![]() | Apparition of Our Lady at Batim was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Marian apparition. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Frequently asked questions
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi there. This article was a bit of a mess (for one thing, Kibeho was in four different sections as Church-approved, local-approved, not approved, and in some section where somebody was claiming the bishop's prosecution was a complication somehow with no source support) and I have been trying to clean it up and add sources.
I know you all went over the specific question of "bishop's role vs. Holy See role" a few sections below, and it may be that the original posters are not reading this page any more (I see one showing in red), but I thought I would ask, does anyone have any actual source support for this section?
Specifically the part about the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needing to step in and confirm the bishop's approval for it to be fully "approved". I am not finding this in the sources so far and there are no citations in the section as it exists. Furthermore, it seems like in the case of Kibeho, the bishop made a local approval, the Vatican then published his approval, and now Pope Francis is speaking like he's in agreement that Mary appeared in Rwanda. I didn't see any place where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was explicitly involved in all that (of course, I may have missed it in the weighty documents).
There have been a couple other local approvals by bishops (Our Lady of Good Help, and Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas in Argentina which has been reported in Catholic and secular media as being a big deal) where I am not seeing the Congregation involvement in the published sources, yet the approval appears to be accepted by the Church. I am wondering if this confusion all stemmed from the fact that in some cases Bishops have not given the formal approval to the apparition although they've authorized or permitted devotion (e.g. Pellevoisin, other places where churches were built and the bishop is not objecting but not promoting it either) and that somehow got confused with the bishop declaring the apparition supernatural after the investigation, per the Fr Perrella sources. And of course there are the weird cases like the one where the Church booted Claudio Gatti, or Our Lady of All Nations where Bishop no. 1 didn't approve it and the Congregation agreed with him multiple times and then Bishop no. 2 decided years later to approve it and the Congregation is questioning that.
Anybody have actual source support for the above paragraph? If not I will have to look for some, or rewrite it. Cheers, TheBlinkster ( talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The Borġ in-Nadur apparitions are to be considered notable because:
Hello, the New York Times had an article about Marian apparitions at a Wisconsin chapel, apparitions that were approved by the local bishop after years of investigation. I think this is notable enough to mention in the article but I don't know how to make it fit into the article--it is too recent to have had the cultural impact of better-known apparitions. Any suggestions? Thanks. Loves Macs (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to suggest (under "Local diocese approval") that approval by a local bishop is not authoritative by itself, but needs further approval by the Holy See. The article gives the sample of "Our Lady of Laus".
That would be an incorrect impression. While CDF sometimes assists bishops, and may even intervene on its own initiative, according to the procedures described in Normae Congregationis, any final judgment of approval is given by the local bishop in his own name, as the example of Laus illustrates. [1] -- Chonak ( talk) 05:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This section consisted of speculation, so I removed it. The passage did contain some references, but none of them specifically confirmed the particular supposed apparition events described. -- Chonak ( talk) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved this here:
Weeping statues are one of the rare instances where the Church authorities and the skeptics simultaneously pursue hoaxes. The upper levels of the Vatican have been very careful in their approach and treatment of weeping statues, and generally set very high barriers for their acceptance. For instance when a statue of the popular Saint Padre Pio in Messina, Sicily was found to have tears of blood one day in 2002, Church officials quickly ordered tests that showed the blood to belong to a woman and then dismissed the case as a hoax. [1] [2] Even at the local level, Catholic priests have expelled people who claim weeping statues with apparitions from their local Church. [3]
In 1995, the owner of a Madonna statue that appeared to weep blood in the town of [[]] in Italy refused to take a DNA test and the case was dismissed as a hoax. [4] In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood. [5]
In 1985 the Moving statues phenomenon at Ballinspittle, County Cork, Ireland, attracted thousands of devotees, some of whom saw a plaster statue of the Virgin Mary move. In 2002 Police Sergeant John Murray told the BBC that "suddenly, without warning, there was a gasp from the crowd as the statue, which is embedded in concrete, appeared to be airborne for half a minute. I was so convinced it was a fraud that I climbed up into the grotto the next morning and tried to shake the statue, but it wouldn't budge. I checked the back, the sides of it for any trip wires, but I couldn't find anything." [6]
