Talk:Marian apparition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Marian apparitions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
I read about another apparition on this really lovely website. Isn't that a reliable source for this page?
Probably not. Anybody could put up a website and write whatever they want on it. It might accidentally contain serious errors, or it could even be a hoax intended to embarrass people or to swindle prospective donors.
What kinds of sources are ideal?
The official websites and publications of newspapers and magazines, books published by universities or reputable publishers (not vanity press or self-publishing), and scholarly papers. Official statements by appropriate church officials are also often useful.

Does someone have references for this section?[edit]

Hi there. This article was a bit of a mess (for one thing, Kibeho was in four different sections as Church-approved, local-approved, not approved, and in some section where somebody was claiming the bishop's prosecution was a complication somehow with no source support) and I have been trying to clean it up and add sources.

I know you all went over the specific question of "bishop's role vs. Holy See role" a few sections below, and it may be that the original posters are not reading this page any more (I see one showing in red), but I thought I would ask, does anyone have any actual source support for this section?

A Roman Catholic approved Marian apparition is one that has been examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either based on the criteria listed above (or internal procedures in place before that) and has been granted approval either through the local Bishop based on the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or received a direct approval from the Holy See.
Although a local bishop may provide a preliminary assessment (and allow the devotion to proceed forward), formal approval can only be provided after detailed analysis by the Holy See. For instance, although the apparitions at Our Lady of Laus were recognized by the local diocese in 1665, they received approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith centuries later, in 2008.

Specifically the part about the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needing to step in and confirm the bishop's approval for it to be fully "approved". I am not finding this in the sources so far and there are no citations in the section as it exists. Furthermore, it seems like in the case of Kibeho, the bishop made a local approval, the Vatican then published his approval, and now Pope Francis is speaking like he's in agreement that Mary appeared in Rwanda. I didn't see any place where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was explicitly involved in all that (of course, I may have missed it in the weighty documents).

There have been a couple other local approvals by bishops (Our Lady of Good Help, and Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas in Argentina which has been reported in Catholic and secular media as being a big deal) where I am not seeing the Congregation involvement in the published sources, yet the approval appears to be accepted by the Church. I am wondering if this confusion all stemmed from the fact that in some cases Bishops have not given the formal approval to the apparition although they've authorized or permitted devotion (e.g. Pellevoisin, other places where churches were built and the bishop is not objecting but not promoting it either) and that somehow got confused with the bishop declaring the apparition supernatural after the investigation, per the Fr Perrella sources. And of course there are the weird cases like the one where the Church booted Claudio Gatti, or Our Lady of All Nations where Bishop no. 1 didn't approve it and the Congregation agreed with him multiple times and then Bishop no. 2 decided years later to approve it and the Congregation is questioning that.

Anybody have actual source support for the above paragraph? If not I will have to look for some, or rewrite it. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Borġ in-Nadur as notable[edit]

The Borġ in-Nadur apparitions are to be considered notable because:

Please read the WP:Reliable guidelines. Blogs do not normally meet reliability guidelines. Youtube links are not allowed for references. You must find some third party links to use as valid references and to meet notability guidelines. Marauder40 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Marauder and have to invoke WP:BRD for Alan. I am sorry to start with Alan on a warning note, but these comments do not help constructive editing. I hope Alan will read policies and act constructively. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
YouTube videos can certainly be considered reliable sources, depending on the reliability of the account responsible for publishing them. Consider this video about 9/11 survivors from ABC News. It is just as reliable as ABC News' website or television show. However, there are many reasons to reject YouTube videos as reliable sources. This includes the case of copyright violation. In this particular case of the YouTube links cited above, I do not see any particular reliability of the sources behind them. They appear to be independent people with no particular editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking. Therefore the sources would be considered questionable, and the links would not be usable for establishing notability or backing up any contentious claims made. Elizium23 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Our Lady of Good Help apparitions[edit]

Hello, the New York Times had an article about Marian apparitions at a Wisconsin chapel, apparitions that were approved by the local bishop after years of investigation. I think this is notable enough to mention in the article but I don't know how to make it fit into the article--it is too recent to have had the cultural impact of better-known apparitions. Any suggestions? Thanks. LovesMacs (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarity needed regarding role of local bishop and of Holy See (CDF)[edit]

The article seems to suggest (under "Local diocese approval") that approval by a local bishop is not authoritative by itself, but needs further approval by the Holy See. The article gives the sample of "Our Lady of Laus".

