Talk:Marian apparition/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Approval 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)

I have looked at the table quality issue again and it seems that some of these approvals marked by "*" are granted by the Wikipedia editors, and not by the Vatican! There are 23 approval "*" but according to an expert (Father Salvatore M. Perrella of the Mariunum Pontifical Institute in Rome), of the 295 reported apparitions studied by the Holy See through the centuries only 12 have been approved, the latest being in May 2008. Therefore almost half the star granted on this page are not granted by the Vatican, but by someone else (one in Egypt is approved by the Coptic Church and is valid) and need to be removed for the sake of accuracy and article quality. I will begin removing the "*" signs for which I can find no reference. Before you add them back, please add a reference, else without a reference they wil have to be reverted. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out several apparitions for which I find no reliable references. The website "Miracle Hunter" referenced in this page is NOT reliable, e.g. it again classifies Akita as approved, but the Akita website itself specifically states that: "The Holy See has never given any kind of approval to either the events or messages of Akita." So items with questionable sources will have to be commented out. History2007 (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on deleted and reverted entries

Some of the entries in the apparitions table made by anonymous users have questionable quality, just point to commercial websites that sell things, and were deleted. Here is a list:

• Catalian Rivas: page on how her messages from Jesus correspond to exact pages of previously published books by others: [4]

List of apparitions

I eventually cleaned up the table of apparitions, and had to remove all the "*" signs that were almost randomly granted approval to various apparitions, often by anonymous editors. The stars kept appearing and disappearing almost weekly, and had to go. A new section now lists and explains the historical and the approved apparitions. History2007 (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Table cleanup

I have now partially cleaned up the apparitions table, removing several items that were clearly called fake in the press, as shown by a few Google searches. Examples were Our Lady of Sorbiton and Our Lady of the Eucharist which were both clearly rejected by by the Holy See, yet had web sites. The question then becomes: "what does it take to claim a Marian apparition"? The recipe seems to be:

• 1. Claim some messages and/or visions
• 2. Find a web site designer
• 3. Get a pious looking webpage
• 4. Create an entry in Wikipdia

Clearly, a credible encyclopedia can not operate this way. Some of the references in the table were only in Portugese and I could not verify them for an English encyclopedia, so I had to comment them out. Some of the entries were somewhat reminiscent of Peter Popoff's conversations with God. In any case, quality constraints demand that the table be reduced to very few credible entries and be maintained that way. History2007 (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Catholic planet

I have removed the link to Catholic planet twice because it is based on the views of a single person, who acts as judge jury and apparition approver. That site is a key example of what low quality means in terms of Wikipedia references. E.g. for Gianna Talone that site says that some of her messages up to a point in time are true, but after that they are false. No clear and reliable reasons are provided as to how it was determined at what point those apparitions started to change nature. Other appritions are judged on that site with the opening statement: "In my humble and pious opinion as a faithful Roman Catholic theologian...." That type of assessment does not make a reliable Wikipedia reference.

Therefore, please do not add Catholic planet, or similar sites to the list on this page. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"They have been interpreted"

The beginning of the article states "They have been interpreted in psychological terms as pareidolia". Pareidolia definitely applies to water stains and toast, but some Marian apparitions, as it even says in this article, are very realistic. As in three dimentional, moving and talking. There might be a psychological explanation for them, but pareidolia is not it. So shouldn't the opening more accurately say "most have been interpreted..."? Just looking for comment before I edit. Farsight001 (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I was not happy with that sentence either. If you look up Pareidolia it may, by some stretch apply to the vague images that may have been guessed as apparitions, and the sentence has no solid reference. My guess: sentence is candidate for deletion. But to keep balance you must add something that the Holy See has classified some apparitions as hallucinations, etc. In general, if the faithful write for the faithful, it gets out of balance. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the lead is typically not supposed to be sourced unless people find that the statements are highly controversial. I wouldn't delete it outright as I'm sure that even the Church believes some to be pareidolia - like the Jesus on my mailbox and the Darwin I saw in a tree stump once. :D Will wait a bit longer for comment from others. Farsight001 (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Standards

History2007: Stop removing the apparition from Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das Famílias ( http://www.getway.com.br/nossasenhora ) from the list. These where serious apparitions, with local bishop approval and last about 8 years and many messages. I added the site more than once and you removed. I added again. I hope you don´t remove again. The site is not its own reference as you said; There are many references to it by domain name ( getway.com.br/nossasenhora ) and by apparition title ("Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das Famílias"). Be careful when removing apparitions reports... You are not the Church to approve or not an apparition. I will not accept if you remove it again.

