..

In general the article gives us the basic facts. I was the one who added the final sentence and the link to more information about the visions. Remember that not all people accept the Fatima apparitions as scientific facts.

I have decided to get rid of the link to my own writing on the visions and the secret, which I have also eliminated from the encyclopedia. I will keep it on the WWW for those who would like to have a non-Christian perspective. Portcult 11:54, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I improved the last paragraph and added the non-Christian point of view. I hope you are not angry, but not everyone believes in Fatima.Portcult 21:58, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Who cares what the "non-Christian" point of view is? Why would pagans or Islamists or Jews care about this subject matter anyway? Why don't they concentrate on their own religious minded articles and stop giving their views on things that frankly don't concern them? Digby
Try finding out wher the name "fatimah" originaly comes from...--Striver 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
He probably means non-religious viewpoint, which I must agree this article sorely lacks. Even some Christians are extremely skeptical of the Fatima apparitions, notably Father Mário Oliveira, who denounces them as a hoax perpetrated by certain elements of the Catholic Church to explore the fears of an illiterate population in reaction to the war, the newly-founded Portuguese Republic and especially the rise of Communism in Russia. --Goblin ›talk 22:27, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand why articles about religious events need to include a non-religious viewpoint. Fatima is a historical event, whether or not the children's claims were real. They reported visions and people showed up and claimed the sun did thus and so. The children's detention and questioning by authorities was real. The kids predicted their own deaths and while that may have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, it did happen. Reporting on the historical facts should be enough, or am I not getting something?
That said, I have been hearing about this Fr. Oliveira for months now and I have yet to see anything he actually wrote, only brief quotes in the London Times and so forth. Where can I read his denunciations? --Bluejay Young 08:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Many articles on religious events need to include non-religious viewpoints because those viewpoints exist, and the Fatima apparitions are sufficiently controversial (at least in Portugal, I don't know how others see it) to warrant mention of dissenting views. Just because many events surrounding it were historical, it doesn't mean the apparitions themselves were real or that the hubbub they generated wasn't exploited in any way. --Goblin ›talk 00:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the POV that I found, and most of them had no factual information, rather it had what (some) people think. But if there is a good scientifical article, we should include it. it was not the case.-Pedro 10:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A somewhat bigoted viewpoint. The job of an encyclopedia is to give the facts - as far as they can be established, which is difficult in this case - and give the most common interpretations. Oddly enough, if this is a genuine miracle, I think people of all religions and none would think it important, as it would be pretty conclusive evidence of the truth of Catholic doctrine. I wouldn't hold my breath though.- Exile 22:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't present them as scientific facts--I do my best to be respectful to large amounts of what I consider to be mystical nonsense, in pursuit of Wikipedia NPOV--and also that linking to our own writings is a bad idea. Vicki Rosenzweig 22:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Portcult, your info (on your own page) is invaluable whether a person believes in Fatima or not and I linked to your O Seculo reprint. It's perfectly okay to report things and simply say "People believe this happened". --Bluejay Young 01:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With all of this discussion of the Christian and non-Christian POV, I think I should throw in here that most of this is the Catholic POV, which is only one denomination of Christianity, not the overall Christian view. The Lutheran and Protestant denominations have a very different view of much of what Catholics believe. --Highlander3751 01:01, May 13 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children photograph

I think this photo, http://www.amigosdenossasenhora.hpg.ig.com.br/lucia_fran_jac.jpg, is fascinating. It would be a good adiction to this article. What do you think?