That would be an incorrect impression. While CDF sometimes assists bishops, and may even intervene on its own initiative, according to the procedures described in Normae Congregationis, any final judgment of approval is given by the local bishop in his own name, as the example of Laus illustrates.[1] --Chonak (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there are two levels of approval, one at the local Bishop the other in Rome. There are a whole pile of refs that say that beyond the CNA article, I will have to look for them again. And there is even a detailed document on that somewhere. But I am pretty sure it is a structured ladder, where the local Bishop approval is lower level than the Rome approval. I will look in a day or two, but as Father Parella said in the Laus article there are ONLY 12 approved by Rome while there are many more by local Bishops. History2007 (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is funny. I found Normae Congregationis after a little while and it looks like you already know about it, for you have edited it. And EWNTN also has it. So I think that answers it. And the article already mentions Catalina Rivas who continues to have the full support of the local Bishop (I wonder how... or who she paid off... who knows?) but it is certain that her writings/messages were lifted/copied/stolen from previously published handbooks for training seminarians. Rivas has no hope of getting approval in Rome, but the local Bishop is still smiling. History2007 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions, History2007. As a tip: please be careful about the reference URLs. One was a broken "avantgo" link, and two others pointed to the same CNA article on different web sites. I've cleaned this up in the Laus article, but I left it here so that you can compare the two, and tidy the links up here too if you wish.
You can't really rely on the press, even the Catholic press, to get the procedural bits right. Many people have the impression that approval by the Holy See is a necessary step in reviewing apparition claims. I can't blame them for thinking so, because the point is not very important overall and it's rarely addressed. An overview of the history of Marian apparitions shows, however, that a declaration from the Holy See is not common or necessary. It's surprising: in a book excerpt which I translated, Prof. Manfred Hauke (chairman of the German Society for Mariology) indicates that many renowned apparitions have never been the subject of a declaration by the Holy See, and some never even received formal local recognition: [2]) (see pp. 8ff): Guadalupe (local approval only, until 1999), Miraculous Medal (no formal recogition of supernatural origin, only approval of the devotion), Knock (local approval only).
In general, I think the pattern is this: if some aspect of an apparition violates Catholic teaching, CDF sometimes gives warnings; but CDF leaves the approval, the official recognition of "supernatural origin", up to the bishop. There is even a Catholic theological reason for this deference to the local bishop, but I won't take up space on this Talk page about it. (Feel free to e-mail me
Thanks for mentioning Catalina Rivas; I hadn't heard of her before. What a story! --Chonak (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for correcting the links. And Rivas is one story Claudio Gatti (also mentioned) is another. There is an industry for claiming apparitions, so caution is advised. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed "papal Marian apparitions"[edit]

This section consisted of speculation, so I removed it. The passage did contain some references, but none of them specifically confirmed the particular supposed apparition events described. -- Chonak (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably a good move, although some may go back if sources are for sure. I have not looked into this much, but by and large they are folk tales. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Weeping statues[edit]

I moved this here:

Weeping statues are one of the rare instances where the Church authorities and the skeptics simultaneously pursue hoaxes. The upper levels of the Vatican have been very careful in their approach and treatment of weeping statues, and generally set very high barriers for their acceptance. For instance when a statue of the popular Saint Padre Pio in Messina, Sicily was found to have tears of blood one day in 2002, Church officials quickly ordered tests that showed the blood to belong to a woman and then dismissed the case as a hoax.[1][2] Even at the local level, Catholic priests have expelled people who claim weeping statues with apparitions from their local Church.[3]

