Talk:Our Lady of Fátima/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hallucination?

Again, why do there have to be links to things like "hallucination" and "folie a deux"? Such links do not contribute to NPOV; they merely present a POV. NPOV is "Bernadette said the lady appeared" or "Lucia reported that Mary told her whatever." The place to put detractions on Fatima is in the external links (where there are some). I realize this is a highly debatable issue. I myself am interested in primary source facts on Fatima which are not hagiographized as Lucia's (writing about her cousins) and William Thomas Walsh's were. I'm interested in the fact that Lucia's mother, an intelligent and literate woman who taught Catechism to every kid in Aljustrel, never could quite bring herself to believe that her youngest and favourite daughter had actually had this experience and in fact began to treat Lucia very badly out of a belief that she was lying, while Lucia's paternal cousins were supported and believed by their parents. But none of this stuff belongs in Wikipedia, it belongs in discussions elsewhere. I'm removing those links. --Bluejay Young 19:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Prodigy of the Sun

Pat, you object to this:

Many ... of those present ... claimed to have seen the visible prodigy of the sun, including the man who photographed the reaction of the crowd.

and prefer this:

No one present ... is reported to have denied the visible prodigy of the sun that day, including also the man who photographed the reaction of the crowd.

My question is, where is the documentation for nobody denying the event. Was every person there asked what they, personally, saw? Billions of people have failed to deny that I am from Mars, but this absence of denial does not make it true that I am from Mars. The way this para now reads is that the miracle is taken to be true unless anyone denies it. This hardly meets any test of objectivity.

Also, in relation to the photographer, the sense of the text has been radically altered. Before, we were told that he claimed to have seen it. Now, we're told he's just one of the thousands who did not deny seeing it. It makes no sense any more to single him out. Very, very different slant. JackofOz 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack, It is true that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is reported as denying the visible prodigy of the sun that day. Every reader knows that not all 70,000 witnesses could be interviewed. When absolutely all who could be located and interviewed claimed they did see, it is less revealing and potentionally misleading to say that only "many" saw (that could be construed as implying that some may have reported not seeing). The significant fact that NO ONE is reported as denying the visible prodigy of the sun that day should be mentioned in the article on Fatima, as it is the most revealing truth. That is a particularly good idea as it discourages the enemies of truth on the internet who circulate their newly invented and unsubstantiated allegations (and even put them in Wikipedia, see Portcult) that not all of those present saw the prodigy of the sun that day, when their are absolutely no reports whatsoever to back up their malicious (and sometimes elaborate) inventions. The most revealing truth should be in Wikipedia, and my statement is true. If the truth bothers you, it is probably because you do not believe in Fatima to begin with. As to my comment about the photographer, I mentioned him in particular only because I was correcting the previously false statement. Now that the truth has been entered into the record, that particular mention can probably be fairly dropped as he is included in the statement that there are no reports of anyone denying the visible prodigy of the sun.

pat8722 04:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat, before we go any further, can I just ask you to please refrain from making assumptions about my personal beliefs. I strive to be objective here at all times, no matter what I may happen to believe or not believe. I heartily recommend you do the same.

But since you've raised the subject, may I take it that you do believe in Fatima? And may I take it that your writing about it is imbued with that belief, and therefore not expressing a neutral point of view (NPOV)? That is what appears to be the case here. There seems to be an underlying assumption that the prodigy of the sun was a real and true event. I'm not necessarily denying that it really happened, but Wikipedia is not here to record the private beliefs of invidividuals. There is no general acceptance that it was a real and true event, and until there is such general acceptance, what individuals believe about it is an entirely private and subjective matter. This encyclopedia reports what is agreed to have objectively happened, not what individuals privately believe. Yes, we can report that people believe certain things, but that is very different from reporting (or even suggesting by implication) that those things are true in themselves.

I made the point above that absence of denial does not equate to agreed truth. That 50,000 people did not deny it is not something that objectively happened. It is the reverse of an occurrence. It is no different from my previous Martian example, and has no more place here.

You asked the previous editor to come up with documentation for the statement that some, but not all, claimed to see it. I apply the same standard to you. Where is your documentation that nobody denied it? Perhaps you would argue that ipso facto no such documentation exists, so how could you possibly be expected to produce it. And that's exactly my point. Wikipedia is all about having verifiable content, based on published material. JackofOz 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack, I am not saying the prodigy of the sun did or did not occur. I am just saying that of those interviewed there are no reports of anyone denying it. The truth is always objective. The key point is that you have not denied the truth of my statement that - "No one present on October 17, 1917 is reported to have denied the visible prodigy of the sun that day." You just don't like that particular truth. It is not the role of wikipedia editors to censor truth, particularly not a truth that has been repeatedly denied by malicious hackers in wikipedia, who make no attempt to produce citations as the rules of wikipedia require. Fatima has been exhaustively researched by many. John DeMarchi spent 7 years in Fatima during the 1940's interviewing the principles at undisturbed length and researching the original documents. While for the past apparations at Fatima he was able to locate both third and first person accounts that some had not witnessed all, or even any, atmospheric changes and visual images that others had reported seeing at the apparitions prior to October 13, try though he did for seven years onsite and for the rest of his years offsite, he could not locate any first or third person accounts of a failure to see the visible prodigy of the sun on October 13. It was not for lack of trying that there are no reports of anyone denying the visible prodigy of the sun that day. Such a significant truth belongs in wikipedia.

pat8722 16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There were ten of thousands of people who witnessed this occurrence. It has indisputably occurred. The anti-Catholic press of that day, who ridiculed the events leading up to October 13th, 1917, plainly publicized in O Saeculo that it occurred. People who came to scoff saw the very same thing as the believers. Just think about it, merely two witnesses is enough to put a man on death row in a court of law, and yet here we are talking about thousands! If 20 people are at a murder scene and 19 testify the same thing, and one person says he saw nothing, the 19 is what is called positive evidence, and the person who saw nothing is considered unreliable, or negative evidence. Any two people who never collaborated and testify to the same event, is concerned solid proof. I met a woman myself who witnessed the event. If one would like to believe it was a swirl of cosmic gasses that refracted the light and created a spectrum, they will still have to explain how an occurrence, unheard of in the annals of human history, was predicted months beforehand by three poor Portuguese shepherd children who said a woman appeared an told them there would be a "miracle" on that day....and they were correct to the very hour?! A most peculiar fact - scientists admit it has occurred, but they betray their profession by excluding the occurrence from their list of empirical evidence. :Diligens 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pat and Diligens, I also am not denying that anything occurred. That is not the issue here. What is reported to have occurred is given plenty of coverage in the very long paragraph about the miracle. That is all that is necessary. It is not necessary to labour the point by saying that nobody is known to have denied it.

Another reason that this sentence is inappropriate is that we already say the 3 children did not see the miracle, but instead saw saints etc. So, if the 3 principals did not claim to see it, this does not sit well with nobody denying it.

But most importantly, I reiterate my previous challenge to abide by Wikipedia rules and produce verifiable content, based on published material. That nobody is known to have denied the miracle is, at the moment, just your say so, and qualifies as original research, which is banned on Wikipedia. Please provide the details of a published document that says "nobody present is known to have denied it". Until you can come up with that, I will continue to remove this sentence. Cheers JackofOz 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It doesn't alter the fact of the occurrence either way. Diligens 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I was the first person to put in that not everybody present saw exactly the same thing, and I got that from O Seculo: "And next they ask each other if they have seen or not seen. Most confess that that they have seen the dancing of the sun; others, however, declare they have seen the smiling face of the Virgin herself. They swear that the sun spun about itself like a ring of fireworks, that it came down almost to the point of burning the Earth with its rays. Some say they saw it change color..." In the film version, everybody sees the same thing, but at that point it would have taken away from the climactic impact of the scene if they'd been strictly accurate. Bluejay Young 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You have not cited a source for "some people didn't see it (the dancing of the sun)". To state that most "confessed" to having seen it, does not imply that some confessed to not seeing it. That some declared that they had seen the smiling face of the Virgin, does not mean that they also claimed to not having seen the dancing of the sun. pat8722 03:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. The way he wrote it, with that "however", is a little misleading. I need to read all of De Marchi. Bluejay Young 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the article to state that the children, themselves, also saw the dancing of the sun. I reread the children's 1917 testimony on that point, as documented by De Marchi. Sorry for my earlier error on that point. pat8722 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

3rd Secret

The actual text of the third secret is not quoted. The part on controversies around it is mostly pure uninformed speculation. A nice cleanup and npoving is needed, imho. --BBird 12:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Artur v. Arturo

Mistico has twice changed Adminstrator Santo's first name from "Arturo" to "Artur" in this article, based apparently on nothing more than a claimed general personal familiarity with portuguese vs castillian names. Santos's first name as being "Arturo" is widely documented in the available Fatima literature, and has been consistently recognized as "Arturo" for about 88 years. Unless Mistico or someone else has a wiki-qualified publication that shows the Administrator went by the name "Artur" we have no choice but leave it as "Arturo". While the sources for "Arturo" are probably in the hundreds, I will list just one here, as no credible challenge to it has been raised. Stanley Jaki God and the Sun at Fatima (1999) Real View Books, Michigan, p15

I´m from Portugal, so I now a bit more about my own language than you, and in a while I will prove you the real name of the man was Artur dos Santos. User:Mistico

I would not doubt for a minute that they got some of the names wrong. Lucia herself pointed out in one of her memoirs that her surname was Santos, and not dos Santos. I'd be interested to know why early accounts got the family name as Abobora (Pumpkin). --Bluejay Young 22:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Abóbora was a nick of his family, sometimes it´s usual in rural Portugal to see some families with these kind of nicks. They often can become part of the persons real name. The most known example in Portugal is that of the writer José Saramago. User:Mistico

Thank you for explaining that. --Bluejay Young 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the snark by Joe Nickell. Substituted a summary of what critics speculate about the alleged solar event. --Bluejay Young 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit wikipedia to prove a point Diligens

I dont have much to say to you, obviously you are going to try a PoV edit on this article. JPII had a specific devotion to Fatima. Of course you would like to excise him as you have done elsewhere. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to discuss it. This is WP policy. How does adding that a clergyman had special personal devotion to Our Lady of Fatiima, fit into the category of the official position of the Catholic Church, that was already established decades ago? Should we then add the names of other prominent clergyman and Catholic laity who also had this special devotion? (Diligens 14:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

You position is clear. John Paul had particular devotion and had attributed his failed assasination to OLF. Thank you. Lets here from others now. It is not wikipedia policy to have one person dominate conversation. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is dominating? I say one thing, you respond. That is called a discussion. And a discussion even between 2 people is fully WP policy. You didn't answer my question. How does the addition fit into the category of official Church policy? You are required by WP policy to discuss it. Maybe you want to put it in another place, but frankly, this is an article about the Blessed Virgin Mary from 1917. Not about people 75 years later who had a devotion to her, which is the majority of Catholics, by the way. (Diligens 15:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

I moved it to interesting fact. I dont have to deal with you specifically and your interesting PoV. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. It looks like it belongs there.