Hi, Actually it is not a question of if you will not accept it sir, but a question of Wikipedia standards for source reliability and verifiability. There were many unverified apparitions lised on this page before I spent significant time cleaning the page up, and the line has be drawn somewhere as to what qualifies as having enough references. As you know everyone can claim an apparition, and set up a website, and it distracts from the seriously reported apparitions. Please spend some time becoming familiar with Wikipedia policies and you will see that the blogspot type references for this site are not up to Wikipedia standards. Do you have better references, e.g. a major newspaper, or a published book? Please provide those, else I will have to remove this again in a day or two. I do not pretend to be the Church at all, just an editor who has spent significant time adding quality to this page and I do not want it to lose quality by the addition of a lot of sites without clear documentation - based on Wikipolicies. And for that matter, if you do have a letter from the Vatican about this apparition, I will be glad to add more text about it myself. Do you have a letter from the Vatican? In the absence of that, please become more familiar with Wikipedia policies before adding these types of sites. And in general, please add comments to the end of the talk page, where it is usually expected in Wikipedia. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand how you care about the list, but I added the site on the claimed apparition but not approved yet. There is not letter from Vatican yet. The 2 bishops (D. Celso Jose, D Geraldo Lyrio Rocha) during the apparition period where informed and received a copy of the messages. There was references on 2 printed newspaper some years ago. If you keep removing it i will contact wikipedia. There is no reason to remove because it is listed on the right place and right data. Just because there are few references is not enough, because the site is listed on Reported/Claimed apparitions. If I had added on approved it would be ok to remove...

You can not disagree that it is an REPORTED apparition... The apparition was REPORTED and the messages are on the site. Don´t judge the apparitions because the site is simple. The place where Virgin Mary gave the messages is a simple place.

If you want to investigate, go on, you can contact local church. You can not remove it because you think the site is 'poor documented'. The site contains a brief history of apparition, the place where it usually happened, the person who received the messages, the period and the messages. What else do you think that is necessary?

Also the site in on internet since 1999 and has links and references to it.

http://paginas.terra.com.br/arte/leiame/nsrafamilias.html http://www.sinaisdostempos.org/links.htm http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&q=getway.com.br%2Fnossasenhora&meta= http://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&q=%22Nossa+Senhora+M%C3%A3e+e+Rainha+das+Fam%C3%ADlias%22&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyhenrique (talk • contribs) 12:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, No problem, if you wish to 'contact Wikipedia' as a content dispute, please follow the appropriate procedures, because unless you provide better references in English, I have to remove that item based on Wikipedia:Notability criteria, else it will open the floodgates to all the hundreds of personally reported apparitions, many of which have turned out to be fake over the years, have no serious references in English and flatly fail Wikipedia:Notability as this apparition does. Originally you said this had local Bishop approval, now you state that the Bishops have been informed. So which is it? Your references are almost all in Portugese and do not help the users of English Wikipedia. I think you should try to add this item to the Portugese Wikipedia. If we let this start, next week there will be apparitions reported in Norwegian or other languages that most English Wikipedia readers can not benefit from, and there is no way to measure their notability based on Wikipedia policies.

The real reason I am objecting to your addition is that it is an invitation to go back to the low quality page that existed 6 months ago, when everyone and his brother was adding an apparition in some corner of the world which had no serious published references in English and failed significance and notability measures based on Wikipedia standards. That situation must and will be avoided.

Please provide serious references in major publications in Englsh to over come the barriers in Wikipedia:Notability or I will have to remove that entry to maintain quality, based on clear Wikipedia policies. Please do realize that I have nothing personally against Ms Oliviera, or her account of her apparition. My problems are:

• I really have no idea what the Portugese pages say, and have no idea what this apparition is about. I searched for "Fabiano Oliviera" and apparition in Google and got nothing serious. If I can not figure it out after researching all the apparitions on this page for months, the average Wikipedia user can not either.