In 1995, the owner of a Madonna statue that appeared to weep blood in the town of [[]] in Italy refused to take a DNA test and the case was dismissed as a hoax.[4] In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood.[5]

In 1985 the Moving statues phenomenon at Ballinspittle, County Cork, Ireland, attracted thousands of devotees, some of whom saw a plaster statue of the Virgin Mary move. In 2002 Police Sergeant John Murray told the BBC that "suddenly, without warning, there was a gasp from the crowd as the statue, which is embedded in concrete, appeared to be airborne for half a minute. I was so convinced it was a fraud that I climbed up into the grotto the next morning and tried to shake the statue, but it wouldn't budge. I checked the back, the sides of it for any trip wires, but I couldn't find anything."[6]

It ought to go in an article specifically about weeping or moving statues. This is a different issue from apparitions of Mary herself. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably so, although given that the Akita item is mentioned, there is probably need for a small mention here, given that many readers already associate statues with supernatural events. And given that there are so many hoaxes, it will be good to mention this. I will shorten it and add a small version in, then add the rest to the weeping page. By the way, for fun, I should tell you the attorney for the Civitavecchia fellow said that "The Virgin had to get the blood from somewhere, so she just got it from my client, so it has his DNA"... That was funny. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Hah hah hah hah... that's a good one. Thanks. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bayside issue[edit]

Links were added to the article body and text was altered for Bayside Apparitions. It seems out of place to add them for one unapproved apparition, and adds nothing to the article. I am going to pull them, but wanted to add notice to other editors. Dominick (TALK) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There are those who will add Bayside back later... I suggest saying that Bayside was a "no go" and removing the external link to it at the end. If you recall, this page was a total mess with that table 2 years ago, so these are remnants of that. Fortunately, there has been some calm for a while. History2007 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Our Lady of Good Success[edit]

