This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miracle of the Sun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 13, 2006, October 13, 2007, October 13, 2009, October 13, 2010, October 13, 2011, October 13, 2014, October 13, 2017, October 13, 2019, and October 13, 2023. |
I have a source that contradicts the claim that the photograph presented at the top of the article is a picture of the actual miracle of the sun event in Fatima. The following quotation is taken from the book The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary by Kevin McClure:
"There are many photographs of the crowd witnessing the vision; but in spite of the presence of cameras there is no photograph of the event that is even vaguely authentic; the one usually presented is actually of a solar eclipse in another part of the world, taken some time before 1917." (pg. 78)
On the following page is the same picture as presented in the article (albeit blown up a bit) with the following caption: "The photograph often presented as the solar miracle at Fatima."
McClure does not indicate how he knows that the photograph is of a solar eclipse taken at an earlier date in a different place, but at the very least, we should acknowledge that the authenticity of the photograph is in dispute. Albie34423 07:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The photo is false, but not for the reasons gave in that book. The photo was taken by Antonio Mendoca in 1921, during a "repetition" of the Miracle some miles away from Fatima. It were then stolen ( after his dead ) by his brother, and finally published in the L'Osservatore Romano in 1952-1951 as Original. You can check more in this old News papers: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19520310&id=E3pWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5-UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6919,4229365 , http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19520310&id=F3FQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LBAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5437,5928880 , http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19520310&id=mPUZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lSMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7177,4875622 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.208.62 ( talk) 06:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed material from the article which:
Per WP:BRD this material should remain out of the article, and the article in the status quo ante while discussion takes place.
Please note that contentious or controversial information which is not sourced to an ironclad reliable source can be removed on sight, per policy. The more controversial, the more POV, the fringier the material is, the better the source has to be. WP:FRINGE material cannot be sourced to fringe sources, and the WP:WEIGHT the material receives in the article can only be determined once it is supported by reliable sources. BMK ( talk) 13:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
John Haffert, founder of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima, explained the event as a vision of the Great Chastisement. The 200 witnesses whom he interviewed while researching his book Meet The Witnesses reported similar descriptions of the sun careening towards the Earth and a sense of the end of the world. He compares this description to a recognized vision of Our Lady of Akita on October 13, 1973, to Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa in Akita, Japan, in which she recorded:
As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. [1]
The writer Lisa Schwebel claimed that the event was a supernatural extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel noted that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique: there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky. [2]
Jacques Vallée (1965 [3]) and John Keel (1970 [4]) have pointed out the similarities to an unidentified flying object. Keel wrote that "In the initial reports of the phenomenon, all the witnesses agreed that the object was white and seemingly metallic, and that it changed color as the speed of rotation increased. Later, myth and mysticism replaced fact. The disk became 'the sun,' even though observatories around the world assured the press that the sun remained in its usual place during the miracle." He says the disk "waltzed" under the cloud layer, and angel hair fell from the sky.
⋉ talk 00:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
So, miracle is OK, but UFO too out there... Bigfootpegrande (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande Yes. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC) This was not only totally impartial and nonsense, but also dictatorial and furthermore disgusting. This is an exemple of wikipedia being used not as a free information source, but as instrument to convey only a particular point of view. The acceptance of the Christian, absolutely non-scientific, explanation and the refusal of a proposed "UFO theory" is completely contradictory. Furthermore one of the cited primary sources for the theory was not "fringe", but a well known astronomer. Considering that many USA government agencies have now stated the existence of UFOs, or more precisely UAP, this voice should be revaluated. Grey99 ( talk) 13:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
References
I am unsure why my addition was deleted? If you could let me know I would appreciate it. My intention is not to remove the criticism section, as it has already but determined to be relevant. I only wish to show the authors' intentions, which I believe are relevant to their particular point of view and should be made available to the wikipedia reader. 2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Addressing Father Jaki, I feel the Wikipedia article is misleading. If you notice, Father Jaki is quoted in the Believers’ explanations and the Criticism section. I feel this is because Father Jaki believed all miracles that occurred could be explained through natural processes (he was a Distinguished Professor of physics at Seton Hall and a Jesuit Priest). I cite him from a website already used in the Wikipedia article. What I want to clarify and emphasize is his belief that God performed a miracle on October 13th 1917, albeit one that can be explained through science.
