Jump to content

Talk:Angelik Caruana

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation needed

[edit]

All of the mentioned information is too biased, we need to update due to reports of fraud as alleged by top maltese forensic experts. there was no mention of the fact that the forensic team concluded the fact as 'strongly dubious' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.76.92 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bishop of Malta knows about this case. I cannot make a citation, because as I explained, the Church has not yet published anything official, since the apparitions are still going on and it is the policy of the Church not to comment officially over apparitions-in-progress. However, please note that this case has become famous all over Malta.Alan347 (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knows about yes, because of the publicity. Made a decision, not yet. If the Church is sure, they can make a decision VERY quickly as they did in the case of Our Lady of Akita, where Ratzinger approved it in no time because Bishop Ito went to Rome with the story. If they have made no declaration, it means ONLY one thing: they are not sure. So let us wait before we huff and puff ahead of them - wait for a decision before you jump the gun and remember the Civitavecchia statue. Give it time. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's important. I made a citation reg. the fact that the case has been reported to the Vatican by the Arch-bishop. Reported yes, officially declared no. The alleged apparitions are at the moment still going on weekly with messages being circulated and phenomena occuring.Alan347 (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we will wait and see what happens. Our Lady of Laus was reported in 1664 and was approved in 2008, so the approval may not come next week. But who knows. I am not the pope. History2007 (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, reference 4 is broken. The reason I know that is I was trying to verify the sentence "and is being taken seriously by the Catholic Church." is part of the reference. That sounds like WP:OR.Marauder40 (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the weeping statue page says most of them have been hoaxes. The Akita case was really different because the statue cried on national TV. So maybe they can put this on TV too. Until then we can not take these things seriously. History2007 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angelik Caruana was mentioned many times on local TV stations. In the news, and in programs where they summon him up to talk. Refer to Xarabank, TVM News, TVM. Alan347 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Case was reported to Vatican by Arch-bishop implies it is being taken seriously, otherwise he would not have reported case to Vatican. Fr. Elias Vella (exorcist), Fr. Hayden Williams O.F.M. (Spiritual Director of Angelik Caruana), Psychitarist Mark Xuereb are closly following the case. Doesnt' this mean the case is being taken seriously ? Alan347 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Civitavecchia was reported to the Vatican too and was taken seriously, so seriously in fact that they sued them. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alan I am not sure whether you understand what I am saying. If you added the portion "and is being taken seriously by the Catholic Church." without it being in the reference then you are doing WP:OR. You can assume all you want but unless you have something that says the Catholic Church is "taking it seriously" you cannot put it in the article. All you have to do to get rid of the Original research is say that it was reported to the Vatican and leave it at that. We are here to put up the facts, not draw assumptions based on the facts. Also you still haven't addressed the fact that the link itself is broken. Marauder40 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively we could wait for the court case, whichever comes first. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History2007, I have no problem with him adding the information on this alleged apparition to the local page as long as he brings it up to Wiki "standards". Whether other people from that area have a problem with it as notable or not is another matter. Just like if there was ever a marian apparition at my local church or friary I would probably put it on the respective pages for that church or local city. Just as long as there isn't an attempt to take the apparition to one of the "higher" up pages until more is made of the apparition either from the church itself or from the international news.
Alan, one comment I have is, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears English may be your second language. There are lots of gramatical errors in what you have added. You may want to run it through a grammer/spell checker. Marauder40 (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made a page for it anyway. The ONLY way is to wait and see what happens. In the early days of Akita, who knew what would happen, and in the early days of Civitavecchia lots of people put their hopes in it. So given that neither of us (as far as I know) runs the Holy Office, we will have to wait and see what happens. In the meantime, the only thing i snot to oversell it - because that is not the sign of authenticity. In fact Akita was never oversold, and was very low key at the start. History2007 (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
edited article accordingly and corrected link. I will translate word for words the first paragraph from Maltese to English.

"L-allegati dehriet tal-Madonna fuq l-Għolja ta' Borġ in-Nadur lil Angelik Caruana kienu riferuti lill-Vatikan. L-istess sar fil-każ tal-allegati fenomeni li qed jiġru fuq l-istatwa tal-Immakulata Kunċizzjoni, fid-dar tal-familja Caruana. Dan ħabbru l-Arċisqof Pawl Cremona fil-programm "Dissett", li xxandar fuq ix-Xandir Nazzjonali. "

=

The alleged apparitions of Our lady on the Borg in-Nadur Hill to Angelik caruana were referred to the Vatican. The same has been done to the alleged pheonomena that are happening to the statue of the Immacculate conception at the residence of the family Caruana. This was announced by Archbishop Paul Cremona in the program "Dissett", that was broadcasted on the National Television Station TVM. Alan347 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography vs apparitions

[edit]

[[

File:Saintmaryghaxaq.JPG|thumb|140px|Għaxaq statue]]