Sorry its my first time editing wikipedia, I hope my edits and references as regards Our Lady of Good Success on the page Marian Apparitions are alright now? Levi19910 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I am sorry they are not based on WP:RS sources - not reliable. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. They are self-published, "who knows if it is true" web sites. Please find a few Zenit News Agency, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Service NY Times Los Angeles Times type articles, then can add if you have those types of sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have found three books, published by different publishers, with different authors, and a journal article? I hope this will suffice, if not why? They are the same sources used on the ppage of Our Lady of Good Success Levi19910 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No, sorry, some of those books are published by the same local organization and are not WP:RS. The "journal" is a personal website. Look, if this had been approved it would have been mentioned here as Fatima, Lourdes, etc. do and would not have been restricted to an unknown publisher and would have shown up on the EWTN website. It does not. The fact that you could not find "one single" reference in Zenit News Agency, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Service NY Times Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe The Guardian etc. already tells you it is not approved. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The journal is not a personal website, the Michael journal does however have a website. The books are authority and I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines. The fact it is not on the ewtn website does not prove it isn't approved it proves it isn't well known there is a difference. I do not see anywhere saying I have to link to those sources, I see guidelines for reputable sources which I have provided, particularly considering one of the books is written by a mgsr. I have provided 4 different books at least 3 of which are published by different companies. If you really want I will email the diocese and get an official reply. Levi19910 (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources can be considered reliable for Catholic doctrine. I have researched the Foundation for a Christian Civilization (otherwise known as the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property) and found that they are an extreme right-wing fringe group who have been denounced by the episcopal conference in their founding country. (Source: pt:Tradição,_Família_e_Propriedade#Cr.C3.ADticas - Portuguese language). This statement says that they misuse the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Publications by this organization cannot be seen to accurately reflect official Catholic doctrine. As for Tradition in Action, this is again a fringe group, reviewed here by Catholic Culture, who assert that TIA's members are guilty of 'ridiculing the Roman clergy, the Pope, and many prominent Catholic leaders and religious. Their manner of presenting pictures and commentary completely aside from any context is both a misrepresentation of facts and disgraceful to the Church and Her hierarchy.' and that the website 'ridicules the living Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium and therefore, it cannot validly claim a right to defense of Holy Mother Church. We recommend avoiding it altogether.'. Again, this organization cannot be seen as upholding the doctrine of the Catholic Church and its publications are suspect for this reason. Elizium23 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
However, after doing some research on the particular apparition in question, I have determined that it is approved by the Catholic Church and worthy of inclusion here. There is an article about it on Fisheaters which I cannot share, thanks to Wikipedia's idiotic blacklist; Fisheaters can tend to the Traditionalist side but their articles are generally reliable reflections of Catholic doctrine. I'd still advise finding sources as History2007 suggests that are more mainstream and reputable to back up the information in that section. Elizium23 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I would like to toss in WP:Third. So lets talk about the sources. As stated before, the books, "A Spanish Mystic in Quito: Sor Mariana de Jesus Torres" published by Foundation for a Christian Civilization"La sonrisa de la Señora: Historia de la Virgen del Buen Suceso", "Stories and miracles of Our Lady of Good Success" Tradition in Action are all essentially vanity publishers. These groups publish books in support of something they want to sway opinion about. While they may show someone has an opinion on the topic, it does not reveal verifiable facts. One danger on wikipedia is many sources that purport to publish Catholic Doctrine do not have have an imprimatur from a competent Catholic authority, and in these modern times, many texts on Catholic theology that are published by major houses never even seek an imprimatur. You may also uses books from a major publisher, that is not a vanity publisher. Alternatively, if you go to a periodical, like a city Paper, or even even a Diocecean newspaper you would have more success is p[roving your case. "Our Lady of Good Success, in Quito, Ecuador" is a online article, and that doesn't work on wikipedia due to WP:V. Dominick (TALK) 11:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I did actually reference two reputable blogs written by clergy in good standing with Rome but apparently they had to be deleted. The apparitions are also on the official tourist information site of the city of Quito and listed as a patron saint of the archdiocese of quito, would any of this be any help? Levi19910 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So its a blog I know, but the author is a priest and theology professor for the diocese of southwark in the UK, surely that counts for something? If just to show its not just extremists that believe in the apparition Levi19910 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have it what about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Levi19910 (talkcontribs) .

Read below what I wrote. We know what we know, but we have to write here from reliable sources. Dominick (TALK) 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Valid sources for "Our Lady of Success"[edit]

I have found this source from a EWTN service mentioning OLOS and I found this source which is a tourist site and here is a site dedicated to WYD 2011 mentioning it in a blog that is normally useless for our purposes, but had some information to lead us right: and I found evidence that this is a approved apparition. in the "la Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Buen Suceso" whish is of course OLGS. We now can prove this is an approved apparition to anyone coming onto the site without relying on activist sites like fisheaters, TIA or the myriad of "wheels upon wheels" Dominick (TALK) 12:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is what we have in dispute:

  • The apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success are said to have appeared to Mother Mariana, A conceptionist nun in Quito, Ecuador, from 1599 until Mother Mariana's death in 1635.
    • Easily show from the sources above, the best source would be a reference to the Bishop's approbation, and the 1991 request for coronation in Quito.
  • The apparitions are reported by Mother Mariana as concerning a crisis the Catholic Church would face in the 20th century as well as a series of prophecies relating events from the 17th to the 20th centuries.
    • This is unproven at all from all the sources I have, in fact the claim is unknown before the 20th century.
  • The apparitions were approved and given formal recognition by the local Bishop, Salvador de Ribera in 1611.
    • Again easily proven, but I found no evidence on the website.