Ah, that's one of the three famous shots. Probably taken sometime in 1918. There were two others that I think were taken in the summer of 1917. I think this may be the earliest one: http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/fatkids.gif
Here's another: http://www.portcult.com/index.html.three.children.jpg
Looking at Jacinta, this had to have been taken sometime after the July vision. The look in that child's eyes speaks volumes about that image of hell. According to contemporary accounts, she was completely obsessed by the idea and threw all her energy into prayer and sacrifice to save the souls of sinners from eternal damnation. She was anorexic and constantly self-mortified. Not surprisingly, she had a number of visions not shared by the others. As she described them, they sound like images of WWI refugees.
Note that Lucia's hair is cut very short; that is not for the summer heat, but because as she pushed through the crowd to get to the apparition site, people would clip locks of her hair. Her scarves and ribbons were repeatedly snatched off her head and pieces of her clothing were cut off. --Bluejay Young 23:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the people who did that are burning in hell now. That'll teach 'em to steal from a little girl. Nelson Ricardo 16:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Ricardo you must understand the culture, they were already seen as saints and people wanted something. She never talked about that, and she probably understood it. In Portuguese there is the expression Sabes mais que a Lúcia (you know more than Lucia) when someone knows something and he doesnt want to tell you, or want to cheat you. The name Fatima of the village, now a town, derives from a Moorish princess that when the area was being conquered by the Portuguese, she prefered to kill herself than be a prisioner of Christians, she fell from her castle's tower. In honour to her bravery, the Portuguese name it Fatima - her name. This is the version often used by a famous Portuguese historian. -Pedro 16:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
She probably did understand it, although her mother about had a fit whenever it happened (Her mother also didn't believe a word about the visions and thought Lucia put her cousins up to it.) Portuguese village girls and women of that time were known to keep a lot to themselves. Lucia's Aunt Olimpia was a prime example of the type, and Lucia was notorious for it -- especially if she were being pushed or pressured to reveal something, she'd shut up like a clam. This is all documented in William T. Walsh's book, which is where I got a lot of the info I used in this article. --Bluejay Young 09:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hallucination?

Again, why do there have to be links to things like "hallucination" and "folie a deux"? Such links do not contribute to NPOV; they merely present a POV. NPOV is "Bernadette said the lady appeared" or "Lucia reported that Mary told her whatever." The place to put detractions on Fatima is in the external links (where there are some). I realize this is a highly debatable issue. I myself am interested in primary source facts on Fatima which are not hagiographized as Lucia's (writing about her cousins) and William Thomas Walsh's were. I'm interested in the fact that Lucia's mother, an intelligent and literate woman who taught Catechism to every kid in Aljustrel, never could quite bring herself to believe that her youngest and favourite daughter had actually had this experience and in fact began to treat Lucia very badly out of a belief that she was lying, while Lucia's paternal cousins were supported and believed by their parents. But none of this stuff belongs in Wikipedia, it belongs in discussions elsewhere. I'm removing those links. --Bluejay Young 19:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detention

The para about the children being detained by provincial administrator Arturo dos Santos is not one of the "controversies of Fatima". It is part of the detailed story of what actually happened. However as the article leaves out a lot of that detail, I'm not sure it belongs here at all. But certainly not where it is now. JackofOz 02:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I put it under "controversies" because it was part of the political aspects of Fatima -- in that Arturo kidnapped and questioned the kids for political reasons. It shows just how political Fatima was from the outset. I think it should be moved rather than deleted altogether, let's see how it looks under the main part of the story. --Bluejay Young 16:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Walsh book is unreliable source

I have read Walsh's book and have tried to substantiate his sources by accessing newspaper archives directly. I have found his sources to be fabrications. The same is true for his other books, such as Philip II. He is an unreliable propogandist for the religious right wing in the Catholic Church and purposely uses false sources to mislead his readers. Many of the other claims in this article come from equally unreliable sources designed to give a religious POV rather than historical accuracy. For example, the only sources about the predictions made by the BVM appear in the 1940s, after these events had taken place (revolution in Russia, deaths of two children, WWII, etc.) Also, I have found no pre-WWII sources to verify the so called solar phenomenon, or that there were 70,000 witnesses. If someone has even one contemporary (1917) article that discusses these events and predictions, please scan and post the original. As per the O Seculo article, I notice that it is a translation of a reprint. It is interesting that nobody ever provides the originals of these articles, considering the amount of fraudulent data floating around the Internet. I personally doubt the O Seculo article is authentic. Dtaw2001 16:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence for your claim that "his sources are fabrications"? Maria Bernada 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Bernada (talk • contribs)

[edit] Prodigy of the Sun

Pat, you object to this:

Many ... of those present ... claimed to have seen the visible prodigy of the sun, including the man who photographed the reaction of the crowd.

and prefer this:

No one present ... is reported to have denied the visible prodigy of the sun that day, including also the man who photographed the reaction of the crowd.

