Talk:Necedah Shrine

I made some comments

I made some comments about the Necedah Shrine and the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the discussion section of the article about Raymond Leo Burke who was Bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse. RFD 16:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bibliography

Discovered this reference to the Necedah Shrine in the Library of Congress. As it may add some detail to this entry, I thought I'd record it here. User Calibanu 14:40, 29 May 2006

POV dispute

This article focuses on criticisms of the shrine. There are alligations of pedophilia that should be cited. Lots of "mud slinging." Sounds like the place is run by criminals. I wonder about the objectivity of the Unity Publishing as a source. I went to the place, and I sure didn't get the feel that his article conveys. I don't consider myself a believer or non-believer in the place. There should be both praise and criticism sections. Royalbroil 12:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I tagged the article again... recent edits seem to be quite POV driven and worded as such. 72.131.44.247 19:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the literature of the actual apparitions? Its whacky, to say the least. It speaks of spaceships with a man named Joe coming to rescue only the loyal followers when the "Chastisement" comes, they talk of imposter pope's in the vatican, and on and on ad nauseum. Considering the multitude of examples I could detail, the article is very balanced and actually goes easy on Van Hoof and the Necedah Shrine, which still is recognized as not only illegitimate but dangerous by Catholic Church officials.

This whole section is dubious to say the least. Claims citing literature but not providing specific texts or pages. I have read Henry Swans "my Work with Necedah" volume 111 and IV which is a very detailed account of the visions by a man who was close to Mary Anne. Though the texts present an amazing amount of info concerning the implementation of the "protocols of Zion" and New world order and One world religion,I found no mention of a spaceship. As far as an imposter Pope,that theory has been entertained by others including a German author:

A German author named Theodor Kolberg, wrote two books which verified this shocking message. His books, "Der Vertrug des Jahrhunderts" ("The Deception of the Century') and "Umsturz im Vatikan?"("An Overthrow in the Vatican"), Produced photos (some included in this chapter) which proved that there were indeed physical differences between the real Pope Paul VI, and the Imposter who now imposed himself as Pope Paul. Other physical evidence included in his book were voice-prints (equal to the evidence of finger-prints) which proved that there were two different voices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.235.115 (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Necedah Shrine

I started the original article before I register with Wikipedia. Initially, I included the article from Unity Publications (??) as a primary source that the Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse was opposed to the Shrine for several good reasons.I wanted to balance the official website. Also Bishop Raymond Leo Burke founed the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe as an alternative to the Necedah Shrine. Initially, I did try for some sort of balance by including both websites. Thank you- RFD 15:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I think the article needs reorganizing. This article is inherently POV, and I think its fine to be presented that way. I think there should be a lead section showing the shrine according to Van Hoof's POV. Then there should be a criticism section. I think its fine for the criticism to exceed the regular part of the article, but I think the current article is about 90% criticism and 10% complementary to Van Hoof. I read the "Old Catholic" article, and now I understand this article much better. Would you (RFD) please reorganize this article and we can go from there. Thanks! Royalbroil 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As the author of this current piece, I did indeed strive to present an NPOV. However, Mrs Van Hoof and her acolytes did dissociate herself from the institutional church, and did affiliate themselves to Old Catholic networks. Those are statements of fact, and they are attested to within the bibliography. Moreover, I have also cited Mrs Van Hoof's publications and others for an alternative perspective. Please note, however, that Mrs Van Hoof and the Necedah Shrine are subject to criticisms from both rationalist critics who dispute the existence of supernatural visitations per se, and conservative but orthodox Catholic critics who accept the authority of the church in these matters. In the case of Mrs Van Hoof's own viewpoint, I incorporated references to her own available and documented published work, and noted that she preferred her own 'thaumaturgic' authority as a seer to the institutional church. I made no value judgements about that. To remove references to that criticism would indeed be to incorporate a POV perspective.

User Calibanu 13:48, June 12, 2006.