If I can ask you, maybe you and I can clean up the main article Our Lady of Good Success as well. Dominick (TALK) 12:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I really am greatful! :) Levi19910 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So lets resolve the issues. First and third statements are OK, if we have a source. I would say you come up with a source, and post it here so don't make the other guys feel bad, then we can restore the content. I would say number two is out until a source we agree on says this was the case. We can both agree, this is not the first time people have attributed statements to a apparition. Dominick (TALK) 12:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable, did you say you'd found a source approving the apparition in 1611? If not we could just state its approved and link to the request for coronation? Levi19910 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not directly, just things that show it must have been approved. Nothing in Spanish either. Look at my starter sources above. (BTW a colin : as the first character indents once, two indents more) Dominick (TALK) 12:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This would do for claims 2 and 3 I think Levi19910 (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No that is a blog, I used it to get to a photo of the Church, showing that a Church named for OLGS exists in a licit Catholic Diocese, and that means that somewhere there is approval. We have to be careful because we have restrictions on original research, but I am certain there is evidence that lets us post facts 1 and 3 easily enough. Dominick (TALK) 13:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty well I'm gonna be busy for a few hours so I'll update it then along with you if that's alright? Levi19910 (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I will look again, I have a little time waiting for an edit on another writing project. Dominick (TALK) 13:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But let us once and for all establish that "the worth" of Micheal's journal in Wikipedia is zero. A flat zero. It is not WP:RS by any measure. And this apparition even if a Bishop's letter is found does not belong to the class of Lourdes which has been approved in Rome. In any case, Levi19910 material has to move out of that section, and a small mention may be made somewhere else if WP:RS sources are found. I posted about this on the Proj Catholicism page and it was suggested that an FAQ be added that establishes that Micheal's journal is not a journal, etc. This is just taking up time again and again explaining items that are already in the WP:RS page. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem Histoy2007, may I mention respectfully, lets not smack Levi19910! I agree Michael's journal is a zero as is most of Tradition in Action's claims. I have one thing from a Quito newspaper. With my faulty Spanish, showing there is a statue and reported vision. So far I have nothing saying anything about specifics of the prophecy, but Mariana de Jesús was mentioned without the prophecy. The Church may talk about private revelation but we all know the Church does not approve Prophecy after the death of the last Apostle, not even Fatima. I think we can publish facts 1 and 3, but we still need independent verification of anything else. I don't think the listing hurts, but the 20th century stuff is not verified. Dominick (TALK) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, but I think the FAQ suggestion was good, and it should include the statement that already appears in teh article:
According to Father Salvatore M. Perrella of the Marianum Pontifical Institute in Rome, of the 295 reported apparitions studied by the Holy See through the centuries only 12 have been approved, the latest being the May 2008 approval of Our Lady of Laus.
That and blogs not being usable etc. I can not even remember how many times those have been repeated now in the past 2-3 years. It is getting tiresome and a FAQ page is needed here. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I see the issue here. I just said there was an apparition, of Our Lady of Good Success, not that there was anything else. I did state there was no Vatican mention, but there is a Saint Mariana de Jesus aka the Lily of Quito, and she was the reported visionary in this case. I will go look at the FAQ. Dominick (TALK) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed so what are we doing in the end? As far as I can see we have sources that state the apparition is approved, apparitions do not need Vatican approval something the Vatican has made clear on repeated occassions and I see no reason why apparitions that are verified by the vatican should be ranked higher than those that aren't. Some apparitions such as Our Lady of Guadalupe amongst others didn't receive papal approval for some significant period of time and yet that did not make the apparition any less important or unapproved.Levi19910 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I added it with the two facts established by the only valid source, in the "Approved by local ordinary" section. Dominick (TALK) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Is this the source ? If so, where does it say it was approved by Salvador de Ribera? Or shall I go and blame my optician? History2007 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It says it was there, they also have a parish in that diocese of the same name. Since the approval was in Quito, in the 17th century, I think that is sufficient. I saw the seers canonization, and a mention of OLGS. I did not pursue the Spanish or Phillipine documentation. I figures its the Apparition of a noted Saint I can source, and I have a source that mentions it the cooberates that the devotion exists, that's enough for what is written IMHO. Dominick (TALK) 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Levi19910 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This newspaper article clearly states that the apparition was approved by Bishop Salvador de Riber and gives the date of the approval as 2 feb 1611 it also gives several other details such as the length of the visions. Levi19910 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This online magazine, journal likewise goes into some significant detail though I'm not entirely sure it would be a valid source Levi19910 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I know the date. I just don't have record in a verifiable place. I think we have a problem I am getting to the bottom of now, this is about the Apparition of OLGS of Quito, not the original OLGS. Dominick (TALK) 18:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes I was going to say that sorry, the newspaper article does state that date though, isn't that enough? Also I am a little confused the NCRegister source is in the 'daily news' not blog section and written as an article not a blog, am I missing something? Levi19910 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I didnt use the NCRegister, the Record's citation looked like it was copied off the internet. I am going to let this sit, for this minor vision, with unverified prophecy, this has taken a lot of time. We have ten other citations that need actual Vatican documentation or they get moved or removed. Dominick (TALK) 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Levi, I will not even bother to respond to your statements. Not worth my time. As you have been told again and again here, your edits have been absolutely, I mean absolutely running against WP:Policies, the statements have been baseless, inconsistent and incorrect. Hint: Michael's Journal is not a journal. Think about that one a little. Well done. Well done. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Dominick, I am sorry, the source was not sufficient for the statements made. This is what it says:
In a high altar of the church choir of the Order of the Immaculate Conception an image of Our Lady of Good Success is venerated. It was carved by the Spanish Francisco del Castillo. The church is located at the corner of Chile and Garcia Moreno, in the Historic Center. According to the sisters of the Monastery of the Immaculate Conception, in 1610 the Virgin appeared to the mother Marianita de Jesus Torres, a founder of the Order. She asked him to carve an image of the same height. To fulfill this mandate, the mother says the measured Marianita with lace on her dress. In the choir meet the 20 nuns in the convent to pray.
It is not a shrine to her, but an altar within a separate church. And the nuns just said she appeared. That source said nothing else, any inferences beyond that will be WP:SYN, as you know (pun intended). History2007 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I am removing "The Record", it was copied from a internet source that is in error. I think History2007 is correct in advising caution. I am going to have access to another text source soon. Dominick (TALK) 19:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you know this? It doesn't mention its sources and its a perfectly reliable newspaper, frankly I think you're being overzealous