• If this non-notable entry is allowed, 50 more non-notables will have to be allowed also, against Wikipedia policies. That can not be allowed by Wikipedia policies.

As a comparison for the entries, please note that neither Our Lady of Akita nor Our Lady of Kibeho had an entry a few months ago, until I researched them and created a page for each because they were clearly notable. There is no difference to me about Kibeho or this apparition personally, except that Kibeho is clearly notable by Wiki-standards, but this one is not. EWTN has written about both Kibeho and Akita, but it has no mention of this one.

If you are unhappy, please start a dispute process, using the official Wikipedia channels. But realistically, the best suggestion for you is to convince EWTN (or a similarly well established publication in English) to write an article about it, and then it will become notable enough to be included. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don´t have time and I don´t know what else to do . Ok, If you think it should be off the list and keep removing, what can I do? If you don´t know to read portuguese, is not my problem. I understand this version is english, but the apparitions happen all over the world. I think that a useful list is a list that contain apparition as REPORTED, have the site and the name. I often visit other sites in language that is not portuguese. Why don´t you use the google translator Portugues -> english?

I understand your care, but i think that your list is too small. There are Much more reported apparitions than that. and I think that the false claimed apparitions are not the majority.

Go on the site and see Messages [Mensagens]. What do you think they are? I live near the place where almost them took place. There where hundreds of messages since 1996 to 2004. Virgin Mary, Jesus, St Michael, St. Gabriel, and God Father. And you are calling it not 'notable'. I agree that the apparition is not well known on world and on internet. But there are a few links that I provided above. Be careful. Think again. I did my part. If some person miss to have access to these messages it will be your fault.

In this way you are doing you are bloking the people access to a phenomena that is happening, the multiplication of apparitions worldwide. It is a sign of how the Father is Good and is warning mankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.93.193.81 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry, but your statement that If you don´t know to read portuguese, is not my problem does not apply to English Wikipedia. I think 90% of the readers of English Wikipedia do not read Portugese. What if someone adds an entry in Norwegian? I really have nothing against apparitions, e.g. today, I just setup the page Lourdes apparitions, because it is known and well established, but was not detailed in Wikipedia. But a non-notable entry (based on Wikipedia:Notability) in Portugese is just against Wikipedia policies. And please note that making threats, as you did, is also against Wiki-policy and can lead to your being blocked from accessing Wikipedia. Please add this entry to Portugese Wikipedia. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Since this issue seems to be between 2 people, I decided to put in my 2 cents. A pourtugese link, no matter how reputable, is not acceptable on an English wiki. The sources need to be in English. And since the source cannot be used, neither can the information. If the anon wants to find a reputable source that Exists in English, then it can be mentioned - but a rather short mention, as it isn't very notable. This is the way of wikipedia. Also - History2007 - don't forget that if an admin comes by and sees you both edit warring, then you will both be blocked. Farsight001 (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for joing us to solve this problem. There is an interesting text True Apparitions Neglected and Corrupted

I understand the problem that it is difficult to find references to it in english.

References for Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das Famílias

I found a reference in english to a site that makes reference to our apparition. On http://latinamericanapparitions.blogspot.com/ you can find a reference to a link called List of apparitions in Brazil. This link leads to http://paginas.terra.com.br/arte/leiame/brasil.html And this site contains reference about the apparition Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das Famílias here in Vitória da Conquista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.207.232 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm glad you're looking, none of those come close to being considered reputable sources by wikipedia. Reputable would be the cia factbook, catholic.com, etc.Farsight001 (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Farsight001. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I gave a loot at catholic.com. It seem that they are not recent apparition friends.

God will do what He wants even if the apparition is not listed here. I personally consider this list too small, and the criteria is complicated, because this apparition is in another country and language. But it really happened. Also, the apparitions known worldwide have many years, some, almost a century, and the apparition here began in 1996 and finish public messages on 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.207.232 (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Think of it this way, if the apparition is real, it will spread in time. Think of how Our Lady of Guadalupe grew. Time is the real test in many cases. And remember that people are still debating if Međugorje is real, although millions of pilgrims go there every year. History2007 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I want the apparition listed. You are confusing article notability with the apparition reported list.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.

