Talk:Three Secrets 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
Three Secrets 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.
Portugal To-do:

Contents

[edit] References needed

This article is interesting and worthwhile, but in order to conform with Wikipedia policy, it needs to have a "References" section that lists where the information came from. Please also be sure to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, to ensure that the article complies with those policies as well. And best wishes! --Elonka 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Benedict remarks on islam

Recent remarks herald a new assassination attempt and the third secret of fatima? 146.115.120.205 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the Third Secret was JP2's near-assassination in the early 80s. The Vatican has spoken. Vashti 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary is God

Concerning this post:

To judge it (Mary is God) as non-deserving of inclusion to this topic is too bias in favor of well established entities but not necessarily in accordance to wikipedia's fair and just objective to inform and educate.

The third secret of fatima is a widely argued issue in the Catholic Church. The authenticity of the Vatican revealed secret of June 2000 is largely being contested not just by lay catholics but by prominent Catholic Clergy. In this regard, no one has the right to validate or invalidate any claim where final judgment is non-existent.

Furthermore, the inclusion of this site's link here violates nothing. They are simply sharing a Catholic belief, which although not popular, still is a belief of Catholics in connection to the third secret of Fatima. Wikipedia's spirit demands that we give fair allocation to all concerned in this particular topic. We may however, exclude sites and claims that are not directly connected to Fatima. These include claims of several Marian visionaries.

Please do consider this plea in light of wikipedia's mission. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor chito (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been posted on many pages around Wikipedia. I can't find any theological support for the proposed dogma. The only source that supports the belief is [www.maryisgod.org]. All other sources denounce the page. I'm removing this information, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no good reason to include this link within this article. The content is hardly relevant. Just because some person claims to have had a revelation about the Third Secret of Fatima, the content of which has nothing to do with the actual released material on the subject, does not make it pertinent for an encyclopedia. Shall we include links to every unusual claim made connected with this subject? I don't think so. Albie34423 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree it does not belong in this article. The Fatima apparitions have been given credibility by recognition from several popes as well as millions of the faithful around the world. At this time the "Mary is God" claims are not notable, and putting them (or a link) in this article diminishes the notability of the Fatima apparitions. Ward3001 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)



This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed over seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II.

A resource:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.

The third secret relates the the Bishop in Rome, http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm, not the shooting of the pope, its a supernatural message not human meaning.

The struggle within the church is obvoius to all outsides, the level of corruption and greed is easy to see, for the catholic faith and church to survie it must become poor like this poor priest in Rome,

That's interesting that you mentioned the relationship between the third secret and the shooting of the Pope, which is not addressed in the article. Do you know what the source of that interpretation was? I think the Pope himself made that interpretation, but I am not sure. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's commentary seems to disagree that the message is at all related to the Pope's near-assassination. Albie34423 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major Update Needed - Third Secret Revealed!

This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed almost seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II.

A resource:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.

Just becasue it was falsely represented does not mean its true the true meaning can be found in part at this link,

http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm

The section on the Third Secret provides the full text of the third secret along with some quotations from Ratzinger's commentary. What needs to be updated? Albie34423 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Secret and WWII

The second secret is a great example of bending a prophesy to claim a hit; the problem is that it doesn't predict WWII (or, rather, it predicts that Russia, not Germany, would be the antagonist of that war). Titanium Dragon 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article qualifies the statement that the second secret predicts WWII with the word "supposedly" to emphasize the fact that there is disagreement. Albie34423 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Third Secret and John Paul II

There is a statement in the article: "Pope John Paul II said that this secret forshadowed the assassination attempt on his life". The cited source says: "Cardinal Angelo Sodano ... said that, after the 1981 assassination attempt by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca, 'it appeared evident to his Holiness that it was a motherly hand which guided the bullets past, enabling the dying Pope to halt at the threshold of death.''" My opinion is that the source fails verification for the statement in the article. I'm not asserting anything about what JPII did or did not think about the third secret, just that the source does not confirm the statement. I think the statement should be deleted, but I welcome other opinions. Ward3001 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the statement should just be changed to reflect what the source says. I am not an expert on Christianity, and actually am not even Christain, so maybe we want an expert in this subject. (Or at least a Catholic.) Smartyllama 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing in the source about JPII relating events involved in the assassination attempt with any of the Fatima secrets. The statement only refers to JPII's belief that Mary intervened to prevent his death. The source is unclear about a relationship, if any, between the third secret and the assassination attempt. Without additional information, stating that JPII saw a relationship ("foreshadowed") is speculative. So I think the statement in the article should be deleted. Ward3001 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You do have a point there. However, I remember reading somewhere that Pope John Paul revealed that he knew he was going to be assasinated due to the Third Secret. (Actually, the article was about the assasinator, who heard of this and sued claiming that he could not be jailed because the attempt was premeditated.) Smartyllama 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the statement in the article is not substantiated by the source. The assassination attempt occurred on May 13th, the same day as the first of the six apparitions in Fatima. It seems that JPII believed that this was not a coincidence and that Mary had something to do with his survival. It does not appear that he specifically links the third secret to this event. Albie34423 21:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Third Secret Disputed

The following was added as a commentary on the supposed disputed status of the third secret. It is true that some groups of Fatima devotees dispute whether or not the full text of the third secret has been revealed by the papacy. I get news letters from "The Fatima Center" which frequently bring up this topic of late. However, this being Wikipedia, I think that we need to find some good sources for this so that it doesn't read like one person's argument in favor of a particular point of view. Albie34423 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some dispute that the Third Secret text released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constituted the entire Third Secret of Fatima. Few question that the handwriting is truly that of Sister Lucia, but there are many inconsistencies with what we knew beforehand about the Third Secret.