The references to Kevin McClure and his involvement with ASSAP, I think are relevant to his interpretation of the events that occurred. Numerous other examples of listing people’s credentials can be found, for example in the De Marchi accounts section it states, “Father John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher.” In the Believers’ explanations section it states, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University” At the beginning of the Criticism section it states, “Theologians, scientists, and skeptics have responded to claims…” I admit my reference is maybe too long, but McClure has an unusual background. I have a website that lists Kevin McClure as the editor of Common Ground ( https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/journalism-and-publishing/journalism-and-publishing/common-ground -- see bottom of webpage).
I wanted to insert that quote from McClure’s book about half the people present not seeing the miracle, because it seems a lot of people refer to him as a Marian Apparition researcher and that is a bold claim that I can’t find any corroboration for, although I’m willing to leave that out. Lisa J. Schwebel quotes him a few times in her book, so she seems influenced by him, and I feel that is relevant to her conclusions. 2601:8C0:4281:93E0:980B:B78D:DA16:18D ( talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Kevin McClure the author of Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary was also the author of Common Ground an ex-publication of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). ASSAP is a group that uses scientific methods to prove the existence of ghosts, UFOs, and other paranormal events, “founded in 1981 to investigate, research and educate on a wide range of anomalous phenomena, from hauntings to UFOs, mediumship to monsters” (cited from http://www.assap.ac.uk/). McClure states in his book, “…it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle.”[10] There is no corroboration for such a bold claim. Lisa J. Schwebel in her book, Apparitions, Healings, and Weeping Madonnas: Christianity and the Paranormal references McClure’s book, Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary multiple times.
The criticism section also has numerous references to Father Jaki’s book, God and the Sun at Fátima. However, it must be stated that Father Jaki did believe a miracle occurred, “I merely claim, which I did in my other writings on miracles, that in producing miracles God often makes use of a natural substratum by greatly enhancing its physical components and their interactions.”[40] 2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Santiago
a group that uses scientific methods to prove the existence ofis a contradiction of terms. If you determine the result from the start, it's not science. This is definitely not a reliable source. And what is an "ex-publication"? I changed the indenting to make it clearer who responded to what. Structured text is easier to read. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Under the Criticism section, fourth paragraph there is the statement, “Supernatural explanations, such as those by Father Pio Scatizzi, who argues that observers in Fátima could not be collectively deceived, or that the effect was not seen by observatories in distant places because of divine intervention[49] have been dismissed by critics who say those taking part in the event could certainly be deceived by their senses, or they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.[8]” The bold highlighted section of the statement is a paraphrase of Benjamin Radford’s explanation of the Miracle of the Sun. However, we should include a direct quote about how Radford explains the peoples’ senses could have been deceived. The quote I propose adding is this, “It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” We can add it directly after the end of the sentence, “…they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.” It is a quote from the same article under footnote [8]: Benjamin Radford (2 May 2013). "The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun". LiveScience.com. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2015 2601:8C0:4281:5280:25DD:86A3:F184:BC04 ( talk) 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Santiago
I will add above changes if there are no objections 2601:8C0:4280:2430:F15A:6D1E:1767:FBB7 ( talk) 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Just wondering why my addition was deleted? I waited a whole month and no one responded on the talk page, but the sentence was deleted right after I added it, without an explanation. 2601:8C0:4280:2430:603C:4805:593D:791A ( talk) 04:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Really. Really really. Us arguing about it here is pointless. It is a quote from a reliable source talking about this specific thing. Your not liking, not getting, or not believing of Radford's explanation is irrelevant. Your counterarguments here are WP:OR. VdSV9• ♫ 11:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Miracle of the Sun article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 13, 2006, October 13, 2007, October 13, 2009, October 13, 2010, October 13, 2011, October 13, 2014, October 13, 2017, October 13, 2019, and October 13, 2023. |
I have a source that contradicts the claim that the photograph presented at the top of the article is a picture of the actual miracle of the sun event in Fatima. The following quotation is taken from the book The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary by Kevin McClure:
"There are many photographs of the crowd witnessing the vision; but in spite of the presence of cameras there is no photograph of the event that is even vaguely authentic; the one usually presented is actually of a solar eclipse in another part of the world, taken some time before 1917." (pg. 78)
On the following page is the same picture as presented in the article (albeit blown up a bit) with the following caption: "The photograph often presented as the solar miracle at Fatima."