It ought to go in an article specifically about weeping or moving statues. This is a different issue from apparitions of Mary herself. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Links were added to the article body and text was altered for Bayside Apparitions. It seems out of place to add them for one unapproved apparition, and adds nothing to the article. I am going to pull them, but wanted to add notice to other editors. Dominick (TALK) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry its my first time editing wikipedia, I hope my edits and references as regards Our Lady of Good Success on the page Marian Apparitions are alright now? Levi19910 ( talk) 01:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The journal is not a personal website, the Michael journal does however have a website. The books are authority and I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines. The fact it is not on the ewtn website does not prove it isn't approved it proves it isn't well known there is a difference. I do not see anywhere saying I have to link to those sources, I see guidelines for reputable sources which I have provided, particularly considering one of the books is written by a mgsr. I have provided 4 different books at least 3 of which are published by different companies. If you really want I will email the diocese and get an official reply. Levi19910 ( talk) 10:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I did actually reference two reputable blogs written by clergy in good standing with Rome but apparently they had to be deleted. The apparitions are also on the official tourist information site of the city of Quito and listed as a patron saint of the archdiocese of quito, would any of this be any help? Levi19910 ( talk) 11:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/08/our-lady-of-good-success.html
So its a blog I know, but the author is a priest and theology professor for the diocese of southwark in the UK, surely that counts for something? If just to show its not just extremists that believe in the apparition Levi19910 ( talk) 12:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I have it what about this? http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Levi19910 ( talk • contribs) .
I have found this source from a EWTN service mentioning OLOS http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7tgz25hUEEoJ:www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/+diocese+quito+%22our+lady+of+good+success%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us and I found this source which is a tourist site http://www.quito-colonial.com/Quito_Colonial_Chatter_Mitad_del_Mes-QuitoColonialChatter006.html and here is a site dedicated to WYD 2011 mentioning it in a blog that is normally useless for our purposes, but had some information to lead us right: http://www.madrid11.com/en/blog/entry/our-lady-of-good-success and I found evidence that this is a approved apparition. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3777213 in the "la Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Buen Suceso" whish is of course OLGS. We now can prove this is an approved apparition to anyone coming onto the site without relying on activist sites like fisheaters, TIA or the myriad of "wheels upon wheels" Dominick (TALK) 12:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is what we have in dispute:
If I can ask you, maybe you and I can clean up the main article Our Lady of Good Success as well. Dominick (TALK) 12:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I really am greatful! :) Levi19910 ( talk) 12:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds entirely reasonable, did you say you'd found a source approving the apparition in 1611? If not we could just state its approved and link to the request for coronation? Levi19910 ( talk) 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This would do for claims 2 and 3 I think http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/ Levi19910 ( talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
But let us once and for all establish that "the worth" of Micheal's journal in Wikipedia is zero. A flat zero. It is not WP:RS by any measure. And this apparition even if a Bishop's letter is found does not belong to the class of Lourdes which has been approved in Rome. In any case, Levi19910 material has to move out of that section, and a small mention may be made somewhere else if WP:RS sources are found. I posted about this on the Proj Catholicism page and it was suggested that an FAQ be added that establishes that Micheal's journal is not a journal, etc. This is just taking up time again and again explaining items that are already in the WP:RS page. History2007 ( talk) 14:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed so what are we doing in the end? As far as I can see we have sources that state the apparition is approved, apparitions do not need Vatican approval something the Vatican has made clear on repeated occassions and I see no reason why apparitions that are verified by the vatican should be ranked higher than those that aren't. Some apparitions such as Our Lady of Guadalupe amongst others didn't receive papal approval for some significant period of time and yet that did not make the apparition any less important or unapproved. Levi19910 ( talk) 17:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This newspaper article http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2583&Itemid=29 clearly states that the apparition was approved by Bishop Salvador de Riber and gives the date of the approval as 2 feb 1611 it also gives several other details such as the length of the visions. Levi19910 ( talk) 18:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you still going on about michaels journal? Despite the fact I accepted it was wrong? I cannot see what is wrong with using 'The Record'newspaper you were after all the one who suggest I use EWTN etc.. and I have supplied something similar, and the michael journal and the National Catholic register are not comparable for well obvious reason. So frankly I don't see what your problems are, either show why its wrong to use the Papers or put up
90.216.50.226 ( talk) 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we all accept the Catholic Encyclopedia as valid as a source. If we are going to be emotional then this is going to be much more difficult to do this topic justice. Dominick (TALK) 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
and the National Catholic Register and The Record are not reliable, because?...