First, in her Fourth Memoir, Sister Lucia wrote what Fatima scholars have universally understood to be the start of the Third Secret: immediately after giving word for word the second part of the Secret, as above, Sister Lucia wrote "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc." As the official archivist of the Fatima apparitions, Father Joaquin Alonso, said, it must go on to say that the dogma of the Faith will not be kept in certain other parts of the world.

Also, Father Joseph Schweigl was sent by Pope Pius XII to interrogate Sister Lucia. Here is his report on the interrogation: "I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope; the other logically (although I must say nothing) would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’"

Thus, many conclude that the Vatican released the part of the twofold secret that that concerned the Pope, but neglected to address the other part, which is the continuation of the words of the Virgin Mary. In the Vatican announcement in February of 1960 that the Secret would not be released, the Vatican said the Third Secret contained the "words which Our Lady confided as a secret". No words were included in the Vatican's version of the Third Secret. It is also known from the testimony of Cardinal Ottaviani and Bishop Joano Venancio of the diocese of Fatima, Portugal that the Secret was written on one sheet of paper, whereas what was revealed was written on four sheets of paper.

Sister Lucia died in her convent in 2005 without ever publicly commenting on either the represented or the possible actual content of the third secret, as the Church never lifted it's bar on her, as commanding her not to speak.

Just to note, I have a copy of a report from the Zenit Daily Dispatch dated Dec. 20, 2001, which claims that Lucia told Archbishiop Bertone in an interview that the secret has been completely revealed and published, and that no secrets remain. While this is not an example of Lucia making a public comment on the supposed completeness of the third secret as published, it is an example of a private comment of hers being made public. So, something like the above statement should not be left alone without some qualification.

Yes, well, those are the same folks who wouldn't reveal the secret for eighty-five years, then release nothing which would explain why they wanted it kept secret for eighty-five years, and then merely "saying" Lucia "said" they had revealed the secret. You can be sure, if Lucia had said the secret had been revealed by them, they would have placed her next to the "pope" on international television, saying so.

Much in Wikipedia isn't sourced, and if you want to delete what everyone knows is credible unsourced information, you should at least be claiming that you believe that the information you deleted isn't true, otherwise you look very biased, and which disbelief you haven't stated. The Zenit article you cite is a credible source for the existence of the dispute over the veracity of the Vatican's version of the third secret, therefore I have re-inserted the portion you deleted. 69.215.128.190 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The wiki policy you cite states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." To "challenge" material, means to at least state a belief that the material isn't accurate, not merely that it isn't sourced. If a mere claim that material isn't sourced were all it takes to delete material, 99% of wikipedia would be gone. Since you are unwilling to claim that you believe the material you deleted is not accurate and cannot be sourced, please do not delete the material which everyone knows is likely to be sourced as soon as someone finds the time to do it. In any event, certainly do not delete the material which I DID already source, namely that the veracity of the Vatican's version of the secret is widely disputed. 69.215.128.190 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001 - What do you mean by "edit-warring" and what do you mean by "no verification in the source provided"? Why don't you consider Zenit Daily Dispatch dated Dec. 20, 2001 a citable source? You haven't cited a single wiki guideline that it might violate in its use in the section documenting the existence of dispute over the Vatican's version of the third secret. I'm thinking that you should know that deleting sourced material violates wiki policy, so why did you do it? 64.109.200.117 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I told you on your talk page to read WP:3RR and WP:Edit war, which you apparently didn't do. And about the source you cite: regardless of whether it's a "citable source", here is the issue that you don't seem to grasp: the source you provide does not include the information you have added to the article. If I make a statement in an article that space aliens have taken over the Vatican, and cite a source that talks about space aliens but says nothing about the Vatican, that is not an appropriate source. So essentially, you have not provided a source to back up you edits. That's where you are violating Wikipedia policy. You want the "single wiki guideline": thoroughly read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. And while you're at it, be aware that you have violated WP:3RR, for which can get you an immediate block if reported; and if you continue reverting without adding a source that verifies the information in your edits, I will make vandalism as well as 3RR reports. Wikipedia has some degree of flexibility for new editors, but edit warring, violating 3RR, and adding unsourced controversial information is not tolerated after you have been warned. And you have been warned repeatedly. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern with the section is that it was a poorly cited attempt to argue for a specific point of view. It mentioned that "some dispute" that "many conclude" and that "few question" while also stating that "we know" without specifically stating whom and providing good citations. I moved the section to this talk page rather than simply deleting it entirely because I felt that the topic does deserve to be mentioned, but that this was unsatisfactory. I have created a brief section on this controversy that states some specific facts from both sides with proper references and a neutral disposition. I will be watching to make sure that this space does not get hijacked to debate the merits of the case for either side. Albie34423 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I thank you for making a balanced and appropriately cited addition. Ward3001 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection of the article

After a recent discussion on the Wikipedia:Help desk, one of the users is asking why can't he edit the article but although the article is semi-protected from editing, the user has noticed that there isn't any lock symbol indicating that it's protected, should the lock symbol be on the article if not why is the editing semi-protected. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is protected because of repeated, dynamic IP POV-pushing, adding unsourced or inadequtely sourced information, and deletion of appropriately sourced information by one user. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i've tried to put a valid link once to a certain site and noticed that one user simply deleted my link and replaced it with http://www.madredelleucaristia.it ... worse, he / she used the descriptions i had for that site i was linking with. can there be any way such uncivilized actions be prevented?

Also, the third secret is a very important and current issue in the catholic church. the participation / entries of various authors should be given equal chance. i'd like to raise the importance of other sites being given a link in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor chito (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence James Downey

Should there not be some mention of the plane hijacking in the 1980s by Lawrence James Downey, who wanted the vatican to release the secret85.0.41.156 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be good if someone has information on it. Albie34423 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)