Are you still going on about michaels journal? Despite the fact I accepted it was wrong? I cannot see what is wrong with using 'The Record'newspaper you were after all the one who suggest I use EWTN etc.. and I have supplied something similar, and the michael journal and the National Catholic register are not comparable for well obvious reason. So frankly I don't see what your problems are, either show why its wrong to use the Papers or put up (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we all accept the Catholic Encyclopedia as valid as a source. If we are going to be emotional then this is going to be much more difficult to do this topic justice. Dominick (TALK) 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see any evidence that either The Record or The National Catholic Register arent acceptable sources, the encyclopedia doesn't mention the apparition, at least I looked and couldnt find anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levi19910 (talkcontribs) 19:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Blogs are not sources the NCR link was a blog I used to get into to dig. The Record is a newspaper, that was esenailly written from other artcles, including a section that looks like it was pasted from Miricle Hunter, which is also a blog or journal. The Encyclopedia lists all it can list. I moved the section to unapproved, unless you have a text or another source at your fingertips right now, it did not verify any claims of approval. I noticed a lot of date discrepancies, some give her birth date as before her appearance in Quito. No apparition according to long standing canon law may be approved as worthy of belief until the apparitions cease. Like I said if you want to be patient, lets see what I develop from verifiable sources. Dominick (TALK) 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Then why is it under the daily news section? And the record clearly states that it relies on the miracle hunter but has verified everything independently, at the bottom of the page. I don't think it has anything to do with patience, as no source appears to be good enough to meet the self-imposed standards on this page