I really disagree with this content reverting you are doing. I need help from somebody here in wikipedia with the arguments. I added this apparition report and it was removed many times, and I added again. I am sure that no admin will block me because I am not doing nothing wrong.

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves Policy shortcuts: WP:SELF/QUEST WP:SELFQUEST WP:SELFPUB Questionable sources, and most self-published sources, MAY only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:

the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it; the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Non-English sources Policy shortcuts: WP:RSUE WP:VUE WP:NONENG Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors SHOULD use English-language sources in PREFERENCE to sources in other languages.

SO it is clear: SHOULD and PREFERENCE. So it is NOT MANDATORY that all source MUST BE English.

Finnaly, as all can see there is nothing that deny the entry of this apparition on the REPORTED Apparition List. Tonyhenrique (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI Tonyhenrique - English is very clearly not your first language. It is highly improper to continue adding your lines over and over again despite being informed not to, but your sentences also barely make sense. Based on the atrocious grammar alone, they are revertible. Wikipedia has rules here, and you are expected to follow them. I highly suggest you start trying to do so. Especially since us Christians are supposed to follow the rules. Farsight001 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quality, verifiability

Actually, that argument is not valid. Had it been valid English Wikipedia could have had articles whose entire sources were in Norwegian, Turkish and Hindustani. How can other English Wikipedia users guess what those sources say? How can those sources be verified? And your source is mostly self-published, anyway. That makes it not even remotely usable. Please also see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources among others policy issues.In general, as those policies state:

• Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Your references do not come close to being 3rd party or having a reputation for fact checking. And please realize that:

• The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

So the burden is on you to prove reliability, because you are adding it. Hence your previous statement that: "If you can not read Portugese that is not my problem" does not apply. If I can not read Portugese, it is your problem on English Wikipedia, but not on Portugese Wikipedia. And please note that:

• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Moreover:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources

also applies here. You do not have a single mainstream source listed. Is this clear now? Please find a reliable, and verifiable, 3rd party mainstream source in English, then come back to discuss. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of *topics* for articles but do not directly limit the *content* of articles. You are removing the content. Stop removing the content without a serious reason. The apparition not being on mainstream is not a serious reason. You are wrong on this. Most apparitions are often not on mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.104.207.232 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's not wrong on this. The apparition is simply not notable. Period. On top of that, none of your sources meet guidlines for reliability, and thus cannot be used. Thus without the source, the info itself should not be added. There are literally thousands of apparitions as equally obscure. We cannot add them all, and so in the interest of fairness, add none of them.Farsight001 (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let´s go step by step. Wiki policy about notability says that the Notability is about the ARTICLE not about the entire CONTENT of the article; If I had created an article in wiki english about Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das Famílias, it would be ok to delete, because now this apparition is not notable in english. I don´t want a war. I was on internet and searched for apparition list, and then came here. And I was dissapointed the list was too small and didn´t contain even the apparition here, that lasted 8 years. Then I contributed with an edit. But all this confusion was not expected. I think that a reported apparition list must contain all reported apparition in good sense, including even other remote country and languages. And including the less known apparitions. I already gave a mention to two links that indicate the apparition, so the apparition is not unverifiable at all. It is not verifiable in english, but in portuguese you can see that the report of this apparition is verifiable. The CONTENT of english Wiki SHOULD be in ENGLISH, but I see no problem in a apparition report on a list on the end of a page indicate an apparition report on other languages. Doing like you are doing you are preventing wiki users to see that the apparition is a large phenomenon worldwide. A person comes and see only 5 new apparitions reports. And in fact there are hundreds with some verifiability. Doesn´t confuse article notability ie. the Marian Apparition, with content notability. Also, the source verifiability is possible in portuguese, as i showed. Also the wiki allows some kind of self-published sources in some cases. I think that an apparition is a perfect self-published source. You want to be more severe and criterious than wiki documentation... 189.104.207.232 (talk) 10:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You nmay think that, but wikipedia does not. And wikipedia is in charge here. The links you gave do not fit the criteria for reliability, and thus CANNOT be used. At all. I already told you that. And since the links cannot be used, the apparition remains unverifiable. Not even the portuguese language one meets wiki guidlines on reliability. You have been told this already as well. They simply cannot be added. Period. If you have a problem with that, then complain to the wiki policy makers, not us.Farsight001 (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also know that if your account has been blocked, you are not allowed to continue editing the article under an IP address. Nor are you allowed to make uncivil statements at all, especially in your most recent edit summary. If following the rules is a sin, then we are sinning, but even the bible says that we are supposed to follow the rules where possible, even if we don't like them.Farsight001 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lady of all Nations