Levi19910 ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This is ridicalous, you both criticise me for using 'unreliable sources' and then use an article about the shrine that says nothing about the apparitions except that they happened in 1610 to support them occuring from 1599-1635 and an article about the Lily of Quito who is an entirely different person in reference to the visionary and cite that to say they were approved by the bishop. I have added in both the Record and the National Catholic Register because they are more reliable than either of the sources you have posted being reliable newspapers and are the only sources we in fact possess to back up the article. Please DO NOT remove them until you either find something better or delete the article altogether.
For that matter the National Catholic Register article is a newspaper article NOT a blog, it ends as an article, is written throughout as an article, is in the daily news section and has an article title not a blog title. Your dismissal of the Record is equally based on an assumption something clearly condemned by wikipedia guidelines, The Record constitues a verifiable sources whether you agree with it or not or believe it or not is besides the point. It meets the wikipedia standards.
After then dismissing verifiable sources you have put the apparition in the wrong section 'unapproved' when two verifiable and reliable sources clearly state its approved. Why is this? I would have no objection to it being under the 'approved by local ordinary section' but to claim its not approved at all is patently false. Levi19910 ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want I am more than happy to research the other 50 that would fit in the section if someone can give me a pointer in the right direction. Levi19910 ( talk) 14:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
By other ones I'm guessing you mean other aparitions only approved by the local ordinary and not the Holy See? If so I'll get startd on that tonight. If you want to divide the article properly, one section should say 'apparitions approved by the holy see' and the other 'apparitions approved by the local ordinary' As at the moment its misleading having approved and approved by a local ordinary, as it almost implies that those approved by a local ordinary are less valid which is not true. Levi19910 ( talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't find his list anywhere. Can it be provided? Dominick (TALK) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there should be less space for lower level approvals, given that they have their own pages. So Kibeho needs to get less real estate, as many others. There are just too many of them to have the same amount of space as Laus, etc. And source should not just be a Vatican source for the Rome approval, if Zenit or CNS say that it is good enough. History2007 ( talk) 16:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
i thought about this last night. We can agree on so many things but we are hung up on one apparition that is minor at best and has been obfuscated by unreliable self published sources. We need a way forward so let me put this out there. We classify everything according to approval status verified from sources we can agree on BY NAME.
History2007 is 100% right about not being caught in circular arguments. OLGS in Quito is one part of the life of a Saint, but is a minor apparition when compared to ones like Pontmain. I have heard about Pontmain since I was a boy, but looking for the original Vatican source online is hard. I plan to do what I said I would do and go to sources. Dominick (TALK) 13:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Overall, pretty good. I think this article is generally well above the average quality of Project Christianity articles now.
Minor suggestions are as follows:
There are minor typos etc. but they can wait. So the main remaining problem is item 3. How do we handle that? Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 09:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added a FAQ to the top of the page, as a sort of placeholder so you can see how it works. Please feel free to improve it to cover whatever points seem to need regular repetition on this page. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The article, perhaps because it is simply too long, has redundancies, and at least one major conflict. The Lady of Akita is not included in a list of Vatican-approved apparitions, but it is individually described so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.91.55 ( talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I just found out about Angela. There are a lot of film clips of the apparitions on Youtube, including a documentary made in the late 1940s, plus interviews with her today. I got newspaper reports from the region for citations, but I'd like to know if I could link to her videos or mention the many books she's written. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The article was assessed C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 ( talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pilar2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pilar2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
Please do not speed undo South Ossetia 2008 apparitions before examining Russian sources. The blog source is the only English source I could find so far but Russian sources are reliable and apparitions have numerous witnesses. -- ssr ( talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If Interfax says that then please remove the fact tag from that. History2007 ( talk) 21:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The word "condemned" or one of its variations appears four times in the article, once in a section heading. As far as I am aware, neither the Catholic Church nor any other church condemns apparitions. In fact, it is not possible to condemn an apparition. A person who claimed to have seen one, or a group that publicised one, might theoretically be condemned, but I'm pretty sure such a thing hasn't happened since the middle ages. According to the Normae Congregationis article, only three judgements can be given by a diocesan bishop, all of which use the word confirm, not condemn, i.e. confirmed to be supernatural, not confirmed to be supernatural or confirmed to be non-supernatural. Can anybody suggest a neutral word or words to replace "condemn" in the article? Scolaire ( talk) 19:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, in revising the article I noted I did not find any sources using the word "condemn". The words used tend to be "disapproved" or in rare cases "rejected". I agree the word "condemn" has overtones and if it's not in the sources I don't see any support for it being in the section heading, so I replaced it with "disapproved", as that is the most frequently used in the sources. Cheers, TheBlinkster ( talk) 15:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't use these here. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just created pages for Estelle Faguette and Our Lady of Pellevoisin. The Church has never specifically pronounced on whether the apparition was supernatural, but has approved the scapular which comes from it and has recognised the miraculous character of the healing received by Estelle. To my mind, this gives Pellevoisin the same status as Rue du Bac - the devotion is approved which is tantamount to church recognition of the apparition. Perhaps those more familiar with the rules for this page can decide where Pellevoisin links should go, and whether they qualify for associated Templates, etc? Revd Dr Gareth Leyshon - User Gleyshon ( talk) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that it's the patron of Greece, should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
From the talk page archive it appears that earlier versions weren't quite as pov. As an exmaple of the problem with this version, Marian apparition#Our Lady of Zeitoun states in Wikipedia's voice that " The sick and blind have been cured". Although it's possible that most of these alleged events haven't been challenged in reliable sources, it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The article contains several passages in which opinions about Marian apparitions and Marian devotions are presented with vague introductions such as "this has been interpreted to be..." Opinions that cannot be attributed to specific people or organizations, with references to published statements, are not encyclopedic, are contrary to WP:NPOV, and should be removed if they can't be attributed.
Moreover, these critical views, if they represent particular schools of thought, should be brought together to form a distinct section of the article under a header such as "Critical views", to present views from atheists, from Protestants (of this or that school), and so on. That would provide the reader with an informative context. -- Bistropha ( talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ocarm.org/pls/ocarm/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=648{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ourladyofsiluva.com/our_lady{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.de-vrouwe.net/english/index.html?d__May_31__2002__Approbation_of_the_Apparitions258.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=csom_content&task=view&id=2583&Itemid=29When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Apparition of Our Lady at Batim was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 April 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Marian apparition. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Frequently asked questions
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi there. This article was a bit of a mess (for one thing, Kibeho was in four different sections as Church-approved, local-approved, not approved, and in some section where somebody was claiming the bishop's prosecution was a complication somehow with no source support) and I have been trying to clean it up and add sources.
I know you all went over the specific question of "bishop's role vs. Holy See role" a few sections below, and it may be that the original posters are not reading this page any more (I see one showing in red), but I thought I would ask, does anyone have any actual source support for this section?
Specifically the part about the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needing to step in and confirm the bishop's approval for it to be fully "approved". I am not finding this in the sources so far and there are no citations in the section as it exists. Furthermore, it seems like in the case of Kibeho, the bishop made a local approval, the Vatican then published his approval, and now Pope Francis is speaking like he's in agreement that Mary appeared in Rwanda. I didn't see any place where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was explicitly involved in all that (of course, I may have missed it in the weighty documents).
There have been a couple other local approvals by bishops (Our Lady of Good Help, and Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas in Argentina which has been reported in Catholic and secular media as being a big deal) where I am not seeing the Congregation involvement in the published sources, yet the approval appears to be accepted by the Church. I am wondering if this confusion all stemmed from the fact that in some cases Bishops have not given the formal approval to the apparition although they've authorized or permitted devotion (e.g. Pellevoisin, other places where churches were built and the bishop is not objecting but not promoting it either) and that somehow got confused with the bishop declaring the apparition supernatural after the investigation, per the Fr Perrella sources. And of course there are the weird cases like the one where the Church booted Claudio Gatti, or Our Lady of All Nations where Bishop no. 1 didn't approve it and the Congregation agreed with him multiple times and then Bishop no. 2 decided years later to approve it and the Congregation is questioning that.
Anybody have actual source support for the above paragraph? If not I will have to look for some, or rewrite it. Cheers, TheBlinkster ( talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The Borġ in-Nadur apparitions are to be considered notable because:
Hello, the New York Times had an article about Marian apparitions at a Wisconsin chapel, apparitions that were approved by the local bishop after years of investigation. I think this is notable enough to mention in the article but I don't know how to make it fit into the article--it is too recent to have had the cultural impact of better-known apparitions. Any suggestions? Thanks. Loves Macs (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The article seems to suggest (under "Local diocese approval") that approval by a local bishop is not authoritative by itself, but needs further approval by the Holy See. The article gives the sample of "Our Lady of Laus".