McClure does not indicate how he knows that the photograph is of a solar eclipse taken at an earlier date in a different place, but at the very least, we should acknowledge that the authenticity of the photograph is in dispute. Albie34423 07:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The photo is false, but not for the reasons gave in that book. The photo was taken by Antonio Mendoca in 1921, during a "repetition" of the Miracle some miles away from Fatima. It were then stolen ( after his dead ) by his brother, and finally published in the L'Osservatore Romano in 1952-1951 as Original. You can check more in this old News papers: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19520310&id=E3pWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5-UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6919,4229365 , http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19520310&id=F3FQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LBAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5437,5928880 , http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19520310&id=mPUZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lSMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7177,4875622 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.208.62 ( talk) 06:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed material from the article which:
Per WP:BRD this material should remain out of the article, and the article in the status quo ante while discussion takes place.
Please note that contentious or controversial information which is not sourced to an ironclad reliable source can be removed on sight, per policy. The more controversial, the more POV, the fringier the material is, the better the source has to be. WP:FRINGE material cannot be sourced to fringe sources, and the WP:WEIGHT the material receives in the article can only be determined once it is supported by reliable sources. BMK ( talk) 13:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
John Haffert, founder of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima, explained the event as a vision of the Great Chastisement. The 200 witnesses whom he interviewed while researching his book Meet The Witnesses reported similar descriptions of the sun careening towards the Earth and a sense of the end of the world. He compares this description to a recognized vision of Our Lady of Akita on October 13, 1973, to Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa in Akita, Japan, in which she recorded:
As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. [1]
The writer Lisa Schwebel claimed that the event was a supernatural extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel noted that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique: there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky. [2]
Jacques Vallée (1965 [3]) and John Keel (1970 [4]) have pointed out the similarities to an unidentified flying object. Keel wrote that "In the initial reports of the phenomenon, all the witnesses agreed that the object was white and seemingly metallic, and that it changed color as the speed of rotation increased. Later, myth and mysticism replaced fact. The disk became 'the sun,' even though observatories around the world assured the press that the sun remained in its usual place during the miracle." He says the disk "waltzed" under the cloud layer, and angel hair fell from the sky.
⋉ talk 00:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
So, miracle is OK, but UFO too out there... Bigfootpegrande (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande Yes. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC) This was not only totally impartial and nonsense, but also dictatorial and furthermore disgusting. This is an exemple of wikipedia being used not as a free information source, but as instrument to convey only a particular point of view. The acceptance of the Christian, absolutely non-scientific, explanation and the refusal of a proposed "UFO theory" is completely contradictory. Furthermore one of the cited primary sources for the theory was not "fringe", but a well known astronomer. Considering that many USA government agencies have now stated the existence of UFOs, or more precisely UAP, this voice should be revaluated. Grey99 ( talk) 13:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
References
I am unsure why my addition was deleted? If you could let me know I would appreciate it. My intention is not to remove the criticism section, as it has already but determined to be relevant. I only wish to show the authors' intentions, which I believe are relevant to their particular point of view and should be made available to the wikipedia reader. 2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Addressing Father Jaki, I feel the Wikipedia article is misleading. If you notice, Father Jaki is quoted in the Believers’ explanations and the Criticism section. I feel this is because Father Jaki believed all miracles that occurred could be explained through natural processes (he was a Distinguished Professor of physics at Seton Hall and a Jesuit Priest). I cite him from a website already used in the Wikipedia article. What I want to clarify and emphasize is his belief that God performed a miracle on October 13th 1917, albeit one that can be explained through science.