I think the page on the location that deals with geography really must be separated from Borġ in-Nadur apparitions which is a different topic and may or may not meet notability anyway. History2007 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Categories: | Maltese prehistory | Archaeological sites in Malta | History of Malta | Megalithic monuments in Europe | Megalithic Temples of Malta | Neolithic, surely are different ! Alan347 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Alan the answer to the questions you changed your mind about are:
  • I am no where near Malta and have no immediate plans to go there. But funnily enough I had thought of one day going to Għaxaq, just because it has this statue that is a great work of art - one of my favorites. So where are the good beaches near there?
  • Regarding hesitation and skepticism, there is a VERY good reason for it. I do not have the references but while Civitavecchia was going on, it received a lot of press, and many innocent souls put their heart in it. When it turned out to be fake they were all disappointed. And what is more there was really serious backlash. I remember that the newspapers reported that joke statues of the Virgin Mary started to appear that if you pressed it they would cry, etc. Overall, Civitavecchia was a "disaster" for Marian apparitions and Mariology as a whole. So fake apparitions do MUCH more damage than you may think. I have no idea if this one is real or fake - but letting it get oversold, over-hyped and over-promoted before approval is setting up another disaster if it turns out to be fake. So we must do what the Vatican does: do not jump to conclusions. Do not over sell or over hype. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

factual accuracy disputed.

[edit]

What is disputed ?

There are huge claims of events taking place, and of an extraordinary nature. None of which has extraordinary sources, indeed hardly any WP:Reliable sources. It seems to me that Wikipedia is getting used to promote a really obscure event that mainstream news (except a local channel in Malta) is just ignoring, for it can not be verified. History2007 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The event is taking place, it is verified precisely because it is taking place. Alan347 (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

additional citations for verification

[edit]

What additional citations are needed for verificatoin ?

As above. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was also featured on The Malta times of 19 February 2008 (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080219/letters/the-case-of-angelique-caruana) Alan347 (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sources

[edit]

What are all the "P123" page references referring to? User:Alan347 added about a hundred of them (I've since cut the excessive quotations down so that it's only using a few), but I can't see which book they're referring back to. --McGeddon (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McGeddon, we've been meeting for a while haven't we? you really get to know people from Wikipedia! pleased to meet you! I'm Alan 27 yrs from Malta. The P quotations are taken from the official site of the Borg in-Nadur Apparitions (English version). http://www.borgin-nadur.org/en/bidu.php Alan347 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll replace them with URL links. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Changes

[edit]

I'd also would like to do a minor change. Angelik is known in Malta as Angelik. Alan347 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kairological scenario - December 2010

[edit]

The apparitions are still going on and messages are still being given on a weekly basis on the site of Borg in-Nadur. The promised stream of water has not yet appeared. Alan347 (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and NPOV

[edit]

Considering the small amount of attention that has been paid to this topic by independent sources, it seems to be barely notable - but giving it the benefit of the doubt on that point, the article certainly needs a rewrite to make it comply with our neutral point of view policy. At present there's far too much primary sourcing of what this guy has said and too little from the necessary reliable secondary sources.  —SMALLJIM  00:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. With no clear-cut objections to the move in two and a half weeks, and no conversation in almost that long, I'm carrying this out. McGeddon is seeing to the relevant rewriting involved. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borġ in-Nadur apparitions → Angelik Caruana – The visions are only experienced by one person, and the article seems to be as much about Caruana as his visions at Borġ in-Nadur - it mentions other aspects of his life, such as the bleeding statues at his home, the visions at other locations, and his breach of security at the Vatican. If anything the sources refer more to him as a person than to his visions. McGeddon (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only briefly, in his capacity as someone who has been "accompanying Angelic Caruana" - the sources don't allege that he is also seeing the visions, or anything. --McGeddon (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "one man has visions in several places" merits a split into one article for the man and one for (some of) his visions. Do you have any thoughts on the suggested move? --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is more than ' one man has visions in several places ' and 'some of his visions' as he has a number of followers and that particular place attracts a number of visitors. Alan347 (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But they're only there because of him - no other person has seen a vision at Borġ in-Nadur, the article is effectively about "Angelik Caruana's Borġ in-Nadur apparitions". The two subjects of "Borġ in-Nadur apparitions" and "Angelik Caruana" seem close enough that it's better to put everything in the same article and avoid repetition. --McGeddon (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bold article split

[edit]

User:Alan347 boldly split this article into a second article at Angelik Caruana, halfway through the above discussion on whether it should be moved to that same destination. Per WP:PROSPLIT, I've reverted it pending consensus that the article needs to be split at all - it's fine to say in the move discussion that you think the article should instead be split, but unhelpful to go ahead and do that unilaterally while the discussion is ongoing. --McGeddon (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Angelik Caruana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Angelik Caruana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 23:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Angelik Caruana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

[edit]

Has the place been abandoned by pilgrims ? I went there a couple of times. There is the cross and the statue but no people. Also I checked for any trace of water that should have appeared but there is none.Alan347 (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angelik_Caruana&oldid=1257376379"