That would be an incorrect impression. While CDF sometimes assists bishops, and may even intervene on its own initiative, according to the procedures described in Normae Congregationis, any final judgment of approval is given by the local bishop in his own name, as the example of Laus illustrates. [1] -- Chonak ( talk) 05:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
This section consisted of speculation, so I removed it. The passage did contain some references, but none of them specifically confirmed the particular supposed apparition events described. -- Chonak ( talk) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I moved this here:
Weeping statues are one of the rare instances where the Church authorities and the skeptics simultaneously pursue hoaxes. The upper levels of the Vatican have been very careful in their approach and treatment of weeping statues, and generally set very high barriers for their acceptance. For instance when a statue of the popular Saint Padre Pio in Messina, Sicily was found to have tears of blood one day in 2002, Church officials quickly ordered tests that showed the blood to belong to a woman and then dismissed the case as a hoax. [1] [2] Even at the local level, Catholic priests have expelled people who claim weeping statues with apparitions from their local Church. [3]
In 1995, the owner of a Madonna statue that appeared to weep blood in the town of [[]] in Italy refused to take a DNA test and the case was dismissed as a hoax. [4] In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood. [5]
In 1985 the Moving statues phenomenon at Ballinspittle, County Cork, Ireland, attracted thousands of devotees, some of whom saw a plaster statue of the Virgin Mary move. In 2002 Police Sergeant John Murray told the BBC that "suddenly, without warning, there was a gasp from the crowd as the statue, which is embedded in concrete, appeared to be airborne for half a minute. I was so convinced it was a fraud that I climbed up into the grotto the next morning and tried to shake the statue, but it wouldn't budge. I checked the back, the sides of it for any trip wires, but I couldn't find anything." [6]
It ought to go in an article specifically about weeping or moving statues. This is a different issue from apparitions of Mary herself. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Links were added to the article body and text was altered for Bayside Apparitions. It seems out of place to add them for one unapproved apparition, and adds nothing to the article. I am going to pull them, but wanted to add notice to other editors. Dominick (TALK) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry its my first time editing wikipedia, I hope my edits and references as regards Our Lady of Good Success on the page Marian Apparitions are alright now? Levi19910 ( talk) 01:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The journal is not a personal website, the Michael journal does however have a website. The books are authority and I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines. The fact it is not on the ewtn website does not prove it isn't approved it proves it isn't well known there is a difference. I do not see anywhere saying I have to link to those sources, I see guidelines for reputable sources which I have provided, particularly considering one of the books is written by a mgsr. I have provided 4 different books at least 3 of which are published by different companies. If you really want I will email the diocese and get an official reply. Levi19910 ( talk) 10:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I did actually reference two reputable blogs written by clergy in good standing with Rome but apparently they had to be deleted. The apparitions are also on the official tourist information site of the city of Quito and listed as a patron saint of the archdiocese of quito, would any of this be any help? Levi19910 ( talk) 11:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/08/our-lady-of-good-success.html
So its a blog I know, but the author is a priest and theology professor for the diocese of southwark in the UK, surely that counts for something? If just to show its not just extremists that believe in the apparition Levi19910 ( talk) 12:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I have it what about this? http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Levi19910 ( talk • contribs) .