Yes, according to official WP policy you have to discuss with the person for whose edit you dispute. And from what I have seen you are starting to assume bad faith in me by your comments, which is a violation of WP. And you very frequently don't give responses to points in a discussion, which is also violation. You are interested in things Catholic and traditional, as well as I, so you will have to face the fact that we will be involved in the same articles very often. (Diligens 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC))

Non-Christian (non-Catholic?) POV

In general the article gives us the basic facts. I was the one who added the final sentence and the link to more information about the visions. Remember that not all people accept the Fatima apparitions as scientific facts.

I have decided to get rid of the link to my own writing on the visions and the secret, which I have also eliminated from the encyclopedia. I will keep it on the WWW for those who would like to have a non-Christian perspective. Portcult 11:54, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I improved the last paragraph and added the non-Christian point of view. I hope you are not angry, but not everyone believes in Fatima.Portcult 21:58, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Who cares what the "non-Christian" point of view is? Why would pagans or Islamists or Jews care about this subject matter anyway? Why don't they concentrate on their own religious minded articles and stop giving their views on things that frankly don't concern them? Digby

Try finding out wher the name "fatimah" originaly comes from...--Striver 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

He probably means non-religious viewpoint, which I must agree this article sorely lacks. Even some Christians are extremely skeptical of the Fatima apparitions, notably Father Mário Oliveira, who denounces them as a hoax perpetrated by certain elements of the Catholic Church to explore the fears of an illiterate population in reaction to the war, the newly-founded Portuguese Republic and especially the rise of Communism in Russia. --Goblin ^›talk 22:27, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand why articles about religious events need to include a non-religious viewpoint. Fatima is a historical event, whether or not the children's claims were real. They reported visions and people showed up and claimed the sun did thus and so. The children's detention and questioning by authorities was real. The kids predicted their own deaths and while that may have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, it did happen. Reporting on the historical facts should be enough, or am I not getting something?

That said, I have been hearing about this Fr. Oliveira for months now and I have yet to see anything he actually wrote, only brief quotes in the London Times and so forth. Where can I read his denunciations? --Bluejay Young 08:43, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Many articles on religious events need to include non-religious viewpoints because those viewpoints exist, and the Fatima apparitions are sufficiently controversial (at least in Portugal, I don't know how others see it) to warrant mention of dissenting views. Just because many events surrounding it were historical, it doesn't mean the apparitions themselves were real or that the hubbub they generated wasn't exploited in any way. --Goblin ^›talk 00:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I've removed the POV that I found, and most of them had no factual information, rather it had what (some) people think. But if there is a good scientifical article, we should include it. it was not the case.-Pedro 10:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A somewhat bigoted viewpoint. The job of an encyclopedia is to give the facts - as far as they can be established, which is difficult in this case - and give the most common interpretations. Oddly enough, if this is a genuine miracle, I think people of all religions and none would think it important, as it would be pretty conclusive evidence of the truth of Catholic doctrine. I wouldn't hold my breath though.- Exile 22:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't present them as scientific facts--I do my best to be respectful to large amounts of what I consider to be mystical nonsense, in pursuit of Wikipedia NPOV--and also that linking to our own writings is a bad idea. Vicki Rosenzweig 22:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Portcult, your info (on your own page) is invaluable whether a person believes in Fatima or not and I linked to your O Seculo reprint. It's perfectly okay to report things and simply say "People believe this happened". --Bluejay Young 01:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With all of this discussion of the Christian and non-Christian POV, I think I should throw in here that most of this is the Catholic POV, which is only one denomination of Christianity, not the overall Christian view. The Lutheran and Protestant denominations have a very different view of much of what Catholics believe. --Highlander3751 01:01, May 13 2006 (UTC)

Merge of separate secrets page

FYI, there is another page entitled the Three Secrets of Fatima. Is it worth splitting this concept out to a separate page, or should its info be checked and merged into this one so it can be changed to a simple redirect? --Elonka 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added "merge" templates to the top of both pages. What do people think? Keep them separate, or merge together? --Elonka 17:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• oppose (not a strong opposition though) you can develop both article a lot more than they are currently. If someone dues that, you'll have to spit them again. There are books only about the secrets (I used to have one, dont know where I put it) and with alien and other conspiracies, etc... --Pedro 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• oppose As Pedro points out, many books and much discussion center on the three secrets only, therefore the three secrets are a topic in their own right. A brief description of the three secrets is appropriate here, with presentations of the detail and controversies surrounding them on their own page. Small article size is encouraged in wikipedia. We want to keep articles from becoming too confused and lengthy. pat8722 15:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• oppose Actually my feeling is closer to "Enh." I don't care that much one way or the other, but I would sooner see "Three Secrets" kept separate because there's just a lot there. It might make the Fatima article so long that people wouldn't want to read it. --Bluejay Young 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are plenty of people who find Fatima to be important who do not believe that there is any controversy over the third secret. JASpencer 20:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - the secrets deserve their own subpage.--File Éireann 22:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove this? JASpencer 18:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. If there's objections I'll be happy to put it back. --Bluejay Young 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Aljustrel

There is ther widespread misconception that the place of Aljustrel where the family lived is the Town of Aljustrel. This is wrong, the mining town of Aljustrel is 200km away from Fátima,_Portugal and unrelated to the "visions".
I'll create a separate entry for that place. JGuerreiro 20:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Aljustrel described in De Marchi and Walsh was a wide spot in the road whose main residents were probably families who owned the fields in and around the Cova. It has probably been completely swallowed up by nearby Fatima since the visitations. --Bluejay Young 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fatimah is Fatima; but the Sun of Fatima is the Lamb of Fatimah

I respectfully would like to add a little section with the controversy dealing with the fact that the Messiah of Islam is also that Sun of Righteousness seen at Fatima as the emanation of Fatimah al-Zahra; the Son of Mary who Muhmammed said would be the Messiah; the Rod of Iron being this Christ of Islam; the Mahdi of Christianity; "one and the same". This controversy is just starting; but I will just represent the facts. Unicorn144 14:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

actual dates of secrets

In every account of the "secrets" I've read none of them are committed to paper or even revealed by Lucia to anyone until 1942 which make the prophecy regarding Russia and WWII rather unremarkable. I'm surprised this is never pointed out in any articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.71.222 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. Funny how the so-called "prophecies" are revealed AFTER the events had come to pass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.129.220 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember when that movie came out. It was playing at the "itch" theater in the Bronx. The nuns marched all of us off to see the movie. We had to sit through all of it without popcorn or bon bons -- can you imagine? But the sun spinning in the sky was pretty cool. I would have prefered seeing it with popcorn.

Photo format?

The top photo went away somehow, maybe deleted from commons. There seems to be an unusual format issue here because I tried to add another photo from Wikicommons and that does not work either. Any ideas? History2007 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Names of the children in the lead

I added the names of the children to the lead, since it's an important piece of information. Another thing: I´m not quite sure the portuguese name Lucia should be written with an accent on the "u". Please prove me wrong. Infrasonik (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Several forms of the spelling all link to the same page about Lúcia Santos. I added the link and a photo. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

William Walsh book is unreliable source

I have read Walsh's book and have tried to substantiate his sources by accessing newspaper archives directly. I have found his sources to be fabrications. The same is true for his other books, such as Philip II. He is an unreliable propogandist for the religious right wing in the Catholic Church and purposely uses false sources to mislead his readers. Many of the other claims in this article come from equally unreliable sources designed to give a religious POV rather than historical accuracy. For example, the only sources about the predictions made by the BVM appear in the 1940s, after these events had taken place (revolution in Russia, deaths of two children, WWII, etc.) Also, I have found no pre-WWII sources to verify the so called solar phenomenon, or that there were 70,000 witnesses. If someone has even one contemporary (1917) article that discusses these events and predictions, please scan and post the original. As per the O Seculo article, I notice that it is a translation of a reprint. It is interesting that nobody ever provides the originals of these articles, considering the amount of fraudulent data floating around the Internet. I personally doubt the O Seculo article is authentic. Dtaw2001 16:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence for your claim that "his sources are fabrications"? Maria Bernada 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria Bernada (talk • contribs)

Some info for those who actually take this silly story as fact

- - Joe Nickell of the CSICOP throws common sense cold water on the Fatima - claims. "We know for a fact that the sun did not dance or pulsate at Fatima. - How do we know this? Fatima does not have a different sun than the sun that's - in Chicago , or the sun over Paris. It's the same sun. And astronomers know - that the sun on that date did not do anything out of the ordinary." - Nickell explains that the witnesses "did do out-of-the ordinary things, like - staring at the sun", which would explain the visions and colors. As far as - Lucia's claims go, Nickell believes that she "suffers from what psychologists - call "fantasy proneness"." Nickell notes that, long before the Virgin Mary - spoke to her, Lucia had imaginary playmate angels." - - A little skepticism can go a long way... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The trick here is to present this information in a manner consistent with the Wikipedia Way. An expansion of the Criticisms section, perhaps? Singular (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This keeps getting deleted, obviously by some religious nut. There are no criticisms here and the article is so biased that it is laughable. Both sides of the story should be presented, and not just a pro-christian viewpoint.

I have been deleting it and I am not religious at all. In fact, I am highly skeptical of any miraculous claims. There are a couple of reasons why I have removed this passage. First, an encyclopedia article should take a neutral stance. The first sentence in this paragraph is not a neutral statement of fact but a particular point of view. Secondly, there is an entire article devoted to The Miracle of the Sun which includes criticisms of the event, including those by Nickell. And that is where it belongs. Therefore, even if the paragraph was amended to be neutral I still think it is too much detail for this article, which simply contains a short summary. Albie34423 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem, the article is NOT neutral. Both views need to be presented, including the common sense side. Nowhere in the article does it mention how Lucia had imaginary playmates angels, or how her own mother said she was a liar, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.70.143 (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible official explanation about Third Secret of Fatima

On July 2nd 1989, in Las Vegas, Nevada was held a MUFON Conference, where for first time an ex-intelligence high positioned official (William Milton Cooper) had been speaking about "alien problem" , and for first time it was mentioned that US intelligence agents at last penetrated in Vatican, among other things, to find out what exactly Third Fatima Secret is. At this occasion Cooper explained that this "secret" actually is one of biggest reasons for vigorous preventing by Vatican of alien reality to be revealed to common people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.192.19 (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother, and people wonder why so many regard the wikipedia as a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Credibility of the Fatima Apparitions

A discussion of the credibility of the Fatima apparitions often revolves about the October 1917 Miracle of the Sun. Although the sun manifestation was witnessed by some 70,000 people, it was clearly not an objective physical phenomenon. If we rely upon contemporary newspaper accounts, the only physically verifiable fact was the cessation of the rain at noon and the sudden drying of the rain-drenched field where the manifestation occurred. When the Tunguska meteorite exploded over Siberia in June 1908, scientific instrumentation thousands of miles away registered the barometric shockwave. No observatories recorded any unusual sun phenomena on October 13, 1917, and there are no photographs to document what witnesses saw in the sky at Fatima. The Miracle of the Sun must, therefore, have been apprehended only mentally and thus becomes open to the charge of being a mass delusion.