The references to Kevin McClure and his involvement with ASSAP, I think are relevant to his interpretation of the events that occurred. Numerous other examples of listing people’s credentials can be found, for example in the De Marchi accounts section it states, “Father John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher.” In the Believers’ explanations section it states, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University” At the beginning of the Criticism section it states, “Theologians, scientists, and skeptics have responded to claims…” I admit my reference is maybe too long, but McClure has an unusual background. I have a website that lists Kevin McClure as the editor of Common Ground ( https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/journalism-and-publishing/journalism-and-publishing/common-ground -- see bottom of webpage).
I wanted to insert that quote from McClure’s book about half the people present not seeing the miracle, because it seems a lot of people refer to him as a Marian Apparition researcher and that is a bold claim that I can’t find any corroboration for, although I’m willing to leave that out. Lisa J. Schwebel quotes him a few times in her book, so she seems influenced by him, and I feel that is relevant to her conclusions. 2601:8C0:4281:93E0:980B:B78D:DA16:18D ( talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Kevin McClure the author of Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary was also the author of Common Ground an ex-publication of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). ASSAP is a group that uses scientific methods to prove the existence of ghosts, UFOs, and other paranormal events, “founded in 1981 to investigate, research and educate on a wide range of anomalous phenomena, from hauntings to UFOs, mediumship to monsters” (cited from http://www.assap.ac.uk/). McClure states in his book, “…it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle.”[10] There is no corroboration for such a bold claim. Lisa J. Schwebel in her book, Apparitions, Healings, and Weeping Madonnas: Christianity and the Paranormal references McClure’s book, Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary multiple times.
The criticism section also has numerous references to Father Jaki’s book, God and the Sun at Fátima. However, it must be stated that Father Jaki did believe a miracle occurred, “I merely claim, which I did in my other writings on miracles, that in producing miracles God often makes use of a natural substratum by greatly enhancing its physical components and their interactions.”[40] 2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Santiago
a group that uses scientific methods to prove the existence ofis a contradiction of terms. If you determine the result from the start, it's not science. This is definitely not a reliable source. And what is an "ex-publication"? I changed the indenting to make it clearer who responded to what. Structured text is easier to read. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Under the Criticism section, fourth paragraph there is the statement, “Supernatural explanations, such as those by Father Pio Scatizzi, who argues that observers in Fátima could not be collectively deceived, or that the effect was not seen by observatories in distant places because of divine intervention[49] have been dismissed by critics who say those taking part in the event could certainly be deceived by their senses, or they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.[8]” The bold highlighted section of the statement is a paraphrase of Benjamin Radford’s explanation of the Miracle of the Sun. However, we should include a direct quote about how Radford explains the peoples’ senses could have been deceived. The quote I propose adding is this, “It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” We can add it directly after the end of the sentence, “…they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.” It is a quote from the same article under footnote [8]: Benjamin Radford (2 May 2013). "The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun". LiveScience.com. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 20 October 2015 2601:8C0:4281:5280:25DD:86A3:F184:BC04 ( talk) 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Santiago
I will add above changes if there are no objections 2601:8C0:4280:2430:F15A:6D1E:1767:FBB7 ( talk) 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Just wondering why my addition was deleted? I waited a whole month and no one responded on the talk page, but the sentence was deleted right after I added it, without an explanation. 2601:8C0:4280:2430:603C:4805:593D:791A ( talk) 04:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago
Really. Really really. Us arguing about it here is pointless. It is a quote from a reliable source talking about this specific thing. Your not liking, not getting, or not believing of Radford's explanation is irrelevant. Your counterarguments here are WP:OR. VdSV9• ♫ 11:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)