I have found this source from a EWTN service mentioning OLOS http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7tgz25hUEEoJ:www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/+diocese+quito+%22our+lady+of+good+success%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us and I found this source which is a tourist site http://www.quito-colonial.com/Quito_Colonial_Chatter_Mitad_del_Mes-QuitoColonialChatter006.html and here is a site dedicated to WYD 2011 mentioning it in a blog that is normally useless for our purposes, but had some information to lead us right: http://www.madrid11.com/en/blog/entry/our-lady-of-good-success and I found evidence that this is a approved apparition. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3777213 in the "la Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Buen Suceso" whish is of course OLGS. We now can prove this is an approved apparition to anyone coming onto the site without relying on activist sites like fisheaters, TIA or the myriad of "wheels upon wheels" Dominick (TALK) 12:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is what we have in dispute:
If I can ask you, maybe you and I can clean up the main article Our Lady of Good Success as well. Dominick (TALK) 12:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much, I really am greatful! :) Levi19910 ( talk) 12:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds entirely reasonable, did you say you'd found a source approving the apparition in 1611? If not we could just state its approved and link to the request for coronation? Levi19910 ( talk) 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
This would do for claims 2 and 3 I think http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/ Levi19910 ( talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
But let us once and for all establish that "the worth" of Micheal's journal in Wikipedia is zero. A flat zero. It is not WP:RS by any measure. And this apparition even if a Bishop's letter is found does not belong to the class of Lourdes which has been approved in Rome. In any case, Levi19910 material has to move out of that section, and a small mention may be made somewhere else if WP:RS sources are found. I posted about this on the Proj Catholicism page and it was suggested that an FAQ be added that establishes that Micheal's journal is not a journal, etc. This is just taking up time again and again explaining items that are already in the WP:RS page. History2007 ( talk) 14:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed so what are we doing in the end? As far as I can see we have sources that state the apparition is approved, apparitions do not need Vatican approval something the Vatican has made clear on repeated occassions and I see no reason why apparitions that are verified by the vatican should be ranked higher than those that aren't. Some apparitions such as Our Lady of Guadalupe amongst others didn't receive papal approval for some significant period of time and yet that did not make the apparition any less important or unapproved. Levi19910 ( talk) 17:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This newspaper article http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2583&Itemid=29 clearly states that the apparition was approved by Bishop Salvador de Riber and gives the date of the approval as 2 feb 1611 it also gives several other details such as the length of the visions. Levi19910 ( talk) 18:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you still going on about michaels journal? Despite the fact I accepted it was wrong? I cannot see what is wrong with using 'The Record'newspaper you were after all the one who suggest I use EWTN etc.. and I have supplied something similar, and the michael journal and the National Catholic register are not comparable for well obvious reason. So frankly I don't see what your problems are, either show why its wrong to use the Papers or put up
90.216.50.226 ( talk) 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we all accept the Catholic Encyclopedia as valid as a source. If we are going to be emotional then this is going to be much more difficult to do this topic justice. Dominick (TALK) 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
and the National Catholic Register and The Record are not reliable, because?...
Levi19910 ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This is ridicalous, you both criticise me for using 'unreliable sources' and then use an article about the shrine that says nothing about the apparitions except that they happened in 1610 to support them occuring from 1599-1635 and an article about the Lily of Quito who is an entirely different person in reference to the visionary and cite that to say they were approved by the bishop. I have added in both the Record and the National Catholic Register because they are more reliable than either of the sources you have posted being reliable newspapers and are the only sources we in fact possess to back up the article. Please DO NOT remove them until you either find something better or delete the article altogether.
For that matter the National Catholic Register article is a newspaper article NOT a blog, it ends as an article, is written throughout as an article, is in the daily news section and has an article title not a blog title. Your dismissal of the Record is equally based on an assumption something clearly condemned by wikipedia guidelines, The Record constitues a verifiable sources whether you agree with it or not or believe it or not is besides the point. It meets the wikipedia standards.
After then dismissing verifiable sources you have put the apparition in the wrong section 'unapproved' when two verifiable and reliable sources clearly state its approved. Why is this? I would have no objection to it being under the 'approved by local ordinary section' but to claim its not approved at all is patently false. Levi19910 ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi19910 ( talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want I am more than happy to research the other 50 that would fit in the section if someone can give me a pointer in the right direction. Levi19910 ( talk) 14:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
By other ones I'm guessing you mean other aparitions only approved by the local ordinary and not the Holy See? If so I'll get startd on that tonight. If you want to divide the article properly, one section should say 'apparitions approved by the holy see' and the other 'apparitions approved by the local ordinary' As at the moment its misleading having approved and approved by a local ordinary, as it almost implies that those approved by a local ordinary are less valid which is not true. Levi19910 ( talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I can't find his list anywhere. Can it be provided? Dominick (TALK) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there should be less space for lower level approvals, given that they have their own pages. So Kibeho needs to get less real estate, as many others. There are just too many of them to have the same amount of space as Laus, etc. And source should not just be a Vatican source for the Rome approval, if Zenit or CNS say that it is good enough. History2007 ( talk) 16:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
i thought about this last night. We can agree on so many things but we are hung up on one apparition that is minor at best and has been obfuscated by unreliable self published sources. We need a way forward so let me put this out there. We classify everything according to approval status verified from sources we can agree on BY NAME.