Even mass delusions, however, must be explained. Almost all documented examples of mass delusion take place among small, tightly knit groups in enclosed settings such as schools, factories, convents and orphanages. Moreover, newspaper reports make clear that many who saw something in the sky viewed the goings on from an anti-clerical and markedly skeptical perspective. Mass delusions among large groups of diverse people are not that easy to create and are almost unknown among persons indisposed to the vision. For instance in mid-nineteenth century America, the Millerites predicted the Second Coming and had large groups of faithful followers watch all night in anticipation on the event. Nevertheless, none of these followers, despite many having sold all their possessions in preparation of the event, saw anything. The only case of alleged mass delusion that has any marked similarity to the Fatima manifestation is the series of apparitions that took place at Zeitoun, Egypt from1968 to1971. Here more than 100,000 people reported observing the Virgin Mary above a Coptic Orthodox Church in a suburb of Cairo. These manifestations are perhaps even more inexplicable and difficult to classify as a purely mental affair because many pictures were taken showing the apparitions and the preponderance of the witnesses were non-Christian.

Any analysis of the credibility of the Fatima apparitions must concentrate on aspects of the apparitions that are historically verifiable through contemporary accounts. Fortunately, much documentation is available about the apparitions from such sources and many facts are completely verifiable. (See Documents on Fatima by Antonio Martins, S.J., English edition 1992) After the first apparition in May 1917 increasing numbers of people went to the Cova da Iria each month to see what would happen. The predicted miracle in October was attended by reporters from a number of secular newspapers, some of them quite hostile to the Church. So we know with great certainty that the apparitions spanned the critical six month period leading up to the Bolshevik seizure of power. It also seems that the message of the Virgin specifically emphasized this timing aspect. Reportedly the children were told in May that she would appear to them on six consecutive months and the last appearance would involve a great miracle. This is what the children told contemporary witnesses and this explains the great crowds present for the anticipated miracle in October.

The most convincing argument in support of the supernatural character of the Fatima apparitions was voiced on August 19, 1917 by Jose do Vale in a front page article in the Lisbon newspaper O Mundo after the children had been closely examined by local officials -- the children seemed too uneducated and unsophisticated to come up with, let alone remember and repeat with consistency, the ideas they described. (Martins, p. 97) The oldest of the children who received the messages was ten. The second aspect is the unusual emphasis on external world events in the alleged messages. Fatima in 1917 was a backwater in a relatively undeveloped part of Europe. Nevertheless, the children publicly linked the Virgin’s appearance to the ending of the war then being waged outside Portugal. Even contemporaries found this somewhat unusual. Gonçalo Garrett was a professor at the University of Coimbra and his family had witnessed several of the apparitions, but he remained puzzled about certain aspects of what the children said. He wrote in August 1918, “Why would the Virgin in Fatima, at the doorstep of Lisbon, make reference to the way that war is killing men in France, Russia, Italy, etc., and not to the Religious War in Portugal, the country that Fatima belongs to?” (Martins, p.192)

One can only suppose that the children were carefully coached to come up with their sophisticated message. But who would do the coaching? Very few people in the summer of 1917 had a realization of the radical changes about to occur in Russia. Arguably the only entity that had an appreciation of Lenin’s potential for mischief in Russia was the German High Command, which in the month preceding the beginning of the apparitions had arranged his passage across Europe in the famous ‘sealed train.’ Those most likely to coach the children would be Catholic clergy, but the Church was initially very suspicious of the three seers, especially before the validation provided by the October miracle. This would be only prudent since the Church was acutely aware of the fiasco that would occur if nothing happened after the multi-month build-up the children gave to the predicted miracle.

Moreover, the messages at Fatima don’t really fit then current Catholic practices and approaches. For example, the early appearances of the angel to the three children were surprisingly reminiscent of Orthodox Church practice. In one of his appearances in 1916, the Angel first prostrated himself before the consecrated elements in the Eastern manner and had the children repeat with him an invocation to the Trinity. He then administered the consecrated bread to Lucia and the wine to Jacinta and Francisco. This would have been in contravention to Roman Catholic practice at the time. None of the children had fasted and only Lucia had received her first holy communion. In any event, no lay person of whatever age would have been given the sanctified wine at that time. The Orthodox Church, however, always communicates under both the bread and wine and admits children to communion immediately after baptism. Most unusual was the repeated request for prayers for a non-Catholic country and the insistence that the consecration of Russia was to be ‘collegial.’ One has to await the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) before the official position of the Catholic Church would show similar ecumenical attitudes.

Whoever coached the children would thus have had to be exceptionally advanced in religious outlook and particularly politically farsighted. For these unlettered children to have had any appreciation of the portentous timing of the revelations and the importance of an Orthodox nation on the other side of the continent defies easy explanation. Even less probable is any appreciation of the geopolitical urgency of the months leading up to the Russian Revolution. A few weeks after the last apparition at Fatima, Lenin succeeded in founding the first Communist state and began the process of spreading revolution around the globe. Pretty lucky timing! Toroid (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your details about the angel's introducing the kids to Orthodox style is fascinating. I take your point about do Vale and Garrett's observations, but I think part of why it all seems so amazing is the underestimation of these "rural peasants" as if they were stupid or something or had never heard of events going on in the outside world. (The same thing is done in some biographies of the Bronte girls to make their writings look more amazing.) The Catholic Church, trying to make the messages at visitations look spontaneous, commonly degrades the visionaries' backgrounds to show that the visionary "couldn't possibly have heard of" whatever. Bill Walsh himself, no disbeliever, explains several points that negate this idea. Both of Lucia's parents could read. Lucia's mom taught catechism. Her reading consisted largely of the Bible and books about religion, but I suspect Lucia's dad (and probably Uncle Manuel, too) read the papers. There were several (not all secular-controlled). You can't tell me that those kids didn't hear about the Great War, especially after two of their brothers got drafted. I've always suspected that Lucia's dad wasn't the messed-up drunkard that hagiographic accounts make him out to be starting about this time, but hung out at the local tavern to hear and discuss news. He was in disfavor with Fatima devotees because he "didn't attend mass", but in reality he traveled several miles on Sunday to go to church in another town because he couldn't stand Fr. Ferreira. What else did he do and hear there? Also, Manuel had actually served in the army and seen the world outside the villages. Still, there are things that can't be accounted for, and we may never know all the facts. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you guys could get some of that info into a form that can be used in the article. Some of Toroid's text reads like an essay, but has good content that may be usable if it is given good refs. History2007 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree we sometimes tend to underestimate children and other presumed unsophisticates like rural farm workers. On the other hand, we can easily romanticize and exaggerate the capabilities of rural farm workers and young children with a minimal education. In the compendium by Martins that I cited there are records of various interrogations with the children. There is no hint of any sophistication on their part. The children seem confused and somewhat bewildered by what they had experienced. There is a picture of the children in July just after the vision of hell and the two girls look really frightened. Even now in the era of mass communication and modern education, I defy you to ask the 10 year-old of your choice who or what Russia is. In her Memoirs Lucia admits that she thought the Lady was talking about a girl named Russia at first.

I will also grant that the children could have heard about the Great War but the point is that Portugal is not France. The battle lines were quite remote from rural Portugal. Why would children seize on this far away struggle and mention Russia as something important if they were concocting an apparition story? I think you have to look to some older, wiser coach for this level of sophistication. Perhaps the parish priest or school master would be reading the Lisbon papers and perhaps they could be sufficiently informed to emphasize the war and a country called Russia.

However, you have to put yourself back in time before the subsequent direction of events became clear to understand how perspicacious these concerns would have been in the summer of 1917. The fall of the Russian monarchy in March was generally greeted in the West as an optimistic development. The Czar was an autocrat and represented almost the antithesis of the values cherished in Western Europe and America. The Provisional government was sensible and moderate so why fear the future?

One only has to look at the lack of foresight manifested by the Great Powers with regard to the direction of events in Russia to grasp how politically astute the children or their coachers were in citing the war at this moment when it had just taken a perilous new course. In the spring of 1917, the Germans had decided on a desperate course of action to take Russia out of the war. In April 1917, the German ambassador in Copenhagen described the strategy: “It is now essential that we try to create the utmost chaos in Russia. To this end, we must avoid any appearance of interfering in the course of the Russian revolution. In my opinion, we must covertly do everything we can to deepen the differences between the moderate and the extreme parties, since it is definitely in our interest that the latter should win the upper hand: then another upheaval will be inevitable and will take forms which will shake the Russian state to its foundations.” (top secret communiqué to the German Foreign Ministry dated April 2, 1917, contained in Werner Hahlweg’s Lenins Rückkehr nach Russland 1917, Leiden 1957, p. 48)

In April the Germans arranged Lenin’s transport across Europe from his exile in Switzerland and entry into Russia to effect this strategy. The Allied intelligence services knew about this move but were unsure what action to take. The last country where the Allies could intervene before Lenin reached Russian territory was Sweden. Sir Esme Howard, the then British minister in Stockholm later recalled: “… for a hectic moment the Allied Ministers discussed whether they could not, with the help, naturally, of the Swedish authorities, hold up the arch-revolutionary on the way through. But the plan seemed impossible. It looked as if it might make the situation worse. Indeed, so far had the Revolution gone in Russia by that time that it appeared wiser to let things take their course rather than interfere in matters of which we were then practically ignorant.” (Lord Howard of Penrith, aka Esme Howard, Theatre of Life, London 1936, vol. ii, p. 264.)