This apparition was added to the fully approved section, with only a reference to its own website. I did a web search and EWTN clearly states that it has local bishop approval. But it does not have Holy Office approval as far as I can see. The anon-IP who added it mentioned Cardinal Levada's name in a way that partly made it sound like full approval to me, but in fact Levada may have just talked about words in a prayer and not issued an approval. And I can not find a reference to that either. I moved it to another section. Please do not move it to the fully approved list unless a clear letter from the Holy Office is issued and can be referenced. And the statement that it was the same as Akita was unsupported as well. I did, however, add the EWTN reference so it can stay in the article. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New introductions in Feb 2009

A number of new non-approved apparitions were added on Feb 24/2009. Some of these may have notable validity, some may not. A bot caught one of the links, and there are probably others that are non-notable. But the blanket statement that they are "all notable" is certainly not warranted.

The IP in Portugal who added these seems to need a tutorial on what passes as a valid Wikipedia entry. I have tried to clean up on some entries. E.g. please see how today I added 3 references to Pontevedra apparitions, one being EWTN, the other CNA and another Notre Dame Univerity.

The only way these new entries can be introduced is to list at least three well known 3rd party references for each on this talk page first. The quality of the sources needs to be like the ones I added for Pontevedra apparitions today. Then we can see which can be added.

The important issue to remember in the discussion is that Wikipedia policies favor those who act as the "blocker based on quality", because the burden of proof is on the person adding the new item. So If I act as the blocker, I do not need to do the work to confirm that the entries were valid, but the person adding them needs to do the work to provide the multiple reliable, 3rd p[arty references. Therefore please list each apparition, one by one below, with 3 reliable 3rd party sources (e.g. EWTN, Notre Dame, etc.) and we will see which items can pass teh threshold, and if suitable add some of them one by one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

References

I still not understanding why are you against me: criticism is not colaboration. You should help me in the editings and not only to made deletions or spread critics. Sincerely, I hope you change that attitude against me. Another subject: Knock Shrine and many other sources tell that Knock apparitions are recognized. Also in 1936, the Archbishop of Tuam and Dr. Gilmartin's investigative commission returns a positive verdict. What you tell me about it? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I do not have any desire to make this a personal debate. My agenda is to achieve quality on Wikipedia by checking references. So what I can tell you is simple: "Please provide reliable 3rd party references".

Regarding your comment that "Knock Shrine and many other sources tell that Knock apparitions are recognized". What Knock says about itself does not matter. Please provide a few of those other references here and we will see if they are 3rd party. Do you have a few references (e.g. EWTN, a university, etc.) that quote the Archbishop of Tuan? If so, please provide it. It is very simple: If there are 3rd party references the item stays, if there are no 3rd party reliable references, it has to go.

Regarding your comment on the history log that Anguera is a hoax, I have no solid reference that it is a hoax, but I had previously (4 or 5 days ago) double checked and did not find solid 3rd party references for Anguera, so I commented it out. So on the Anguera issue we agree. It has no references and needs to be commented out until references are found. Again: It matters not what I think or you think about Anguera. In Wikipedia it does not matter if Anguera prophecies have become true or not in your opinion or mine. What matters in Wikipedia is the availability of reliable 3rd party references. If tomorrow the NY Times writes an article on Anguera, I will have to add it back in, and say that "NY Times said ....", regardless of what I think or you think. That is how Wikipedia works. Let me repeat this again for you so you understand it:

The fact that you and I agree on Anguera means nothing in the context of Wikipedia if it does not have valid 3rd part references in English. There are probably 1,000 people who believe in Anguera and if they all wanted to edit this page tomorrow, that edit would still be blocked without references. But if the Boston Globe and NY Times write about Anguera tomorrow, then it can be added. Is this clear now? The fact that 1,000 people believe in something, does not make a valid Wikipedia entry. Is that clear? References create validity, not personal opinions. Do you understand that now?

