Talk:Our Lady of Akita

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Japan / Religion (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:57, October 5, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Religion task force.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Irrelevant information[edit]

I also deleted the section about the earthquake. It is in no way related to the topic and the text doesn't even make any attempt to relate it. paigeoliver on gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.37.212 (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the section about the March 2011 earthquake for NPOV. It appears to be an attempt to link the earthquake to the prophecies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markyw (talkcontribs) 08:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I am once again deleting the section about the March 2011 earthquake. It has no more relevance to this article than the fact that Akita is known for inago, a sweet teriyaki-like dish made of grasshoppers cooked in sake, or that Akita is the original home of the Akita dog (Akita inu), the famously loyal dog of Hachiko fame. It would be more suited to the Akita Prefecture stub. History2007 is simply trying to create the impression that the statue prophesied the earthquake. It did not.--Markyw (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is certainly "your opinion". However, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO you should not delete referenced text until you have discussed it and obtained consensus for doing so. We obviously disagree, but you should leave the "status quo" while discussions proceed. Hence I will restore it and then we can discuss. Do not revert again while discussions take place. History2007 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I see no connection between the shrine and the 2011 Earthquake & Tsunami. I move to delete the section. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on the Catholic News Service and USA Today articles[edit]

The deletion of those sources was suggested by Markyw based on the assessment that they are not relevant to this page. So let us ask the questions:

  • Are these two sources WP:RS sources? I think it is clear that these are both WP:RS sources since they are both widely used in Wikipedia.
  • Do these sources mention the "subject this article"? Yes, both sources mention the reported apparition on which this page is based. There is no dispute that both sources mention the apparition.
  • Can and should WP:RS sources that mention the topic of an article be mentioned in the article? Absolutely. Per WP:TPA we can/should explore "every aspect" that relates to the topic. WP:TPA specifically states that an article can and should "Acknowledge and explore all aspects of the subject". Hence this aspect of the subject can and should be explored.

Therefore, any claim that these sources "do not relate to the article" is not valid. Moreover teh current article text does not claim any implication between the two events, but simply reports an aspect that was reported in the press.

Furthermore, any claim that this material should move to the page on Akita is not viable, given that the news articles have a specifically "religious tone" and pertain to a religious page, not a page about the municipality. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Vatican approval[edit]

Oct 13, I double checked the EWTN source, and as of Nov 2011 they have added a note that they do not think Ratzinger approved it, but that Ito's approval still stands at the local bishop level. I changed the templates so Akita does not show as a Vatican approved item. However, "Theotokos.org" is absolutely not a WP:RS source and can not be used, even when it is quoting 30 days. So please find other sources, else we will just have to use the updated EWTN statement. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have since referenced Miracle Hunter, which gives more information on the matter.Oct13 (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry. Miracle Hunter is an absolute no-no. It is totally non-WP:RS, run by who knows... and full f other errors. Your initial information resulted in my rechecking EWTN and they had changed their position in Nov 2011, but these other sites are not WP:RS. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
What errors are on the site? Oct13 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In case you're interested, this combox includes a discussion of Akita's status (approved or condemned). Oct13 (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Those are all non-WP:RS sites. So their discussions can not be used in Wikipedia. So what is clear is that based on EWTN, the only approval is from Ito, and not Ratzinger. History2007 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
What errors are on Miracle Hunter? As for it being non-WP: I disagree. It includes two Church letters, which I referenced. I'm reverting the changes as such. Oct13 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is beginning to be a a waste of time. I have been aware of that site for several years. Just ask yourself the question:

  • Who operates miraclehunter.com? Any clue from the website? None.
"Michael O'Neill, creator of MiracleHunter.com, will be presenting a paper at the 2012 MSA Conference." (from the homepage) Oct13 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What evidence is there that the operator is not making things up? None.
To give one example: The Church letters I have been referring to all along. Oct13 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The WP:RS page states:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

It then says:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors.

Miraclehunter.com is a website operated by a group of "unknown people". It is not a WP:RS website. You can waste a day on WP:RSN and ask, or take my word for it. I do know the rules. It is NOT WP:RS. Period. History2007 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That's it, I'm getting an admin. Oct13 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you have attracted my attention by inappropriately attempting to get admins involved in this content dispute. Therefore I, as a non-admin but concerned editor, remind you, Oct13, that you need to review the policy WP:RS and understand what self-published sources are and those with no discernible editorial oversight. These are not considered reliable sources for the claims you are trying to make. We will continue to remove your claims until you can cite reliable secondary sources such as news articles. Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Oct13, I think you have good intentions, but may be somewhat new to the issues. In general, WP:ANI actions are needed when there are major issues, not these types of reference related items, as Elizium correctly pointed out. However, I would encourage you to not to get discouraged, but just get to know WP:RS, WP:V and WP:Truth and the specific noticeboards such as WP:RSN which deal with specific issues - that was why I suggested that board first. In any case, please do continue to look for sources, and add material to various articles, per WP:V. Your initial suggestion did result in my rechecking EWTN and correcting things based on that. And I would also encourage you to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and get involved in various topics, given that as stated here we do need more active editors. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

MiracleHunter.Com[edit]

To quote:

"Miraclehunter.com is a tertiary site, presenting a collection of letters with secondary sources cited. In the instance of Akita, a letter from Bishop Ito is cited to Fukushima, Francis Mutsuo. Akita: Mother of God as CoRedemptrix. Modern Miracles of Holy Eucharist, Publishing Company (July 1997); a letter from the Apostlic Nuncio in Tokyo is cited to Christian Order, December 1999, p. 610. These sources themselves should be verified and vetted as WP:RS or non-RS as the case may be. It cannot be permitted to use Miraclehunter.com directly, as it lacks editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)"

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct13 (talkcontribs) 05:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is irrelevant and doesn't comply to wikipedia standards[edit]

"Facts" and referenced only with books by christian apologetic authors and not one scientific paper reviewed by peers, in other words: the Vatican approved the "miracle" but it doesn't mean that the scientific community approves this "miracle". Approved by the Vatican means what it means nothing else, it doesn't mean in any way that the "tears" are really tears, it only means that FOR cathiolics ONLY , they are considerted genuine tears and ONLY for catholics. This whole article is ridden with apologetic sentences and fake truths which do not comply with a neutral tone. It's like saying "Jesus resurrected" and putting a ref which would be a quote from the bible or from a tome of medieval theology. Putting such a ref would legitimate the belief amongst the religious community who considers it real but such litterary references do not prove in any way whatsoever the scientific reality of the matter, thus in absence of scientific proof there is NOTHING WRONG in writing "claimed" or "alleged" ion front of the word "tears" in the case of this article. Just wake up and keep a NON RELIGIOUS and NEUTRAL tone on wikipedia, guys. Enough bullshit with refs that do not prove anything but just relate the fact that the Vatican approved a given "miracle" and that the catholic community thus believes in it, ALONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: Missing prophecy?[edit]

The Fatima article links here regarding supposedly shared visions of internal corruption of the church. If something is missing, we should at least acknowledge that; if some claim the page's current content are the entirety of the message & others claim there is more, we should at least acknowledge that.  — LlywelynII 18:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)