So if the Allied Powers were unsure what Lenin’s entry into Russia meant, how did a bunch of kids in Portugal understand the danger the Russian people were then in? Toroid (talk) 01:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, interesting, and in my opinion also valid. But far fewer people read these talk pages than the article, so if you want to have the material read (which I assume to be the case since you spent significant effort typing it) it needs to have references, be Wikified and used in the page. I think that will improve the page. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Large portions of the predictions of these children especially Lucia may be postdictions. the predictions about Russia and the early deaths of Jacinta and Fransisco weren't published until 1941. They may have been written in the 30's. A close look at the different versions could tell people a lot about how mythology evolves. As far as I know the only predictions that were conclusively made ahead of time is that something would happen on the 13th of the month for 5 additional months. This is proven by the increased crowds and the newspaper articles. Something led these people to expect something to happen, and it did have a major impact on society regardless of the cause. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "postdiction" is mentioned in several books including Kevin McClure's The Evidence for Apparitions of the Virgin Mary and I think it's also in Michael P. Carroll's Cult of the Virgin Mary which goes at the whole thing from a psychological perspective. However, Francisco and Jacinta's mother confirmed in numerous interviews that the kids talked freely about their impending deaths. They were all excited about going to heaven. --Bluejay Young (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There is some exaggeration in this statement but it has a strong element of truth. There are a number of interrogations and statements of the children on record, but none of the detailed predictions that we are familiar with can be glimpsed until the publication of Lucia’s memoirs after the outbreak of World War II. With one exception, the early documentation does not predict anything in advance. The one exception is a repeated insistence that the war would soon end. Since it went on for another year, this is a somewhat flawed prophecy. If we stretch things a bit, we might grant Lucia one other advance prediction. From the earliest accounts of the great miracle in October 1917, Lucia said that in the final appearance she saw the Lady dressed as Our Lady of Mount Carmel. In the first letter she wrote to the pope on December 2, 1940, Lucia stressed that the Lady had announced that if her requests were not heeded there would be the “annihilation of various nations” (The Intimate Life of Sister Lucia by Fr. Robert J. Fox and Fr. Antonio Martins, S.J., 2001, pp.260-261). According to the memoirs, this statement was made by the Lady at the July apparition. The word annihilate is quite strong and denotes something far worse than crushed or defeated. It, however, fits perfectly the power of the atom bomb which was first tested at Trinity Site on the feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel -- July 16, 1945.

For the most part, however, the Lady seems to have enjoined on the children an almost Markan secrecy. The record left by the parish priest of his interrogation of Lucia in August 1917 contains this exchange: “I asked her if the Lady had told her some secret. She said that she had, but that she was not going to tell it to me.” Later, Lucia is more diplomatic in obscuring the “secrets” confided to her by the Lady. In a written description of the apparitions dated January 5, 1922, she gives a bare-bones account of each appearance, but in describing the July apparition she omits any mention of Russia or visiting hell. She then adds: “Then she confided some words to us, saying, ‘Tell this to no one. You may only tell it to Francisco’” (Martins, Documents on Fatima, pp. 116 and 217). We learn later that the ‘secrets’ bore time stamps. The first two secrets could only be revealed in 1926, while the famous ‘third secret’ could only be revealed after 1960. Ironically, when Lucia did reveal these secrets to church authorities, they declined to make them public for a very long time. After a wait of thirteen years, the Bishop of Leiria only authorized Lucia to reveal what she knew about the apparitions two weeks after Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. Before this, Lucia was ordered by her confessor and the bishop not to say anything.

Does this strange behavior indicate that Lucia or the church authorities created a ‘mythology’ to exploit the direction that history had taken? Not really. Although most of her discussions with her confessor on this subject would have been in person, there is a letter extant dated May 29, 1930 in which she reiterates to him the need to approach the Holy Father regarding the “consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Jesus and Mary” in union with “the bishops of the Catholic world” in order to end the persecution there. She also asks for the establishment of the First Saturday devotion. Another letter from January 31, 1935, contains the plaintive request: “As for Russia, it seems to me that it will give great pleasure to Our Lord, if we work at getting the Holy Father to fulfill His wishes.” There are also letters to the confessor extant from this period showing that the Bishop of Leiria told him to do nothing with regard to these requests since “the time is not ripe” (The Intimate Life of Sister Lucia by Fr. Robert J. Fox and Fr. Antonio Martins, S.J., 2001, pp.253-255). We may anticipate that as the process for Lucia’s canonization proceeds, church archives will be scoured shedding further light on this matter.

What are we to make of all this? Well, Lucia is clearly not a self-promoter. She seems to be a very simple person and accepts the decision of the bishop “under obedience” even when it seems to run counter to what she believes to be the repeated requests of Our Lord and His Mother. We may also surmise that the bishop had no confidence in her various strange predictions and was only jarred into acting by external events that seemed to corroborate her words.

In the final analysis, the strongest argument in support of the authenticity of the apparitions is their peculiar timing. The more closely we examine this timing, the more we see unexpected resonances to historically verifiable details. For instance, Lenin’s trip back to Russia took place during Orthodox Holy Week; he concluded a deal with the Germans for funding his revolutionary activities in Russia on April 13, Holy (Good) Friday; and according to Russian historians probably came back to St. Petersburg from Finland to make the final preparations for the revolution on Friday, October 12, 1917 (see “Lenin, Fatima and Holy Week” available in the online EWTN document library). In the face of coincidence upon coincidence, we have to at least suspect that spiritual warfare of unprecedented ferocity surrounded what remains the most impressive Marian apparition of the 20th century. Toroid (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure many people have had their photograph taken. When it is done with a flash you will see a patch of bright light lingering in your vision. That's what most of us call Camera Flash. It's no different when you look at the Sun. Well it is slightly different in that you can blind yourself forever if you keep on looking too long. Therefore - and I'm sorry if this is original research, but it is blindingly obvious (forgive the pun) - why is this simple scientific explanation not referenced anywhere in this article? Looking at the sun causes you to get streaks of bright light in your field of vision - a dancing sun if you may. Zinc Belief (timestamp signature button doesn't work in the new skin, well done wikipedia for testing that thoroughly)

Water cooler discussions

User CliffC noted that this talk page seemed like a "forum" and I agree with that comment. Wiki-talk pages can not be used as forums. These discussions here seem like water-cooler talk and have not affected the article at all. Time to delete them, unless they contribute to teh article. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was commenting only about this long-overlooked edit made 16 May 2007 by an anon who also vandalized the article the same day. After an admittedly quick look, I don't see anything else here that couldn't lead to improving the article at some point in the future, given good sourcing. --CliffC (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked people twice for heir sources and nothing. It seems like a bar-room chat to me. They have spent significant tme typing it, but not one word in the article. I say: water-cooler. History2007 (talk) 06:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a little confused about this discussion of sources. In my contribution, I listed an original source for each quote. For example, if you consult the page in Werner Hahlweg’s Lenins Rückkehr nach Russland 1917 that I cited you can the original quote and the archive where Hahlweg obtained it. Hahlweg was a famous military historian and his work is still relied upon by historians. The translation is, however, my own. There are other works that obtain their source material from Hahlweg but are more popular in nature. One of these on the same subject in English is Michael Pearson’s the Sealed Train, which is available on the Internet. This work is quite readable and generally reliable. Likewise, the quotes from the archives on Fatima are contained in the two books that I cited by Fr. Martins. My citation was from an English translation of works originally written in Portuguese. I was trained as a historian and this is what people mean by sources in the profession. What do you regard as sources? Toroid (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally in Wikipedia a contribution is to an article, not a talk page. Sources should generally be in the same language so other users can check that it was not a joke. People have made up jokes and inserted them in Wikipedia in the past, and other users generally check these things. Please see: WP:Reliable sources regarding sources and WP:Citing sources on how to cite them. And specially please see WP:OR which says that NOTHING original can come in. So if you happen disprove Newton's work, and you happen to be correct, you can not add it to English Wikipedia until some reputable physics journal in English publishes it. I know, I know, they say anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it does require getting used to. The heart of the mateial you had was good, but it needs to be Wikified and make its way to the article, before it can be called a contribution. Another issue is that your material is so long that it can not easily make it into the article. It needs a serious trim. And a 3rd issue is that it often involves a good deal of speculation. As soon as you add that some "non-believer" will claim that it is unsupported or subject to WP:OR and will trim it away. It is one thing to type into Wikipedia, it is another thing to have it survive more than 12 hours. Cheers and welcome to Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not familiar with your rules. Toroid (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, they were not my rules, Wiki-rules they are. But your material has good content, just needs clean up. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A question Before the "event" at Fatima Any other "events" there?

Heard a vague refereance once to "other events" occuring at Fatima since Anciet time. This is I beleive in a T.V. show. The artilce gives a good represetation of the "events" that took place there in 1917. Yet,1. No rferance to any other "events" That happened before the Fatima "Miricle" perhaps taking a Natural course. The area could have marked electromagtic Volacnaic actvity?2. No photos that I can research ever show the "sun" whatever it was during all this? Even in that day 1917. Photos could be taken of the sun with the proper filters. Any pictures I wonder of the "SUN" object seen at Fatima? Thanks!JANUSROMA (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to open another Pandora's box on this page. I did a few searches, and any additional pre 1917 items are very flimsy at best, if not fall into the category of pure science fiction. Some people (myself firmly excluded) consider Fatima as fiction anyway. So the type of things you may be hinting at would be fringe on a fringe and is ruled out based on Wikipedia:Fringe theories policies. This page is about the apparitions as the major news media and references have followed, and as the Vatican and various popes referred to. Hence I believe it is best to let it be as is. History2007 (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Cell Definition?

In the "Fate of the 3 children section," Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger orders here "cell sealed off." What is the definition of "cell?" I assume it means crypt, but wiki shows no definiton of cell. I suggest cell be replace with crypt, or crate a link to the correct disamgigous term for cell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProsperousOne (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a reference to her room in the convent she lived in. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Children photograph

I think this photo, http://www.amigosdenossasenhora.hpg.ig.com.br/lucia_fran_jac.jpg, is fascinating. It would be a good adiction to this article. What do you think?

Ah, that's one of the three famous shots. Probably taken sometime in 1918. There were two others that I think were taken in the summer of 1917. I think this may be the earliest one: http://img.cancaonova.com/noticias/noticia/233311.jpg (Fixed! 2010-05-01 --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Here's another: http://www.sacred-destinations.com/portugal/images/fatima/resized/children-with-rosaries-1917-jacinta-lucia-francisco-wp-pd.jpg (Fixed! 2010-05-01 --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC))

Looking at Jacinta, this had to have been taken sometime after the July vision. The look in that child's eyes speaks volumes about that image of hell. According to contemporary accounts, she was completely obsessed by the idea and threw all her energy into prayer and sacrifice to save the souls of sinners from eternal damnation. She was anorexic and constantly self-mortified. Not surprisingly, she had a number of visions not shared by the others. As she described them, they sound like images of WWI refugees.