History2007 is 100% right about not being caught in circular arguments. OLGS in Quito is one part of the life of a Saint, but is a minor apparition when compared to ones like Pontmain. I have heard about Pontmain since I was a boy, but looking for the original Vatican source online is hard. I plan to do what I said I would do and go to sources. Dominick (TALK) 13:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Overall, pretty good. I think this article is generally well above the average quality of Project Christianity articles now.
Minor suggestions are as follows:
There are minor typos etc. but they can wait. So the main remaining problem is item 3. How do we handle that? Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 09:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I've added a FAQ to the top of the page, as a sort of placeholder so you can see how it works. Please feel free to improve it to cover whatever points seem to need regular repetition on this page. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The article, perhaps because it is simply too long, has redundancies, and at least one major conflict. The Lady of Akita is not included in a list of Vatican-approved apparitions, but it is individually described so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.91.55 ( talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I just found out about Angela. There are a lot of film clips of the apparitions on Youtube, including a documentary made in the late 1940s, plus interviews with her today. I got newspaper reports from the region for citations, but I'd like to know if I could link to her videos or mention the many books she's written. -- Bluejay Young ( talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The article was assessed C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 ( talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pilar2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pilar2.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
Please do not speed undo South Ossetia 2008 apparitions before examining Russian sources. The blog source is the only English source I could find so far but Russian sources are reliable and apparitions have numerous witnesses. -- ssr ( talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
If Interfax says that then please remove the fact tag from that. History2007 ( talk) 21:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The word "condemned" or one of its variations appears four times in the article, once in a section heading. As far as I am aware, neither the Catholic Church nor any other church condemns apparitions. In fact, it is not possible to condemn an apparition. A person who claimed to have seen one, or a group that publicised one, might theoretically be condemned, but I'm pretty sure such a thing hasn't happened since the middle ages. According to the Normae Congregationis article, only three judgements can be given by a diocesan bishop, all of which use the word confirm, not condemn, i.e. confirmed to be supernatural, not confirmed to be supernatural or confirmed to be non-supernatural. Can anybody suggest a neutral word or words to replace "condemn" in the article? Scolaire ( talk) 19:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, in revising the article I noted I did not find any sources using the word "condemn". The words used tend to be "disapproved" or in rare cases "rejected". I agree the word "condemn" has overtones and if it's not in the sources I don't see any support for it being in the section heading, so I replaced it with "disapproved", as that is the most frequently used in the sources. Cheers, TheBlinkster ( talk) 15:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't use these here. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have just created pages for Estelle Faguette and Our Lady of Pellevoisin. The Church has never specifically pronounced on whether the apparition was supernatural, but has approved the scapular which comes from it and has recognised the miraculous character of the healing received by Estelle. To my mind, this gives Pellevoisin the same status as Rue du Bac - the devotion is approved which is tantamount to church recognition of the apparition. Perhaps those more familiar with the rules for this page can decide where Pellevoisin links should go, and whether they qualify for associated Templates, etc? Revd Dr Gareth Leyshon - User Gleyshon ( talk) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that it's the patron of Greece, should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
From the talk page archive it appears that earlier versions weren't quite as pov. As an exmaple of the problem with this version, Marian apparition#Our Lady of Zeitoun states in Wikipedia's voice that " The sick and blind have been cured". Although it's possible that most of these alleged events haven't been challenged in reliable sources, it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The article contains several passages in which opinions about Marian apparitions and Marian devotions are presented with vague introductions such as "this has been interpreted to be..." Opinions that cannot be attributed to specific people or organizations, with references to published statements, are not encyclopedic, are contrary to WP:NPOV, and should be removed if they can't be attributed.
Moreover, these critical views, if they represent particular schools of thought, should be brought together to form a distinct section of the article under a header such as "Critical views", to present views from atheists, from Protestants (of this or that school), and so on. That would provide the reader with an informative context. -- Bistropha ( talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ocarm.org/pls/ocarm/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=648{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ourladyofsiluva.com/our_lady{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.de-vrouwe.net/english/index.html?d__May_31__2002__Approbation_of_the_Apparitions258.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=csom_content&task=view&id=2583&Itemid=29When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)