Levi19910 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, just look at Talk:Marian_apparition#Our_Lady_of_Good_Help_apparitions. There the editor had a solid source. He mentioned it as a couretsey to others. Then he added it, no one complained. It was a good edit and complied with WP:RS. There was no waste of time like in this discussion. This is an example of a good source. Take a hint. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I dont see how either the record or the national catholic register arent solid sources, but whatever, I'm not wasting my time on this anymore

Levi19910 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I also was able to easily find the Bishop's mention that it was "Worthy of Belief" in his own words. There is no hidden agenda or self-imposed standard. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability if you don't believe me. I think we are applying that standard. Dominick (TALK) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said this is an example of sources that make Wikipedia look good, and the others are examples of unacceptable items per WP:V. We must use "good sources" to achieve quality. History2007 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

and the National Catholic Register and The Record are not reliable, because?...

Levi19910 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This is ridicalous, you both criticise me for using 'unreliable sources' and then use an article about the shrine that says nothing about the apparitions except that they happened in 1610 to support them occuring from 1599-1635 and an article about the Lily of Quito who is an entirely different person in reference to the visionary and cite that to say they were approved by the bishop. I have added in both the Record and the National Catholic Register because they are more reliable than either of the sources you have posted being reliable newspapers and are the only sources we in fact possess to back up the article. Please DO NOT remove them until you either find something better or delete the article altogether.

For that matter the National Catholic Register article is a newspaper article NOT a blog, it ends as an article, is written throughout as an article, is in the daily news section and has an article title not a blog title. Your dismissal of the Record is equally based on an assumption something clearly condemned by wikipedia guidelines, The Record constitues a verifiable sources whether you agree with it or not or believe it or not is besides the point. It meets the wikipedia standards.

After then dismissing verifiable sources you have put the apparition in the wrong section 'unapproved' when two verifiable and reliable sources clearly state its approved. Why is this? I would have no objection to it being under the 'approved by local ordinary section' but to claim its not approved at all is patently false. Levi19910 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Levi19910 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The National Catholic Register article is a good source. The only good source about that apparition. The Record is a direct cut&paste from the web and is not WP:RS on this issue. The small mention in the article now is probably justified now, but would do better without the Record. As for ridiculous yes, this whole discussion has been. Before adding this item a second time, once you were pointed to the WP:RS page you should have found the NCR reference, added it just with that without the other junk sources. It would have been simpler that way and not been ridiculous with blogs and all. History2007 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm sorry for that, I think the record is fine but I'll have a look to see if i can see anything later. Of course the NCR does clearly state its approved so its a little odd shoving it into the unapproved section...