Note that Lucia's hair is cut very short; that is not for the summer heat, but because as she pushed through the crowd to get to the apparition site, people would clip locks of her hair. Her scarves and ribbons were repeatedly snatched off her head and pieces of her clothing were cut off. --Bluejay Young 23:06, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the people who did that are burning in hell now. That'll teach 'em to steal from a little girl. Nelson Ricardo 16:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ricardo you must understand the culture, they were already seen as saints and people wanted something. She never talked about that, and she probably understood it. In Portuguese there is the expression Sabes mais que a Lúcia (you know more than Lucia) when someone knows something and he doesnt want to tell you, or want to cheat you. The name Fatima of the village, now a town, derives from a Moorish princess that when the area was being conquered by the Portuguese, she prefered to kill herself than be a prisioner of Christians, she fell from her castle's tower. In honour to her bravery, the Portuguese name it Fatima - her name. This is the version often used by a famous Portuguese historian. -Pedro 16:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She probably did understand it, although her mother about had a fit whenever it happened (Her mother also didn't believe a word about the visions and thought Lucia put her cousins up to it.) Portuguese village girls and women of that time were known to keep a lot to themselves. Lucia's Aunt Olimpia was a prime example of the type, and Lucia was notorious for it -- especially if she were being pushed or pressured to reveal something, she'd shut up like a clam. This is all documented in William T. Walsh's book, which is where I got a lot of the info I used in this article. --Bluejay Young 09:45, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

"Fire in the Skies Event"

I did a little research and got some actual references to the solar storm of January 1938. And since Lucia was the one visionary to see it and be affected by it, thinking it confirmed the prophecy and so forth and writing those letters, I took it out of this article and put it in the article about Lucia Santos. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There were actually a number of exceptionally strong solar storms during this period of solar maximum. These resulted in spectacular auroral displays far south of their usual limits. A perhaps even stronger auroral display occurred on the night of August 23, 1939, just days after Hitler succeeded in concluding a nonagression pact with Stalin. This agreement, of course, cleared the way for Hitler to attack Poland on September 1st, leading to the outbreak of WW II.

In his 1969 Memoirs Albert Speer recalled the scene vividly:“In the course of the night we stood on the terrace of the Berghof with Hitler and marveled at a rare natural spectacle. Northern lights of unusual intensity threw red light on the legend-haunted Untersberg across the valley, while the sky above shimmered in all the colors of the rainbow. The last act of Götterdämmerung could not have been more effectively staged. The same red light bathed our faces and our hands. The display produced a curious pensive mood among us. Abruptly turning to one of his military adjutants, Hitler said, ‘Looks like a great deal of blood. This time we won’t bring it off without violence.’” (Albert Speer, Inside The Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer, translated by Richard and Clara Winston (paperback edition 2009), p. 162.) Toroid (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)toroidToroid (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea. Maybe something brief should be said about this in the Lucia article although we don't want to get too far off the dime. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Secrets and prophecies

When does a secret become a prophesy? Also it seems that apparitions have stopped, now that we all have cellphones with cameras and small video cameras. It's so unfair.86.44.209.115 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Cameras have been used at Marian apparitions since Lourdes and Fatima. Photographs and films were taken at Ghiaie, thousands of pictures were taken at Garabandal along with some films and at least one nationally televised apparition, and Zeitoun was televised. Also, don't confuse actual apparitions with reported ones. Plenty of people see her and don't say anything if she doesn't specifically tell them to. If there are fewer reports of apparitions today, you can blame our current Holy Father. He's ordered much stricter guidelines for approval when somebody does report seeing her. After Medjugorje, I don't blame him.

I always thought a secret was a prophecy if it had a prediction of future events in it. The children at Fatima certainly seemed to think the "third secret" images depicted something that was really going to happen, even though it had all that esoteric symbolism. When it was disclosed it was no longer a secret, but it had been a prophecy all along. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Several years ago, a saw an interview with Albert Speer on a cable TV channel in which Speer said he and Hitler and someone else saw the "fire in the skies event" and that Hitler interpreted this as God's approval Hitler's plans. Sister Lucia, viewing the sae event, knew it was the sign that another greater (than WW I) war would soon afflict mankind. Does anyone know which video that was and where I can find it? We should also remember Pope John Paul II was shot on a Fatima date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.155.67.102 (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The 'Third Secret of Fatima' announces the coming of Messianic Reign

Hello All,

This is my first time here.

I would like to request a link to my page: 'Third Secret of Fatima, The Blessed Mother Has Announced The Coming of Messianic Reign!' copyright by me, Steven Merten 2010, www.ApocalypseAngel.com/fatima.html

<Personal POV promotion redacted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)>

Please visit: 'Third Secret of Fatima' The Blessed Mother Has announced the Coming of Messianic Reign. copyright by me, Steven Merten, 2010 www.ApocalypseAngel.com/fatima.html Please concider a link. Thank you, Angels of the Apocalypse Angels of the Apocalypse (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no way. Just no way. There are thousands of blogs and per WP:External what you want can not be done. History2007 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm sorry, but you cannot use Wikipedia to promote your personal religious beliefs and predictions - either by asking for them to be added to the article, or by soapboxing here on the Talk page. I have removed the bulk of it, above, as it is entirely inappropriate to reproduce it here - to review it for possible inclusion, all we needed was a link. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

POV

The "Political aspects" paragraph is just pure POV and should be deleted. Catholics were persecuted by force in all Protestant countries. This was well before the French Revolution mentioned in the paragraph.

Francisco was not a girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

1531 is before 1840. Juan Diego was not a girl. The new world is not in Western Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Mexico is not in Europe at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of men have had the experience of Marian visitations. This is not even a point for discussion. --99.174.231.214 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Politcal aspects partly come from Ruth Bloch. Ruth's work is supplemented by Mary Vincent's further work.

I find your exegesis interesting and I'm inclined to agree with the idea of subjective interpretation, but most of us are not going to be around in the year 3000. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Letters

Should I make a section regarding two letters Sr. Lucia wrote concerning the Fatima consecration?

You can find the letters here: Letters of Sr. Lucia Santos, OCD on the Consecration (EWTN)

Oct13 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. EWTN is an Ok reference, but if you have another WP:RS source as well would be good. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if those should be in the article about the Consecration of Russia. --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Detention

The para about the children being detained by provincial administrator Arturo dos Santos is not one of the "controversies of Fatima". It is part of the detailed story of what actually happened. However as the article leaves out a lot of that detail, I'm not sure it belongs here at all. But certainly not where it is now. JackofOz 02:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I put it under "controversies" because it was part of the political aspects of Fatima -- in that Arturo kidnapped and questioned the kids for political reasons. It shows just how political Fatima was from the outset. I think it should be moved rather than deleted altogether, let's see how it looks under the main part of the story. --Bluejay Young 16:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There is some allegation that the children were abducted and it adds a masonic twist to it: http://www.fatima.org/essentials/opposed/seerkidn.asp --41.151.152.148 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Our Lady of Fátima

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Our Lady of Fátima's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Burke850":

• From Our Lady of Lourdes: Burke, Raymond L.; et al. (2008). Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons ISBN 978-1-57918-355-4 pages 850-868
• From Roman Catholic Mariology: Mark Miravalle in Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, seminarians, and Consecrated Persons ISBN 1-57918-355-7, 2008 edited by M. Miravalle, page 850

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is confused and confusing: "Our Lady of Fatima is the title based on apparitions to three shepherd children at Fátima, Portugal, on the thirteenth day of six consecutive months in 1917, beginning on May 13". This does not read like standard English, and I am not sure what "the title based on apparitions" is even supposed to mean. Can someone please explain this, and translate it into English.Royalcourtier (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• A good option, I'd endorse that. --ssr (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

"The apparition is also referred to as Our Lady of the Rosary"

two points about this statement. First, source it please, because I have never heard it before. The closest is that Lucie said that the person who appeared to her said "I am the lady of the Rosary". Second, the Wiki article on Marian apparitions says "A Marian apparition is a supernatural appearance by the Blessed Virgin Mary". Thus an apparition is an event, not a person. I appreciate that this article has to try very hard to phrase things in a neutral way; can this be rewritten? Perhaps (presuming it is sourced and so remains) as "Another title given to the Virgin Mary as a result of this apparition is Our Lady ...." --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What this article is quoting for the 2nd secret

As it stands now, it is mentioning "Pontificate of Pius XI". When did the pope's name get in there? These apparitions are in 1917, and Pius XI wasn't elected until 1922.

Would it have been "next pontificate" instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I marked it "dubious" as well. Other sources indicate that the "second secret" was not disclosed until after the Second World War had begun, which seriously undermines the credibility of the claim that it was first spoken in 1917. In 1917, the Pope was Benedict XV, and he continued as Pope until 1922. In 1917, no one knew who the next pope would be, let alone the name he would choose. If the secret, purporting to quote Mary, mentions the name of Pius XI, that alone, in my opinion, brands it as a hoax and a fraud. Also, "predicting" the war after it has already started does not impress me. Further, a "prediction" that "the war will end soon" and that there will be another one is not that impressive. Most wars do end eventually, and sadly, there always seems to be another one.John Paul Parks (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What is quoted there is what Lucia wrote. It's not dubious that she said Pius XI, what's dubious is the idea that Mary told her in 1917 it was going to be him. Discussions as to whether or not it's a fraud should be quoted from other sources and put underneath her words. If you want to put in the article that the war prediction stuff is questionable you have to quote sources for that also. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this original research?

"Since no scientifically verifiable physical cause can be adduced to support the phenomenon of the sun, various explanations have been advanced to explain the descriptions given by numerous witnesses. A leading conjecture is a mass hallucination possibly stimulated by the religious fervor of the crowds expectantly waiting for a predicted sign. Another conjecture is a possible visual artifact caused by looking at the sun for a prolonged period. As noted by Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven, looking directly at the Sun can cause phosphene visual artifacts and temporary partial blindness. He has proposed that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the colour changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells. Meessen observes that solar miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where exactly the same optical effects as at Fatima were witnessed by more than 10,000 people."

I didn't take it out yet, but I'd like to discuss it. It gets way off the article's subject and it's full of conjectures. Does "solar miracles" need its own article with references to pros and cons? --Bluejay Young (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It is referenced and seems relevant to the article to me, discussing the sun miracle. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Meessen's documentation only covers post-Fatima solar (or "solar") events, because there weren't any prior to Fatima. People didn't start to expect solar miracles at Marian apparition sites until after Fatima. Now, of course, everybody wants to see them all the time and imagines them when they're not there. I'm going to have to dig into this and clear that up. What people were staring at at Fatima was the tree -- if they could even get that close --, because a rumor had spread that the promised miracle would be Mary revealing herself to the entire crowd. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

References

date of liturgical commemoration

I tried to add 'commemoration May 13' to the template on the side but couldn't do it. I've added it to the text but if anyone can move it to the side, go ahead/ --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sufi

As one who believes that providence manifest itself differently at different time it behooves us to investigate fatimah and the fact that it was a center for Muslim pilgrimmage and worship long before 1917; the "Miracle" of fatimah is that the "Sun of Faith" was manifested to begin the Last Judgment in a unprecedented way; the 3 children being the "Bab" or "Gate of Heaven" by which only those who believe in them can enter the Kingdom; whether Jew; Christian or Muslim. Thus we are saved by our faith alone in this respect: although to see the 3 children as the 3 tiered "Door of Noah" we must lookk at the present day "Ark of Salvation" in light of the old one: whoso entered that Door escaped the Flood; those who enter this "Gate" escape the Wrath of the Lamb. Furthermore the "Pearl of Great Price" happens to be "the Gate of Heaven". For thoses who would dispute these simple facts please contact me or write your comments here. What I have added is therefore valid as being the view held by my church> please let it remain in the interests of Equality and scholarship between the religions in the aspect of their Unity; the Fruit of the Tree of Life.Unicorn144 13:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

God is our Father. Why would He not want us to come home when we die? Salvation? What has that got to do with going home?Wythy (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Controversy around the Third Secret

The third paragraph of that section contains a sentence fragment: it looks like an editing error/confusion. Could someone have a look and try and fix it. – Modal Jig (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:FTN

There is currently a discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard concerning the subject of this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Our Lady of Fátima. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514061336/http://www.thecalltofatima.com/ to http://www.thecalltofatima.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100627025424/http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima4/ to http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/fatima4/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606061329/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36550&wf=rsscol to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36550&wf=rsscol

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A useful source

I found this source. One may add the materials to the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Fate of the three children

Hello,

when I read that article, I came accross the following two sentences:— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.134.148 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1st sentence:

"Besides Lúcia's account, the testimony of Olímpia Marto (mother of the two younger children) and several others state that her children did not keep this information secret and ecstatically predicted their own deaths many times to her and to curious pilgrims."