My question is, where is the documentation for nobody denying the event. Was every person there asked what they, personally, saw? Billions of people have failed to deny that I am from Mars, but this absence of denial does not make it true that I am from Mars. The way this para now reads is that the miracle is taken to be true unless anyone denies it. This hardly meets any test of objectivity.

Also, in relation to the photographer, the sense of the text has been radically altered. Before, we were told that he claimed to have seen it. Now, we're told he's just one of the thousands who did not deny seeing it. It makes no sense any more to single him out. Very, very different slant. JackofOz 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack, It is true that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is reported as denying the visible prodigy of the sun that day. Every reader knows that not all 70,000 witnesses could be interviewed. When absolutely all who could be located and interviewed claimed they did see, it is less revealing and potentionally misleading to say that only "many" saw (that could be construed as implying that some may have reported not seeing). The significant fact that NO ONE is reported as denying the visible prodigy of the sun that day should be mentioned in the article on Fatima, as it is the most revealing truth. That is a particularly good idea as it discourages the enemies of truth on the internet who circulate their newly invented and unsubstantiated allegations (and even put them in Wikipedia, see Portcult) that not all of those present saw the prodigy of the sun that day, when their are absolutely no reports whatsoever to back up their malicious (and sometimes elaborate) inventions. The most revealing truth should be in Wikipedia, and my statement is true. If the truth bothers you, it is probably because you do not believe in Fatima to begin with. As to my comment about the photographer, I mentioned him in particular only because I was correcting the previously false statement. Now that the truth has been entered into the record, that particular mention can probably be fairly dropped as he is included in the statement that there are no reports of anyone denying the visible prodigy of the sun.

pat8722 04:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat, before we go any further, can I just ask you to please refrain from making assumptions about my personal beliefs. I strive to be objective here at all times, no matter what I may happen to believe or not believe. I heartily recommend you do the same.
But since you've raised the subject, may I take it that you do believe in Fatima? And may I take it that your writing about it is imbued with that belief, and therefore not expressing a neutral point of view (NPOV)? That is what appears to be the case here. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the prodigy of the sun was a real and true event. I'm not necessarily denying that it really happened, but Wikipedia is not here to record the private beliefs of invidividuals. There is no general acceptance that it was a real and true event, and until there is such general acceptance, what individuals believe about it is an entirely private and subjective matter. This encyclopedia reports what is agreed to have objectively happened, not what individuals privately believe. Yes, we can report that people believe certain things, but that is very different from reporting (or even suggesting by implication) that those things are true in themselves.
I made the point above that absence of denial does not equate to agreed truth. That 50,000 people did not deny it is not something that objectively happened. It is the reverse of an occurrence. It is no different from my previous Martian example, and has no more place here.
You asked the previous editor to come up with documentation for the statement that some, but not all, claimed to see it. I apply the same standard to you. Where is your documentation that nobody denied it? Perhaps you would argue that ipso facto no such documentation exists, so how could you possibly be expected to produce it. And that's exactly my point. Wikipedia is all about having verifiable content, based on published material. JackofOz 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack, I am not saying the prodigy of the sun did or did not occur. I am just saying that of those interviewed there are no reports of anyone denying it. The truth is always objective. The key point is that you have not denied the truth of my statement that - "No one present on October 17, 1917 is reported to have denied the visible prodigy of the sun that day." You just don't like that particular truth. It is not the role of wikipedia editors to censor truth, particularly not a truth that has been repeatedly denied by malicious hackers in wikipedia, who make no attempt to produce citations as the rules of wikipedia require. Fatima has been exhaustively researched by many. John DeMarchi spent 7 years in Fatima during the 1940's interviewing the principles at undisturbed length and researching the original documents. While for the past apparations at Fatima he was able to locate both third and first person accounts that some had not witnessed all, or even any, atmospheric changes and visual images that others had reported seeing at the apparitions prior to October 13, try though he did for seven years onsite and for the rest of his years offsite, he could not locate any first or third person accounts of a failure to see the visible prodigy of the sun on October 13. It was not for lack of trying that there are no reports of anyone denying the visible prodigy of the sun that day. Such a significant truth belongs in wikipedia.

