Talk:Knock Shrine

Untitled

Ta dah! I will work on it further, never fear!--File Éireann 09:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Duplicates?

Knock Shrine and Our Lady of Knock are imo duplicates --ClemMcGann 11:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

They are two different things. 75.3.4.54 23:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not fear, my poet friend, and I fully intend to assist you. Fr. Pius O Shaughnessy 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cavanagh and not Kavanagh

Cavanagh is the correct spelling. The wrong spelling originated in a newspaper article of the time and has been widely copied. In the two references I have given, which are quite authoritative being printed by P J Kennedy, who were publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, Cavanagh is used. The first reference also reproduces a signed letter from Cavanagh, and he should know the proper spelling of his own name :) BrianistPunk 16:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Some helpful fella has deleted your refs. 212.71.37.83 (talk)

Skepticism

Not a single word about the considerable skeptic views of the "miracle", both at the time and ever since? Talk about POV!!! 212.71.37.83 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The reservations of Dr. Lennon, Professor of Science at the Pontifical University of Maynooth should be mentioned. He was of the opinion that the apparition was an image projected from the recently invented "magic Lantern". That protestant pranksters might be seeking to discredit catholicism. His concerns limited the initial bishops' inquiry to just say that "the testimony of all the witnesses taken as a whole is trustworthy and satisfactory". they didn't go so far as to endorse the apparition. Fr Lennon attempted to reproduce the effect but failed as there was no way to conceal the lantern. It has since been suggested in a Channel 4 television report that the lantern could have been in the apex of the roof of the church, deflected down with a mirror. The program implicates the parish priest in the deception. It failed to consider that the roof at the time was thatch, which could have burnt down from the oil lamp of the early magic lantern ClemMcGann (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited POV tag

I've removed this today as nobody has argued for or against it since Dec 2007. Put it back and argue your point if you like.Red Hurley (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of the Apparition

This section may not be NPOV and seems to be in breach of WP:SPECULATION.Autarch (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Not to mention MOS:OPED.Autarch (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Said section has now been excised.Autarch (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

There is only one footnote in the whole article - more would be helpful.Autarch (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"some Catholics" ?

I've changed this to "Catholics". Surely, a basic requirement of being a Catholic is that you accept the authority of the Church in these matters once it has looked into the facts and certified the miracle/apparition. To refuse to accept the teaching of the Church because you think you know better than the bishops would surely make you a Protestant.Haldraper (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

But the Church has *not* "certified the miracle/apparition.". It is *not* a requirement to believe that the "miracle/apparition" took place. The Commission's final verdict was that the "testimony of all the witnesses taken as a whole is trustworthy and satisfactory", that falls short of the Commission declaring that the "miracle/apparition" took place. Dr. Lennon, Professor of Science at Maynooth College, reckoned it was a magic lantern and warned the commission that it could be a protestant plot! ClemMcGann (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that quote can be taken to say that the Commission thought the witnesses were honest and that there were no contradictions that the Commission could find. That still leaves the possibility that there was a non-supernatural explanation that the Commission couldn't think of or couldn't refute.Autarch (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing it better than mo pinign amhain ClemMcGann (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed template {{pov-check|date=October 2009}}

I removed this template {{pov-check|date=October 2009}}, as it does not meet the requirements of: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:POV-check&oldid=319657811:

"Use this template to request that an article be checked for POV ("Point of View"). The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies."--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Magic Lantern

While I am inclined to favor this theory, it raises a problem: where was the lantern located? If it was outside, it would cast shadows. If it was in the roof space, deflected by a mirror, then the image would be distorted and the heat from these early lanterns would have set the thatch roof on fire. ClemMcGann (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

        See? that means that the magic lantern story is fake

personal opinion of Knock

its a nice place to stop and have a picnic on a long car journey =) 86.150.39.100 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Croatian article on the subject

I don`t understand why Croatian article on this subject is not shown among other languages. See: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveti%C5%A1te_Knock Ante Vranković (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The 'magic lantern' and the skeptical theories

Skeptical theories are warranted. I did not touch the analysis on skeptical analysis, but it is wrong and inappropriate to litter the article with half-baked sociological analysis that doesn't explain anything and merely confuses the issue.

Writing about the 'change' that the region was going through at the time of the apparitions is useless - there literally would be no period in the last 500 years where Western Europe wasn't undergoing significant change. That explanation could be used as a blanket statement for any apparition. It is lazy and not helpful at all. It was not cited to any real sociological analysis by any reputable person - it was written in without citations as background commentary.

The magic lantern theory was in the article twice and the second instance was removed. The Church investigation of the apparition - over 650 pages long, completed in 1896 - specifically took into the account the 'magic lantern' theory and the other theories on how the images could have been generated and demonstrated how they are not reasonable. The user who inserted the magic lantern theory failed to cite a map of the area, a picture of the buildings, or any other reasonable way to demonstrate what they propose - because any reasonable familiarity with the area shows how silly the theory is.

Unsourced skeptical sociological analysis is not appropriate for an event with sworn statements that has been investigated to the extent that it has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD143726 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It is one thing to remove unsourced/uncited information from the articl. You removed sourced material as well, and I will add it back into the article until a consensus is reached here deciding whether or not it should be removed. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You did not respond to the substance of the complaints above. Please do so or leave the article as it is. Banal sociological analysis that could apply to any situation in Europe for the last 500 years should not dominate a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD143726 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Upgrade to a class 2 rel^Wshrine?

Lots of news stories that Knock is now an "International Sanctuary of Special Eucharistic and Marian Devotion". Some of the stories go on to say that gives it the same status as Fátima and Lourdes, but I don't see them anywhere described in those terms. So is this a formal category of shrines? Or just a fancy ad hoc title? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

minor vandalism

The latter sentences of the section "Apparition" contain the repeated phrase "and Margaret Beirne", including an entire sentence. Sounds like a Father Ted script! A1jrj (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Marion Carroll

Feel like there should be some mention of Marion Carroll and her spontaneous healing from severe Multiple Sclerosis during a Mass on a pilgrimage to Knock. This is not a "claimed healing" as much as something that happened with countless witnesses. She got up from a stretcher and supine position she had been confined to for years and walked as if nothing had happened. Testimony such as this would provide a nice counter balance to the standard skeptical analysis section featured prominently on Marian apparition articles. This could go here or on the Basilica article, I think. 2601:500:8785:8750:30F2:102:75E5:806B (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)