This sentence refers to a statement of Senhora Marto (Jacinta's mother) in DeMarchi's book "True Story of Fatima". Senhora Marto said about Jacinta: "She said too, that she would take us all to heaven..." (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/tsfatima.htm) This, however, can't serve as source for the assertion that Jacinta predicted her death, since "She said too, that she would take us all to heaven..." doesn't contain any information about when she would go to heaven. Or did I overlook something?

Furthermore I'd like to know when Senhora Marto (Jacinta's mother) made that statement. DeMarchi writes: "Senhora Marto has herself supplied an account of this meeting on the dusty road in front of their house at the tired end of the day" - does this mean that Senhora Marto supplied DeMarchi with that account (decades after the event), or did she talk about it earlier? (Sorry, but my english seems to be too bad for this :) )

I have also tried to search for a text passage where DeMarchi claims that Jacinta told "pilgrims" (besides her mother) about her death, but could only find the following: "Naturally, a story of such dimensions was not received indifferently in the crowded Marto home. It was enjoyed more than it was believed ...". Are there other passages?

I also couldn't find testimonies of "several others" about Jacinta predicting her death.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.134.148 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

2nd sentence (right after the first one above):

"In fact, it was the first thing Jacinta told her mother when she spoke to her after the initial apparition."

Which is sourced by Lucia's first memoir from 1936 (http://fatima.ageofmary.com/overview/in-lucias-own-words/jacinta/). Again, I can only find the following statement, which - according to Lucia - was made by Jacinta the day after the first apparition: "I said that the Lady promised to take us to heaven." Which - again - isn't suitable as source for Jacinta predicting her death (again no further information about the exact circumstances of her death). Again: Did I overlook something?

Also the formulation "In fact, ..." is problematic in my opinion, since the source is Lucia Santo's memoir which she wrote in 1936, years after Jacinta had already died.

So what should be done about those two sentences? (I don't have any experience in writing articles in wikipedia)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.134.148 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"others, including some believers, saw nothing at all"

I've borrowed a quote from Our Lady of Fátima for Miracle of the Sun saying that some witnesses saw nothing at all. This claim has two references:

• http://www.sacred-destinations.com/portugal/fatima-shrine-of-our-lady-of-fatima.htm - This page mentions the alleged photographer, but does not itself provide a source for the claim. Should we consider removing this page as an unreliable source?
• Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima - I haven't read this book myself. Has anyone read the book so as to verify the claim?
• A third book, called "The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary", by Kevin McClure, apparently states that "Secondly, it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle...". I don't know where he gets that information from. Any takers?

It's a significant claim that contradicts other accounts, so I don't want to repeat it if it's misleading. Rōnin (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The post at http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5666240&postcount=3 mentions "a few reliable witnesses". I don't know where Mike Dash got his information from:

"Firstly, not all pilgrims saw the miracle of the sun, some scholars, notably Mike Dash (In Borderlands) estimate only half. Jaki (In God and the Sun at Fatima) puts the number considerably higher but still maintains that there were a few reliable witnesses that claim to have seen nothing." Rōnin (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've not read Jaki's book yet, but have found and added a few cases from two other books. Rōnin (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read part of Jaki's book, and so far have found one minor reference to this claim, and one indirect testimony. I added the page numbers to the reference. There might be more. Still no idea about the sacred-destinations.com reference. Rōnin (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I have read book after book about the events of Our Lady of Fatima and, in particular, about what took place on October 13, 1917. My research was motivated, in part, to substantiate this very line. I have not been able to do so. There are are a couple of books which repeat the claim in passing, but none have been able to provide a primary source or demonstrate that the claim was informed by a primary source. This line is significant, so I will renew my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.222.173.87 (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Current Version of Political Aspects Just Plain Wrong

Someone has added a source claiming that contemporary to the Fatima apparitions people in Portugal were likening the actions of the secular government to the Bolsheviks who led the revolution in Russia. It is true that there was much political tension in Portugal during this period but nobody there knew anything about the Bolshevik Revolution until it occurred. After the Czar abdicated in March 1917 there was a moderate revolution in Russia but the Bolsheviks had little or no role. The Bolshevik Revolution occurred after the apparitions in November 1917 (October in the Julian calendar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toroid (talk • contribs) 01:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Permit cult vs permit belief

Citation #29 under the Official Position of the Catholic Church heading seems to have a translation error. Currently it cites the Bishop of Leiria-Fátima as saying, "2) Permit officially the belief of Our Lady of Fátima." Another source (http://miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/statements/index.html) has "cult" instead of "belief" saying, "2. Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima." This second translation seems much more likely because "belief" here would be redundant. In the first point, it was already stated that the apparition is declared worthy of belief. To permit its "cult" would mean that in addition to belief it is also permitted to incorporate it into the Catholic Church's liturgy. This would make sense because "Our Lady of Fatima" is currently on the Catholic Church's liturgical calendar on May 13th as an optional memorial. Would others agree that "belief" should be changed to "cult"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.13.178 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

"Cult" would likely be the more proper English term. At least one citation should this term, if changed in the article. Ideally, the original Italian or Latin statement should be cited as well. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hello. In my opinion, the infobox image should be changed to File:Fatima (3).jpg because it has better resolution than the current cropped one. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a good image but needs cropping itself (at present the image is about half surrounding hallway, which distracts from the statue). I'd personally rather see the well-known image of the three children as the lead image and not the statue, as it portrays the events at the time. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In the infobox of the articles of Marian apparitions titles there is the respective photographed statue and not a photograph of the visionaries - it would not even make sense! In any case, I reiterate that the File:Fatima (3).jpg would be the most appropriate and should be used immediately until there are those who cut it out. Could you be so kind as to put it in the information box? Thank you a lot. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

After spending a few minutes looking at the two images, am gaining an affinity for the image you prefer. I don't know how to crop, but if the right-hand edge can be moved up to the solid blue barrier (or just after the thin blue line?) the image works well. Let's wait awhile if other editors have opinions, or are familiar with cropping and uploading. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

My 2cents: after experimentally cropping the image in Preview (macOS), it becomes a long skinny strip. IMO, the original image, while lower resolution, is a more balanced composition. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If the reflections are included, which seem to make it an aesthetically interesting image, is there room for a semi-balanced image? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You can always try it [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, I figured out how to use CropTool ;) Take a look at the Commons file and see if you like it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice work, looks good. Looked at the instructions earlier, seems out of my skill set. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Croptool is a gadget. You have to find it in your user preferences and click on it to enable it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

adding a CONTROVERSY section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, I’m Natalie, and I’m new to Wiki.

i’m seeking assistance because I contributed a CONTROVERSY section to the “Our Lady of Fatima” page and it was deleted under the tag “personal opinion.”

I have since reworked the controversy section to eliminate all opinions, and yet trying to post a new version will result in it being deleted under the tag “removed my edit.”

So if anyone can help moderate, that would be very helpful, because Fatima certainly warrants a controvery section. Ghost apparitions (religious or otherwise) are inherently controversial.

The absence of a controversy section altogether on the Fatima page after so many years is bizarre and almost suspicious—especially since this vision of Mary promoted violence towards children. This is a particularly questionable, potentially very dangeorus “miracle.”

I will be citing from two books. The first one, THE IMMACULATE HEART, was published by the reputable Farrar, Straus and Young. It was written by a Priest who interrogated the witnesses firsthand.

The other book, FATIMA IN LUCIA’S OWN WORDS, was published by the Catholic Church (Imprimatur), which in normal circumstances would be considered a biased press; however in this case it should be admitted, because they are the memoirs of the Saint herself.

Marian apparations are a bit like the Loch Ness Monster, in the sense that only a few handfuls of people have ever seen them, and so it’s hard to find “credible” citations. For instance it would be hard to cite The New York Times reporting on a Marian apparition, or a Loch Ness sighting. That said, what is more credible a source to a Marian apparition than the personal journals of the only living witness to it?

(I would also like to mention that on the existing Fatima page, plenty of biased Catholic news outlets are referenced to substantiate the apparitions, and those sources were not deleted.)

I intend to re-post my new and improved controversy section at some point today or tonight. If any Wiki moderators could oversee, so that it doesn’t get automatically deleted, I would appreciate your time so much. The Fatima page is incomplete without thoughtful opposition. Thank you guys. Natalie.

This is what I intend to post:

Controversy

The Mary apparition falsely predicted the end of the war, with Lucia relaying what Mary had told her: "The war will end today (13 October 1917). You can expect the soldiers very shortly." 1

But World War 1 didn’t end for more than a year after Mary’s prediction that it had already ended.

This alarmed even the interrogating Priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose records of the children still exist: "But listen Lucia" he said on record, "The war is still going on. The papers give news of battles after the 13th. How can you explain that if our Lady said the war would end that day?" Lucia replied, "I don’t know; I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on that day…I said exactly what our Lady had said. 2

Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and she said the same thing. “(Mary) said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today.” 3

Although Mary correctly predicted the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the children may have facilitated their own deaths, as both were documented as having starved and dehydrated themselves during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.

Their biographer, John De Marchi, who was friends with Lucia, wrote: “In the scorching sun of the serra, when through the bright hours of the day the heat hangs like a hot stove everywhere, they abstained from taking any water through one spell of thirty days, and at another time for nine.” 4

For two full years leading up to their deaths, and even on their deathbeds, the children refused food and water, or drank dirty water from an animal and laundry pond from which their mother forbade them from drinking because it could cause illness, 5 and even kept blood-stained cords tied tightly around their waists.6

The vision of Mary praised them for their self-harm rituals, saying to them, “God is pleased with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope on; only wear it during the day.” 7

On multiple occasions Lucia voiced her concern that the Mary appearing to them was actually “the devil” all along. She wrote: “I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil…truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt!’ 8

The young girl also suffered a dream during this time period wherein “the devil was laughing at having deceived me.” 9

And Lucia once told her cousin, “If (Mary) asks for me, Jacinta, you tell her why I’m not there. Because I am afraid it is the Devil who sends her to us!” 10

CITATIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 De Marchi, Father John, I.M.C. The Immaculate Heart. New York: Farrar, Straus and Young. 1952. Page 159. Page 159. Page 155. Page 111. Page 111. Page. 71.