pat8722 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There were ten of thousands of people who witnessed this occurrence. It has indisputably occurred. The anti-Catholic press of that day, who ridiculed the events leading up to October 13th, 1917, plainly publicized in O Saeculo that it occurred. People who came to scoff saw the very same thing as the believers. Just think about it, merely two witnesses is enough to put a man on death row in a court of law, and yet here we are talking about thousands! If 20 people are at a murder scene and 19 testify the same thing, and one person says he saw nothing, the 19 is what is called positive evidence, and the person who saw nothing is considered unreliable, or negative evidence. Any two people who never collaborated and testify to the same event, is concerned solid proof. I met a woman myself who witnessed the event. If one would like to believe it was a swirl of cosmic gasses that refracted the light and created a spectrum, they will still have to explain how an occurrence, unheard of in the annals of human history, was predicted months beforehand by three poor Portuguese shepherd children who said a woman appeared an told them there would be a "miracle" on that day....and they were correct to the very hour?! A most peculiar fact - scientists admit it has occurred, but they betray their profession by excluding the occurrence from their list of empirical evidence. :Diligens 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Pat and Diligens, I also am not denying that anything occurred. That is not the issue here. What is reported to have occurred is given plenty of coverage in the very long paragraph about the miracle. That is all that is necessary. It is not necessary to labour the point by saying that nobody is known to have denied it.
Another reason that this sentence is inappropriate is that we already say the 3 children did not see the miracle, but instead saw saints etc. So, if the 3 principals did not claim to see it, this does not sit well with nobody denying it.
But most importantly, I reiterate my previous challenge to abide by Wikipedia rules and produce verifiable content, based on published material. That nobody is known to have denied the miracle is, at the moment, just your say so, and qualifies as original research, which is banned on Wikipedia. Please provide the details of a published document that says "nobody present is known to have denied it". Until you can come up with that, I will continue to remove this sentence. Cheers JackofOz 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. It doesn't alter the fact of the occurrence either way. Diligens 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I was the first person to put in that not everybody present saw exactly the same thing, and I got that from O Seculo: "And next they ask each other if they have seen or not seen. Most confess that that they have seen the dancing of the sun; others, however, declare they have seen the smiling face of the Virgin herself. They swear that the sun spun about itself like a ring of fireworks, that it came down almost to the point of burning the Earth with its rays. Some say they saw it change color..." In the film version, everybody sees the same thing, but at that point it would have taken away from the climactic impact of the scene if they'd been strictly accurate. Bluejay Young 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You have not cited a source for "some people didn't see it (the dancing of the sun)". To state that most "confessed" to having seen it, does not imply that some confessed to not seeing it. That some declared that they had seen the smiling face of the Virgin, does not mean that they also claimed to not having seen the dancing of the sun. pat8722 03:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point. The way he wrote it, with that "however", is a little misleading. I need to read all of De Marchi. Bluejay Young 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have corrected the article to state that the children, themselves, also saw the dancing of the sun. I reread the children's 1917 testimony on that point, as documented by De Marchi. Sorry for my earlier error on that point. pat8722 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Secret

The actual text of the third secret is not quoted. The part on controversies around it is mostly pure uninformed speculation. A nice cleanup and npoving is needed, imho. --BBird 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artur v. Arturo