I reorganized the article into sections-this makes it easier for future editing. I added some key words from the official website. I wanted to convey the original purpose of the Shrine from Mrs. Van Hoof's viewpoint Thank you-RFD 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reorganizing the article. That helped a lot. I added some of Van Hoof's claims, and removed the POV tag. I felt that the article needed a listing of more of Van Hoof's claims to be fair. I am now satisified that both sides are presented. Van Hoof's disassociation with the current Roman Catholic church is an undisputed and important piece to this article. Royalbroil 14:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Why is the third paragraph under Criticism (starts with "Unity Publishing, an orthodox and non-schismatic conservative ") necessary? The comments appear to be about the Old Catholic church, not this site. I think they should be moved to Old Catholic or delete altogether. These comments are a large part of why I felt the article was POV. Also the last two sentences in the final paragraph of the Criticism section. Royalbroil 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC), revised Royalbroil 15:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Granted, RB, but some less knowledgeable readers might confuse Old Catholics and more orthdox conservative Catholics, particularly given that the Catholic Church itself recognises Fatima, but not other Marian apparitions, which is why I included the link to the Old Catholics and Marian apparitions Wiki entries in the first place.

There probably is some overlap, as I don't imagine that the Diocese of La Crosse is sitting out there with surveillance cams, waiting for visitors to Necedah to show up and then nabbing them the next time they try to slip into Mass. And hey, excellent edit, RFD. User Calibanu 10:29, 12 June 2006

The interdict and criticism sections clearly indicate that the visions are controversial. Just having an interdict puts her visions in doubt. The word choices appeared to show that she is on trial. The Roman Catholic Church has done their judgment. All the words / concepts that I removed are on the weasel words list. I realize that this is a contentious topic to some people. I'm not looking to pick a fight, just get an article with less POV. Cheers! --Royalbroil 16:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with adding POV terms to this article - read WP:WTA and WP:WEASEL. The article is still dominated by the criticism section, and there needs to be a portion of the article that presents Van Hoof's claims. Again, I am not a fan of the shrine, but I believe that the article needs to present what she claims to have seen without all the weasel words. I hope we can reach a happy medium. Cheers! --Royalbroil 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistake

In the article it states in the first paragraph that Mrs. Mary Ann Van Hoof received a vison on November 12, 1949.

But under the Vision claims category it states she saw a vision on November 2, 1949.

I just happened to notice it. Which one is right?

User Bdman 23:23, June 17, 2006.

Van Hoof claims to have seen 9 visions, so both dates are correct. Royalbroil 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also corrected: F. John Loughnan is not a priest. The F. is his first initial, not an abbreviation for father. Ronconte 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No Ron, both dates are not correct.Mrs Van Hoof's visions ocurred on 11/12/1949 4/7/1950 May 28,29,30 1950 June 4,16 1950 Aug 15 1950 and Oct 7,1950(the date of the Catholic feast day of the rosary) Over 125,000 people were said to be in attendance.I am sure there is a newspaper article documenting the event. Info taken from Queen of the Holy Rosary Shrine website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.235.115 (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Third party review requested

I have requested a third party review of the article because of the long-term POV dispute. I think this article is largely bias against Van Hoof position - probably 20% pro and 80% anti. You won't leave the pro section intact with adding weasel words. Again, I am not a fan of Van Hoof's, but I think this article is far too slanted because of weasel words such as "claim, alleged, etc.". She has an interdict, so it is crystal clear that her position is controversial and disputed by the mainstream Roman Catholic church. There were around 100,000 people at one of her visions, and the article clearly states that all those people saw a variety of things. She may have been crazy, but that doesn't matter to this article. I would have raised a big stink and done a major overall if she was alive, because this article appears libelous to me. You need to leave the POV-check template intact until the third party has reviewed the article. I will revert it back if you do. Royalbroil 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