6, 7, 8, 9, Santos, Lucia. Kondor, Louis Fr., Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words (Memoirs 1-4) Fatima: Imprimatur. 10th Edition, 1998. Page 97. Page 80. Page 71. Page 71. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I've copied the controversy section here. There are multiple problem that need to be addressed before it can be incorporated into the article.

The Mary apparition falsely predicted the end of the war, with Lucia relaying what Mary had told her: "The war will end today (13 October 1917). You can expect the soldiers very shortly." But World War 1 didn’t end for more than a year after Mary’s prediction that it had already ended. This alarmed even the interrogating Priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose records of the children still exist: "But listen Lucia" he said on record, "The war is still going on. The papers give news of battles after the 13th. How can you explain that if our Lady said the war would end that day?" Lucia replied, "I don’t know; I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on that day…I said exactly what our Lady had said." Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and she said the same thing. “(Mary) said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today.” Although Mary correctly predicted the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the children may have facilitated their own deaths, as both were documented as having starved and dehydrated themselves during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. Their biographer, John De Marchi, who was friends with Lucia, wrote: “In the scorching sun of the serra, when through the bright hours of the day the heat hangs like a hot stove everywhere, they abstained from taking any water through one spell of thirty days, and at another time for nine.” For two full years leading up to their deaths, and even on their deathbeds, the children refused food and water, or drank dirty water from an animal and laundry pond from which their mother forbade them from drinking because it could cause illness, and even kept blood-stained cords tied tightly around their waists. The vision of Mary praised them for their self-harm rituals, saying to them, “God is pleased with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope on; only wear it during the day.” On multiple occasions Lucia voiced her concern that the Mary appearing to them was actually “the devil” all along. She wrote: “I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil…truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt!’ The young girl also suffered a dream during this time period wherein “the devil was laughing at having deceived me.” And Lucia once told her cousin, “If (Mary) asks for me, Jacinta, you tell her why I’m not there. Because I am afraid it is the Devil who sends her to us!” References

Issues: The passage needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone. Commentary of the accuracy of the prophecy must be attributed within the to the author, not made in Wikipedia's voice. The quote "self-harm rituals" is a characterization of the children's behavior. The author or person making this describing their behavior as self-harm must be explicitly stated in the text. The words cannot be attributed to the "vision of Mary"; it must be attributed to the children; ie "The children made a prophesy attributed to Mary regarding [the end of the war], [the death of X]". The author's underlying source should also be mentioned wherever possible; is she citing the children's diaries, De Marchi's accounts, etc. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed the issues listed above: encyclopedic tone, attributing all quotes to the children, removing the phrase "self-harm." All sources are cited. Thanks, Natalie Spyrazzle (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an improvement, but the specific claims must still be directly attributed to the author or researcher who made them within the text of the article. For example "Professor X cites as an example DeMarchi documenting the children fasting/drinking dirty water as potentially contributing to their deaths". –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I will work on additional changes tonight and tomorrow night. I hope that in good faith, someone with a conscience will help to preserve this controvery section for the years to come. Let me be frank. I am worried about modern-day children committing (essentially) copycat suicides. I speak from experience, because this particular “miracle” was pushed on me when i was a 9-year-old Catholic schoolgirl with an abnormally strong desire to please God, abnormal for a 9 year old certainly. Back then I was not armed with the facts of the story to protect myself. I did not have a car to get to the library. I also had not yet read the entirety of the Bible, which quoted Jesus saying “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” and “if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, truly i tell you, he will never lose his reward.” Which is the antithesis of what the Mary vision told these children, according to the children themselves.A controversy section, with the facts spread open, could save lives. Spyrazzle (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"Although "Mary" reportedly predicted the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the children may have facilitated their own deaths.[18]" - In the cited work, does DeMarchi explicitly claim or suggest that the children's actions may have contributed to their deaths? This is vital to Wikipedia mission, that it can only repeat what reliable sources state, and not make other conclusions based on it. If DeMarchi does not suggest the children's rituals made them more vulnerable to the flu or other causes of death, then the statement "may have facilitated their own deaths" would be considered WP:Original research and must be deleted. If DeMarchi did make this claim, then it must be directly attributed to him in the text to avoid appearing as original research. For instance "In his XXX dated report on the incident, DeMarchi noted that the children's actions may have contributed to their deaths. He noted actions such as...". Every similar claim must also be directly reflected in the underlying source, which is why phrases such as "self-harm rituals" were objected to, as it was not clear that your source material used that or similar terminology to describe the children's actions. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you did not carefully read my revision. DeMarchi himself referred to the children's sacrifices as "self-annihilations"---that is his term. To annihilate, according to Merriam Webster Dictionary, means "to cause to cease to exist; to do away with entirely so that nothing remains." Self-annihilation means to destroy the self. These children died, they did in fact cease to exist, and DeMarchi said their sacrifices leading up to their deaths were in fact "self-annihilations." You mention in your critique that my original phrase "self-harm rituals" was objected to because it was not DeMarchi who said it; therefore I searched hard and found a direct quote of DeMarchi using the phrase "self-annihilation" which is even more powerful than "self-harm." Therefore, it will stay in the CONTROVERSY section, where it belongs. It is cited correctly. Spyrazzle (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Self-annihilation" has a specific meaning in Catholicism. It does not mean physical harm, but spiritual submission to God. Self-annihilation in this context cannot be generalized to mean "contributed to their deaths". If DeMarchi did not explicitly state the children's actions may have contributed to their demise, then the statement must be removed. If he did, it must be directly attributed to him. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the children died, and DeMarchi wrote the book after they died, knowing they died, it CAN be used. He uses the term self-annihilation in the same breath as talking about the dead children's dehydration practices, how tiny Jacinta was being treated in the hospital while still abstaining from drinking water. You are also changing the rules. You said I could not use the phrase "self-harm" unless DeMarchi himself said it. So I use the phrase "self-annihilation," because DeMarchi DID say that, and then you say "well, he meant it differently." You must work for the Catholic Church because you are attempting very hard to block information from the eyes of the people. This is gatekeeping. Since the children died, self-annihilation is the appropriate term, and DeMarchi used that term knowingly, knowing they were dead. Spyrazzle (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, my controversy section says the children “MAY have contributed to their own deaths.” It doesn’t say “they contributed to their own deaths period," it says “MAY have” with facts and testimonies to back it up. So if DeMarchi used the phrase SELF-ANNIHILATION when talking about the kids’ refusal to drink water while they were in and out of hospitals, but MAY have meant something else, because the phrase sometimes carries an obscure Catholic connotation, then the world has the same amount of probable cause to assume he meant it literally, since the kids died literally. He did not specifically say in his book “self-annihilations, in the Catholic sense of the word, meaning to give oneself completely to God.” He simply talked about the agony the kids were in before their deaths, and called their brutal sacrifices leading up to their deaths “self-annihilations” without explaining his use of the dictionary word. Which means I am justified to use the official dictionary definition in the controversy section.Spyrazzle (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being accused of "working for the church", and other innuendo. I specifically asked if Father DeMarchi said to the effect "their actions may have contributed to their deaths". This is a yes or no question that I have asked from the beginning, but you keep dancing around the answer.

If Dr. DeMarchi said this in his report about the miracle, then simply say in the at the start of the paragraph, "DeMarchi notes in his report that the children's actions may have contributed to their deaths". If DeMarchi did not make this specific argument about contributing to their own deaths, then you cannot make that argument. Articles in Wikipedia can only repeat arguments found in WP:Reliable Sources.

I do not object to including DeMarchi's documentation of their behavior or even his use of "self-annihilation". This is factual information. I object only to using the "self-annihilation" quote in a potentially leading manner. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not dancing around the subject. You are. DeMarchi characterized the children's actions leading up to their deaths as "self-annihilating." That is his testimony. The children died. They didn't drink water, even when they had a respiratory flu, they bloodied themselves, and they died. He described the children as "self-annihilating" while he was describing these actions that preceded their deaths. He did not "note it in a report." He said it in his "authoritative" biography of the children. The argument has been made successfully. Calling the children "self-annihilating" warrants my use of the phrase "the children MAY have contributed to their own deaths." You are the one dancing. There's a reason none of these horror stories have ever made it onto the Fatima Wiki page after so many years, and it's because Catholics have been blocking the info. I am very aware that this is an "important" miracle to the Church because it added a prayer to the rosary. I am very aware of what's at stake for the Catholic Church when people lose faith in this miracle. And I am very aware why fanatical Catholics strive to block it. Nonetheless, these terrible things happened, and they are going to come to light.Spyrazzle (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Then this paragraph:

On multiple occasions, while the visions were still occurring, Lucia voiced her concern that the Mary appearing to them was actually “the devil” all along. She wrote in her memoirs: "I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil ... truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt!"[23] The young girl also described a vivid nightmare she experienced during this time period wherein “the devil was laughing at having deceived me.”[23] Lucia once told her cousin, "If [Mary] asks for me, Jacinta, you tell her why I’m not there. Because I am afraid it is the Devil who sends her to us!"[4]: 71

If you are quoting her memoirs, you cannot say that the "young girl said", as it is the adult women reflecting on what she felt as a youth. You also do not state the context or to whom she voiced her concerns. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GATEKEEPING

I have an issue with Gatekeeping.

I am new to Wiki, and I am trying to post a CONTROVERSY section to the Our Lady of Fatima page. My first attempt was removed for expressing opinions.

I have since revised my controversy section to eliminate all opinions. But when I try to repost, a gatekeeper swiftly takes it down with the tag “undid my revision.”

So if anyone can help moderate, that would be very helpful, because Fatima certainly warrants a controvery section. Ghost apparitions (religious or otherwise) are inherently controversial.

The absence of a controversy section on the Fatima page after so many years is bizarre and almost suspicious—especially since this vision of Mary promoted violence towards children. This is a particularly questionable, potentially very dangeorus “miracle.”

It makes me think Catholic gatekeepers have been removing the controvery section for many years without discovery.

The gatekeeper in this case is using semantics to block the page. He says my use of the term “self-harm rituals” is not encyclopedic language. Fact: the Mary appartion instructed small children to wear ropes tied so tightly around their waists that the ropes became bloody. How is that not a self-harm ritual? The children died afterwards. I have cited the child’s own journals with Mary instructing them to do this rope ritual.