Mistico has twice changed Adminstrator Santo's first name from "Arturo" to "Artur" in this article, based apparently on nothing more than a claimed general personal familiarity with portuguese vs castillian names. Santos's first name as being "Arturo" is widely documented in the available Fatima literature, and has been consistently recognized as "Arturo" for about 88 years. Unless Mistico or someone else has a wiki-qualified publication that shows the Administrator went by the name "Artur" we have no choice but leave it as "Arturo". While the sources for "Arturo" are probably in the hundreds, I will list just one here, as no credible challenge to it has been raised. Stanley Jaki God and the Sun at Fatima (1999) Real View Books, Michigan, p15

I´m from Portugal, so I now a bit more about my own language than you, and in a while I will prove you the real name of the man was Artur dos Santos. User:Mistico
I would not doubt for a minute that they got some of the names wrong. Lucia herself pointed out in one of her memoirs that her surname was Santos, and not dos Santos. I'd be interested to know why early accounts got the family name as Abobora (Pumpkin). --Bluejay Young 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Abóbora was a nick of his family, sometimes it´s usual in rural Portugal to see some families with these kind of nicks. They often can become part of the persons real name. The most known example in Portugal is that of the writer José Saramago. User:Mistico
Thank you for explaining that. --Bluejay Young 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the snark by Joe Nickell. Substituted a summary of what critics speculate about the alleged solar event. --Bluejay Young 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't edit wikipedia to prove a point Diligens

I dont have much to say to you, obviously you are going to try a PoV edit on this article. JPII had a specific devotion to Fatima. Of course you would like to excise him as you have done elsewhere. Dominick (TALK) 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to discuss it. This is WP policy. How does adding that a clergyman had special personal devotion to Our Lady of Fatiima, fit into the category of the official position of the Catholic Church, that was already established decades ago? Should we then add the names of other prominent clergyman and Catholic laity who also had this special devotion? (Diligens 14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
You position is clear. John Paul had particular devotion and had attributed his failed assasination to OLF. Thank you. Lets here from others now. It is not wikipedia policy to have one person dominate conversation. Dominick (TALK) 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Who is dominating? I say one thing, you respond. That is called a discussion. And a discussion even between 2 people is fully WP policy. You didn't answer my question. How does the addition fit into the category of official Church policy? You are required by WP policy to discuss it. Maybe you want to put it in another place, but frankly, this is an article about the Blessed Virgin Mary from 1917. Not about people 75 years later who had a devotion to her, which is the majority of Catholics, by the way. (Diligens 15:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
I moved it to interesting fact. I dont have to deal with you specifically and your interesting PoV. Dominick (TALK) 16:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine. It looks like it belongs there.
Yes, according to official WP policy you have to discuss with the person for whose edit you dispute. And from what I have seen you are starting to assume bad faith in me by your comments, which is a violation of WP. And you very frequently don't give responses to points in a discussion, which is also violation. You are interested in things Catholic and traditional, as well as I, so you will have to face the fact that we will be involved in the same articles very often. (Diligens 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Merge of separate secrets page

FYI, there is another page entitled the Three Secrets of Fatima. Is it worth splitting this concept out to a separate page, or should its info be checked and merged into this one so it can be changed to a simple redirect? --Elonka 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added "merge" templates to the top of both pages. What do people think? Keep them separate, or merge together? --Elonka 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose (not a strong opposition though) you can develop both article a lot more than they are currently. If someone dues that, you'll have to spit them again. There are books only about the secrets (I used to have one, dont know where I put it) and with alien and other conspiracies, etc... --Pedro 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose As Pedro points out, many books and much discussion center on the three secrets only, therefore the three secrets are a topic in their own right. A brief description of the three secrets is appropriate here, with presentations of the detail and controversies surrounding them on their own page. Small article size is encouraged in wikipedia. We want to keep articles from becoming too confused and lengthy. pat8722 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • oppose Actually my feeling is closer to "Enh." I don't care that much one way or the other, but I would sooner see "Three Secrets" kept separate because there's just a lot there. It might make the Fatima article so long that people wouldn't want to read it. --Bluejay Young 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are plenty of people who find Fatima to be important who do not believe that there is any controversy over the third secret. JASpencer 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - the secrets deserve their own subpage.--File Éireann 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove this? JASpencer 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. If there's objections I'll be happy to put it back. --Bluejay Young 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aljustrel