A review should be done. But not for the reasons you state above. The only thing or changes I added were the words "claims" etc. This is completely valid, and not for the reasons you think. You say that "claims" is a weasel word? There is no scientific proof that exists from any accredited scientist that she, in fact, had these visions. When you read the way the article was written before adding the word "claim", especially the first vital few paragraphs, one would conclude she actually had these visions. Being that there is no scientific basis to substantiate them, the actual true neutral position would be to include words such as "Van Hoof claimed" or "Van Hoof alleges." You seem to be relying on the fact that she was slapped with a Roman Catholic interdict after; that is only the Church's point of view on the alleged apparations, not a scientifc point of view. A true neutral position recognizes that without being any true objective back-up by an accredited scientist who would go on the record, the Van Hoof "visions" are nothing more than her claiming or saying she has had them. If one chooses to believe them, it is based on faith, or personally agreeing with the content of her visions, and not based on science.

DerekDD 11:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your civilness in this matter. I thank you for writing out your assessment of this article. I didn't understand your rationale for reverting my edits until now. I am a man of science too, and I am extremely skeptical of visions.

I agree that there is no hard scientific proof that she saw things. That's why the second sentence in the second paragraph of the article states "Testimonies as to the authenticity of her visions from many doctors vary significantly". The very next sentence states "Pilgrims have seen Van Hoof in a state of religious ecstasy". I don't think that a scientist needs to be present for something to be considered "scientific", except if the only people present are the claimer's "friends". I see no evidence of the group being her friends. Certainly the sentence "There were 100,000 people attending vision on August 5, 1950, and witness accounts vary significantly." says that something happened there, whether it be forgery, illusion, or real. There had to be at least 1 scientist in a group of that size.

Please read Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words which can advance a point of view. I point out the word "Claim". The guideline says 'The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect.' This is the crux of the basis of my strong objection to the wording.

The criticism section of this article dominates the article. It goes EXTREMELY FAR off topic by talking about problems with Old Catholic Archbishops, spaceships, murder, and child molesters. I found no evidence of any of these when I looked at some of their official literature. It looks like sensationalism to me, and I believe it is extremely non-encyclopedic.

Please take a look at the article on Jesus. I skimmed it. I did not see the word claim anywhere in the article. Non-Christians would look at his life skeptically. I invite you to skim the Zeus article. The article is told in the present tense, even though there are not many Zeus believers in the world. Check out the disclaimer at the very bottom. These examples show the direction that I think this article needs to strive towards.

The word "vision" is defined in this context as "a religious or mystical experience of a supernatural appearance". [1] How can a vision be scientifically proven? Spiritual and mystical experiences are inherently non-scientific! Royalbroil 02:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Royalbroil. This is what you wrote: "The criticism section of this article dominates the article. It goes EXTREMELY FAR off topic by talking about problems with Old Catholic Archbishops, spaceships, murder, and child molesters. I found no evidence of any of these when I looked at some of their official literature. It looks like sensationalism to me, and I believe it is extremely non-encyclopedic." Although I didn't write those things about the Necedah Shrine, I have researched Necedah and all those claims are most assuredly true. I have quotes from their literature about the spaceship rescue of the faithful. None of what you think is libelous actually is. All those things are unfortunately documented. I believe you are well-intentioned because one likes to think better of people, but an actual true neutral point of view of this topic points to an all out mess. Valid investigative NEUTRAL journalists have done investigative research on Necedah and the conclusions reached have been an awful lot harsher than the wikipedia article. I feel it vital to leave the writer with the conclusion that these things from Van Hoof are claims and have never been documented by a serious scientific inquiry. Hence the word "claims" etc. The Catholic Church had their own investigators in to test the legitimacy of Van Hoof and they found her wanting immediately. However, they were searching for criteria to back up their own teachings, etc, and when they found contrary "teachings" in the Van Hoof messages, they pronounced her a fraud, and slapped her with the interdict. That does not qualify as a serious scientific query. One would also think that if there was any legitimacy to those apparations, a neutral scientific party would have been invited with open arms to study Van Hoof. This was never done. DerekDD 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to the WP:3O request. I agree with DerekDD that the, shall we say, uncertain nature of these revelations must be made adequately clear, but I also agree with Royalbroil's reading of the guideline that deprecates words like "claimed" and "alleged". Therefore, in keeping with this guideline, I propose that the article be rephrased in the following, more matter-of-fact manner: "Van Hoof reported to have received nine visions" instead of "Van Hoof claimed to receive nine visions"; "As for the content of the revelations according to Van Hoof" instead of "As for the content of the alleged revelations", etc. But then, we need to do the same thing to factual-sounding statements such as "Van Hoof suffered the Passion of Our Lord", making it "Van Hoof says that she suffered the Passion of Our Lord", or similar. I do think we owe it to the encyclopedia to be just as plainly factual as we can be, without using loaded words. Sandstein 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Interdict/Excommunication