My first source is the book, THE IMMACULATE HEART, published by the reputable Farrar, Straus, and Young. It was written by a Priest who interrogated the witnesses firsthand.

The other book, FATIMA IN LUCIA’S OWN WORDS, was published by the Catholic Church (Imprimatur), which in normal circumstances would be considered a biased press; however in this case it should be admitted, because they are the memoirs of the Saint herself.

If any Wiki moderators could oversee, so that the controversy section doesn’t get automatically deleted, I would appreciate your time so much. The Fatima page is incomplete without thoughtful opposition. Thank you guys. Natalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User Suggestion

I have just contributed a CONTROVERSY section to the Our Lady of Fatima page. While I do appreciate some of the contributions from username AukusRuckus, the user has suggested that the material does not warrant its own CONTROVERSY section. This information is certainly controversial though, it is stunningly controversial. Children reporting that a vision of Mary made a prediction about the war ending on a certain day that does NOT come true, then making a prediction about the children dying that DOES come true when the children essentially committed suicide (refusing to drink water for 30 days), etc etc. This is controversial. The manner in which two very young children died is very controversial. I am afraid of the material getting lost under categories like "history" or "political aspects." I can try to add more to the controversy section when I have time off work, but even standing on its own, it certainly deserves the title and its own dignified section. Username AukusRuckus also added asterisks in the text asking me to define "on multiple occasions" but those occasions are defined within the text and cited properly. In the same paragraph they are defined and cited. I don't know how to respond to AukusRuckus other than here, because I am new to Wiki. Spyrazzle (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Spyrazzle, thanks for your response. Just a couple of comments, which are offered only in a constructive spirit. You may take them into consideration at your own discretion.

In making my edit, I really went against best practice in commenting within the edit summary, rather than here on the talk page. Partly I did so because I do not have any strong feelings on this article, so thought I would make a remark without involving myself in full discussion. But that way just leaves things up in the air. So given that, and your comments above, I thought I would try to explain more of what I meant.

Firstly, regarding the section title "Controversy": It is not I think the issues you raise in the section are not of the gravest kind. It is more that to be a controversy, one would expect it be more an account of issues in contention. While clearly you - and many others - would find the course of events disquieting, perhaps scandalous, there is nothing in your inclusions to indicate any kind of push-and-pull argument and counter-argument of various viewpoints vying to be the prevailing one. That is the usual content of sections headed "Controversies" - not the seriousness of the incidents themselves. For some, even a belief in such visions might be "controversial", in the sense that they think it goes against what is factually possible. However, that's not a "controversy" in an encyclopedic sense, unless you are writing about how one subset of (reliably sourced) people say X about something, while another set say Y.

In the current context, to my mind, a controversy would be something along the lines of: "the children did such-and-such risky or questionable thing (according to this source / view), while some other people / authorities said what they did was not at all questionable or a problem. The sources that originally pointed out what an enormous problem it was, then accused the "It's-all-fine-and-dandy-group" (FADG) of condoning child abuse. The FADG expressed their view that the "Problem-pointing group" were just using this as a cover for their own prejudices, and had not considered X... Meanwhile, neutral child development experts had this to say ..."

The way it is framed now, the section presents certain facts and events. By placing them under the heading "Controversy" we, i.e. Wikipedia itself, is presenting the events as a controversy. And that is not WP's role. The sourced content itself does not directly say there is actually a controversy. [Controversy (noun): 1. A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views; dispute 2: Quarrel, strife. Controversy noun: A lot of disagreement or argument about something, usually because it affects or is important to many people.]

Articles are just to present the views - where pertinent - of sources, not editors. So, to be straightforward, we really need sources that say the children's actions or the reactions around them, or the ongoing commentary on them were / is a problem. (Or the way everything was handled, or the way the situation was interpreted by .. the parents? the church? created contention.) Somebody saying, for example, "It is appalling that there was no intervention in the families of these children", or religious authorities or commentators (of any kind) disputing the soundness of such experiences, or whatever it is that you perceive as the "controversy"

Also, it was not my intent to suggest that the content did not warrant it's own section - I see no problem with that. It was merely where the section should go, for the logical flow of the article as a whole I was musing on, and this is only my opinion, of course.

Unsure what you mean by the "asterisks". I added maintenance tags for the term "multiple occasions". This is too vague, even with citations. So for the tag specify, I was hoping for something like "On at least three occasions, Lucia told her cousins [something about her doubts] ... and for the when tag e.g."after the first and second experience", (for example - these are just made up, to illustrate).

To be fair, I think in this regard at least, you are drawing rather a long bow: the source (Lucia's memoir), says that her sceptical parish priest put the idea of the devil into her mind. He apparently responded to her first account of the vision by, as she quotes him:

It doesn’t seem to me like a revelation from heaven. It is usual in such cases for Our Lord to tell the souls to whom He makes such communications to give their confessor or parish priest an account of what has happened. But this child, on the contrary, keeps it to herself as far as she can. This may also be a deceit of the devil. We shall see. The future will show us what we are to think about it all.

Lucia then says:

How much this reflection made me suffer, only God knows ... I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil, who was seeking by these means to make me lose my soul. As I heard people say that the devil always brings conflict and disorder, I began to think that, truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt! I made known my doubts to my cousins.

With the best will in the world, I think the most that can be gleaned from this is the anxiety of a child faced with competing pressures and natural fears, manifesting themselves in religious doubts. It appears these doubts relating to the devil, lasted from the time of the priest's remarks until the next apparitional experience . Here I really cannot grasp any "controversy" at all, nor is any implied by these passages, at least in my reading. Suggesting such doubts are, in and of themselves, controversies, amounts to original research and editorialising.

Sorry for the very, very long reply. It seems as if I can only write too little or too much! Anyway, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts. You and other editors are, of course, as always, free to build the article - together - as you see fit. All the best AukusRuckus (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

To answer your question about the word “controversy,” of course this material is controversial. The dispute is in the material itself. The definition of “controversial” according to Oxford English Dictionary is “giving rise or LIKELY to give rise to public disagreement.” These new facts about Fatima are likely to give rise to public disagreement. Hundreds of millions of Catholics believe these apparitions are the real thing, the real Biblical Mary appearing to children in spirit form. A controvery section detailing how Mary falsely predicted the war would end on October 13, but was off by more than a year (!!), is wacky. It sullies her credibility and you know that. It is LIKELY to give rise to public debate, and you know that already also. Likewise, a Mary who encourages small children to torture their bodies with ropes, and with severe dehydration, until the children actually die, is also controversial. It is VERY LIKELY to give rise to public disagreement about the authenticity of these apparitions. Especially since Jesus said in the Bible “If anyone gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones, because he is my disciple, truly I tell you, he will not lose his reward.” Mary told the children that God was pleased with their sacrifices and to keep them up—she is referring to an omniscient God who knew these kids were in process of going without water for 30 days in a row in the hot sun—who knew these children would die in agony—and Jesus said the opposite thing: to provide cold water to “little ones.” This is controversial also, God and Jesus disagreeing.

Therefore the controversy section will remain titled CONTROVERSY, and it will remain in its current prime location.

Aukus Ruckus, for someone who states that they “do not have any strong feelings about the article” you certainly and conveniently had all the source materials right beside you, and you wrote quite a bit, so obviously you do have strong feelings. You are attempting to sound like some neutral casual person who just happened upon this page at the exact moment it was posted, yet your actions and timeliness are showing you are actually extremely personally invested in the outcome.

It seems this talk page only has a few people on it, meaning I have no idea if you are the alternate screen name of the other guy disputing with me, or a friend of his, or a clergy member of the Catholic church who was alerted that this info was coming out and panicked. This might be good cop/bad cop and it certainly appears that way.

This is not paranoia on my part. The Catholic Church has a notorious reptuation of suppressing information from the people. Just last week—last week—BBC and CNN reported that the Catholic Church worked hard to suppress information that Catholic Priests and Nuns had raped and molested over 200,000 additional children. Not two hundred. 200 THOUSAND additional cover-ups.

In other words, there is a REASON why the gory disturbing details of the Fatima “miracle” have never existed on the Wikipedia page until now. For years and years, I have checked Wiki, wondering to myself, “How can the facts not be on Wikipedia of all places? How can the gruesome horrific details of this particular Mary, which anyone can find in any library, not be on Wikipedia when there are 70 MILLION Catholics in America alone?? This is one of the biggest Catholic “miracles” and yet there are no facts on the Wikipedia page until now. That’s suspicious alright.

As for Lucia’s dream that the Devil was tricking her, did a doubting Priest insert that dream into her REM sleep as well? If you want to tamper with the Controversy section, and deposit asides that Lucia had doubts—but only because a doubting Priest inserted them there!!—then I need to fiddle with the rest of the apparition page, and write my own asides in parenthesis like (but the prediction never came true!) and (but only because Mary encouraged them to harm their bodies!) Otherwise the arguments in favor of the apparitions will stay at the top of the page, where you like them, and the arguments against the apparitions will be confined to the controversy section.

If you guys continue to try to dilute the controversy section, or bury it at the bottom of the Wiki page, where conveniently no one will read it, which I know is your real intent, then I will take this story to every newspaper, and then henceforth everyone can cite with authority THE NEW YORK TIMES or THE LOS ANGELES TIMES or CNN about Wikipedia gatekeepers and bogus Catholic miracles that promoted child suicide for the rest of time.Spyrazzle (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I did not realise. Just thought we could talk it over, but that's okay, I don't want anything to do with ... whatever this is. Was only doing my best at attempting a thoughtful discussion, being honest and constructive. Hard to know what brought that response on, but - I really feel for you. Please take care. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citation style

I am hoping to work my way through the refs for this article, converting them all to a consistent format. (I like tidying, it relaxes me!) Do other editors here have a preference? I'm happy to go with the consensus. I made a start, using list-defined cites, as some were already in that style, but there's also plenty in other styles. Thoughts? Please let me know your views. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Errors in Cite changes

You redid my citations wrong again. For citation 24 and citation 31 in the controversy section, they belong to 1952A, not B. Please change them. Accuracy is important here. It is fine if you "tidy," but you cannot change source material. Also the correct ISBN number for Lucia's memoir, for the edition that I used, is 972-8524-00-5. If it keeps coming up incorrectly in the coming year, I will have to add the citations back myself. I don't want to ever destroy your work, but I don't like mine being destroyed either. I worked hard on my contributions, same as you. Spyrazzle (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. However, I think you may not have noticed the 01:44, already corrected version and looked at an earlier - uncorrected - edit, instead of the latest. If you see the page from that 01:44 time stamp (or just look at the current page) you will notice that the correction had already been made, almost immediately. Thanks for the correct ISBN. I will put that in ASAP, but you should feel free to add it whenever you wish, too, if I am slow. (According to ISBN search, that is for the paperback 1998 edition; I had used a 10th ed. hardback ISBN, thinking that was what you had mentioned.) Best, AukusRuckus (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)