You also added back a few other items that I had commented out along with Anguera because they have no 3rd party references and the only reference are self published. I have to comment them out again until you provide better references. What you need to do is this:

• For each item you want to comment back in, please do a careful web search and find 3 notable and reliable 3rd party references in English. Then comment some of them back one by one after you have several reliable 3rd party references for each item.

Let us do this: we will wait 3 days for you to add reliable 3rd party references for the items you just commented back in. If you can not find references, I will comment out those items without references, until someone else finds the suitable (non-selfpublished) references. Else they will stay commented out for ever.

To understand how this works, please see: Garabandal apparitions. That item had a page with no references at all. On February 25th 2009, I managed to find 3 references, one of which was EWTN. So I added those references to Garabandal apparitions and kept that item in the table with the suitable notation. If I could not have found those references, I would have commented Garabandal out.

Before I started cleaning up this page, it was full of items with no reference. And the long debate with user:Tonyhenrique above on this talk page shows that unless quality guidelines are enforced, chaos will creep back in again. It is very simple: "If there are 3rd party references, an item will stay, else it has to go". History2007 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about something. I had worked on the Garabandal article in January 2009 and included a number of references. They were (and are) listed under "Notes" for some reason in the article. You said the article had no references at all. What you added as references, besides the EWTN page, were two of the more recent books on the apparitions. Did none of the references or sources I added count? What should I have done instead? Thanks, --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They are there, and the discussion was a couple of months ago, so I don't recall the details any more. I was probably referring to another page I had worked on and mixed it with Garabandal.... anyway... there are several references there... Cheers History2007 (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Table as a source of quality problems

It may be that the simple table of unapproved apparitions with simple entries and no text to speak of for each entry is a source of quality problems in this article. It is just too easy to add simple entries with no justification to this table, and that was how it accumulated a lot of junk between 2005 and 2008, before it was cleaned up with much effort.

For instance, the current table has an entry that says: Elizabeth Kindelmann, a Hungarian mother of six children. Now she may be the mother of 3 children, 6 children or 11 children, what relevance does that have to the validity of the reference? I assume that being a mother makes her sound more reliable, but that is not a reference. And the only reference for the item is purely self-published. If this is a notable entry, why not give it a Wiki-page? My guess: a Wikipage for it will not survive A7 and will be speedied at close to the speed of light.

The size of the table has been getting smaller over the past 12 months as previous entries have either been given pages or be added as hoaxes. For instances Our Lady of the Eucharist used to have a simple table entry with a self-published website: [5]. After I checked it more carefully, it was declared as a hoax, and I added it as a hoax to the text of the article. The self-published website for it clearly states that: "Msgr. Claudio Galli has approved this apparition". It turns out, however, that the Vatican has since disapproved of Msgr. Galli and eliminated his rank. This is an example of how simple self-published references can not be relied upon in a table. Therefore, it may be time to make the table size asymptotic with respect to the limit it has been pursuing by virtue of its decreasing size.

I propose that the table be expanded and merged into the section in which it resides and each of the few entries be given a Wikipedia page if they have references. In many quality control issues, the structure of the process can be changed to enhance quality, and I think this is such a case. Unless there are solid arguments against, I will expand the table into the section in the next few days and give each entry a Wikipedia page if it has references, else avoid it. History2007 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I waited a few days and since no objection was made, I will expand the table into the text now and remove the questionable items with no 3rd party references as part of the other improvements I am planning for the next few days. History2007 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pontmain

Pontmain has no solid references in Wikipedia and its Wikipage is really low quality. I can not find good references for it. Please see its own Wikipage. Unless good refs are added for Potmain, it has to be deleted soon. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Roman vs Catholic

An edit was made to this article replacing many cases of Roman Catholic approved with Catholic approved. Although that may be valid in the case of some feasts, I see no reference that the Eastern bretheren are part of the process within the Vatican that examines apparitions. Hence unless references are added to support that fact, those edits need to be reverted in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No response, so revert to last stable version is in order. History2007 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Church?

Do the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc.) believe in these Visions? Please add this info. -- 92.229.250.34 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Coptic church, part of Oriental Orthodoxy, approved Our Lady of Zeitoun and Our Lady of Assiut as the article says. Most others have been Roman Catholic. Cheers History2007 (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)