• The intro mentions that the Church imposed an interdict on Van Hoof, but does not mention the more severe penalty of excommunication. May as well do so. Under Interdict, the excommunication needs to be sourced to something other than the Burke letter, which does not mention it. (Is Loughnan correct in saying that there was a 1975 excommunication?)

Visions

• Testimonies as to the authenticity of her visions from many doctors vary significantly. This statement is vague ("many doctors") and unsourced, and is oddly placed. It doesn't really give the reader any information. I think material about the evaluation of Van Hoof's claims should come after some description of them.

Reorganizing

• One way to organize the content would be: (1) History: 1949-1950; (2) Messages and mystical claims; (3) Response from the Church; (4) Continuing activity up to 1975; (5) Excommunication and schism; (6) Personalities (information, including criticism, about Van Hoof, Stehlik, etc., could go here); (7) Current status (statements by Abp. Burke; the school, etc.)

• It would be good to describe the history as much as possible in a clearly neutral and objective way. For example, one could start with facts about the Van Hoof movement: a description of how and when the alleged visions became public knowledge, how the public events unfolded in the early period. Were there public gatherings during the early visions? Were they promoted through the press? By word of mouth? How many people were involved? There is probably published material in newspapers, magazines, or books about these issues.

• Overall, events need to be described more objectively: Pilgrims have seen Van Hoof in a state of religious ecstasy should not be stated as a simple fact, but placed in a paragraph about Van Hoof's claims; e.g., starting with "According to Van Hoof and Shrine publications..."

Hope this helps. Chonak 08:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New additions

How does this statement improve the article: "Given her later association with Old Catholic clergymen it appears however that the shrine group has no problems with a married priesthood."? (end of second paragraph under visions) I have a problem with the comment. It is someone's conclusion, non-encyclopedic, and is not NPOV; even if you find it in a reference. Readers can easily draw this conclusion without being lead to that conclusion. You might be able to use a quote from a book if it's worded in a less POV way. There's a whole paragraph on marriage things like this (the first paragraph in the criticism section).

I also have a problem with the first sentence in the second paragraph under aftermath: "Although his study focuses on Lueken and the Bayside Marian apparition, Michael Cuneo's framework of traditionalist Catholic apocalyptic dissent is also applicable to Van Hoof and the Necedah Shrine." It is also someone's opinion. Was it written by the marketing department for his study?

I will remove these statements, and I let's discuss on word before they are reinserted. Royalbroil ^T : C 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Both the conclusion and the summary of Michael Cuneo are clear and easily followable.It's not an opinion to state they allow married clergy, if they in reality do (see Stehlik example).Smith2006 13:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that we could openly discuss the wording on this before you did anything. I object to the way it is worded. You win due to the 3 revert rule. Royalbroil ^T : C 16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone working on this page actually read the books that the Shrine has published? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerenaud (talk • contribs) 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Hello again. I have pretty much read through all of the published messages of Mrs.Van Hoof and have not seen any mention of a Joe who will come after Armageddon and rescue them. I have a feeling that it is a made up quote and not attributable to any of the Shrine's published works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerenaud (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The second source Joe the spaceship guy quote is very prejudicial to the belivablity of Mrs. Van Hoof. Unless a authentic source for the quote from a published Van Hoof work is available it should be dropped from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerenaud (talk • contribs) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)