There is ther widespread misconception that the place of Aljustrel where the family lived is the Town of Aljustrel. This is wrong, the mining town of Aljustrel is 200km away from Fátima,_Portugal and unrelated to the "visions".
I'll create a separate entry for that place. JGuerreiro 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Aljustrel described in De Marchi and Walsh was a wide spot in the road whose main residents were probably families who owned the fields in and around the Cova. It has probably been completely swallowed up by nearby Fatima since the visitations. --Bluejay Young 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fatimah is Fatima; but the Sun of Fatima is the Lamb of Fatimah

I respectfully would like to add a little section with the controversy dealing with the fact that the Messiah of Islam is also that Sun of Righteousness seen at Fatima as the emanation of Fatimah al-Zahra; the Son of Mary who Muhmammed said would be the Messiah; the Rod of Iron being this Christ of Islam; the Mahdi of Christianity; "one and the same". This controversy is just starting; but I will just represent the facts. Unicorn144 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some info for those who actually take this silly story as fact

- - Joe Nickell of the CSICOP throws common sense cold water on the Fatima - claims. "We know for a fact that the sun did not dance or pulsate at Fatima. - How do we know this? Fatima does not have a different sun than the sun that's - in Chicago , or the sun over Paris. It's the same sun. And astronomers know - that the sun on that date did not do anything out of the ordinary." - Nickell explains that the witnesses "did do out-of-the ordinary things, like - staring at the sun", which would explain the visions and colors. As far as - Lucia's claims go, Nickell believes that she "suffers from what psychologists - call "fantasy proneness"." Nickell notes that, long before the Virgin Mary - spoke to her, Lucia had imaginary playmate angels." - - A little skepticism can go a long way... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The trick here is to present this information in a manner consistent with the Wikipedia Way. An expansion of the Criticisms section, perhaps? Singular (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This keeps getting deleted, obviously by some religious nut. There are no criticisms here and the article is so biased that it is laughable. Both sides of the story should be presented, and not just a pro-christian viewpoint.

I have been deleting it and I am not religious at all. In fact, I am highly skeptical of any miraculous claims. There are a couple of reasons why I have removed this passage. First, an encyclopedia article should take a neutral stance. The first sentence in this paragraph is not a neutral statement of fact but a particular point of view. Secondly, there is an entire article devoted to The Miracle of the Sun which includes criticisms of the event, including those by Nickell. And that is where it belongs. Therefore, even if the paragraph was amended to be neutral I still think it is too much detail for this article, which simply contains a short summary. Albie34423 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] actual dates of secrets

In every account of the "secrets" I've read none of them are committed to paper or even revealed by Lucia to anyone until 1942 which make the prophecy regarding Russia and WWII rather unremarkable. I'm surprised this is never pointed out in any articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.71.222 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. Funny how the so-called "prophecies" are revealed AFTER the events had come to pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember when that movie came out. It was playing at the "itch" theater in the Bronx. The nuns marched all of us off to see the movie. We had to sit through all of it without popcorn or bon bons -- can you imagine? But the sun spinning in the sky was pretty cool. I would have prefered seeing it with popcorn.

[edit] Photo format?

The top photo went away somehow, maybe deleted from commons. There seems to be an unusual format issue here because I tried to add another photo from Wikicommons and that does not work either. Any ideas? History2007 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Names of the children in the lead

I added the names of the children to the lead, since it's an important piece of information. Another thing: I´m not quite sure the portuguese name Lucia should be written with an accent on the "u". Please prove me wrong. Infrasonik (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Several forms of the spelling all link to the same page about Lúcia Santos. I added the link and a photo. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)