Levi19910 (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is not the right place either. But how about asking Dominick do this if he wants because he is detached from it, knows teh topic and he created the new section and Kibeho is too large there anyway. So this, Kibeho etc. all need small mentions in that new section I think. History2007 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
So seeing as no one has put it in the right section, I'll edit the article and source it to both the National Catholic Register and The Record, both meet wikipedia standards. If anyone has a problem with this then they can talk about it on here, but I am going to put the paragraph in now Levi19910 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Totally disagree with the Record as a source. It was definatly cut and pasted from another article, and doesnt prove that this was approved. Get a different source. Dominick (TALK) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You do realise I used both the record AND the national catholic register? Besides which the Record explicitly states that it has independently checked everything, aside from that your opinion is irrelvant its whether the source is verifiable or not that matters, that is whether it meets wikipedia standards it does. Aside from that your the last person to be talking about sources, you used two that didnt back up the claims made in the article and one that was completely irrelevant. If you want to continue playing this game of delete and undelete feel free. Levi19910 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You should calm down. The record was an article made from internet scrapings. If you want a product nobody is going take seriously, continue messing around. Dominick (TALK) 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm perfectly calm, just pointing out the obvious. And I'm not messing around, I'm following the wikipedia guidelines whereas you are using whether you believe something or not as the standard of whether we should use a source despite wikipedia clearly condemning this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levi19910 (talkcontribs) 19:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Then why are you hung on including such a low quality source. Periodicals can be used but are not a source. History2007 and I formed a consensus and you didn't care to talk about it. If you have a agenda then you are going to have a rough time. I don't care if this is true or false, I only care that you have a source that meets the criteria for Wikipedia. If you don't like my opinion ask History2007. The Record, a paper thats only been around since 2005, composed of scraping the information on the internet that isn't sources, it originates in Australia not even anywhere near the apparition site, and MOST IMPORTANTLY it is not pointing to a Quito record, it repeats hearsay. Dominick (TALK) 00:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I wasnt aware that being near the apparition site was a requirement, we both know it isnt seeing as EWTN isn't near Lourdes or Fatima and yet could validly be cited for either apparition. What you are giving is your opinion neither I nor anyone who reads the article wants your opinion, they want the facts, both sources I have cited meet wikipedia standards. I don't see a consensus to be honest, besides which again you have not shown that either of those sources don't meet wikipedia standards, as the discussion went on people seemed to be inventing new excuses for why this source wasnt good enough. First people said the NCR was alright, then it wasn't because it was a blog and then it was because it was a reliable source. You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this discussion and used completely inappropriate sources which I corrected and then you decided to delete the article altogether. Levi19910 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think this "Our Lady of Success" discussion is a clear failure. Look, The Record is beside teh point. It is way out in Australia, and has not claimed access to the local parish, or say that they sent an editor there to check things, it has just copied things from the web. It is not WP:RS. So Levi's opinion of the Record is a clear minority view in this discussion. I am sorry Levi but you are now squarely in the WP:Tendentious editing zone.
The Quito website says nothing about the Bishop. Right? So why use that as a basis? The NCR item is thus the only deciding factor now. The question: Is it a blog, or is it a researched article. I am not actually sure. Let us just settle that and move on.
And per WP:DUE, this "one of many" apparition can NOT occupy a major place in teh article and can be a small and minor mention at most, if NCR is confirmed. History2007 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Its hardly occupying a major part of the article, its in the correct section and its hardly prominent. You can claim the record isnt a valid source all you want you havent actually shown any evidence that it isnt, regardless I have now cited two ecuadorian periodicals which DO claim access to Quito and the convent where the statue of Our Lady of Good Success is and verify virtually all The Record states. I believe thats more than enough evidence.
As for being in the tendentious editing zone, no I'm following the wikipedia guidelines whereas you appear to be following whether you believe a source or not which is clearly stated to be against the wikipedia guidelines. Levi19910 (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all so. Why is there a section with Kibeho and Success as the only two players? There are 5o apparitions like that and to list the two of them only is clearly against WP:DUE. It is not a question of opinion here, it is a clear question of math. Why pick these 2 out of the may out there? You do not need to discuss opinion here, but need to discuss numbers - which are factual. History2007 (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You do realise I didnt have anything to do with creating that section? I put it their because we had all decided that that was the right section. As far as I'm concerned the division into roman catholic approved i.e approved by The Holy See and approved by the local ordinary is fundamentally unsound as Catholic theology and canon law leave the decision up to the local ordinary and it only goes to Rome if it is requested.

If you want I am more than happy to research the other 50 that would fit in the section if someone can give me a pointer in the right direction. Levi19910 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually who created which section is beside the point. We just need to clan things up and move on. But what does remain is that as stated elsewhere on this page, according to Salvatore M. Perrella (and he should know better than us) there are only 12 approved in Rome. So there is need for the separate section. Now, But it can not have 50 subsections, and those listed there need to be given less real estate in the article as major apparitions such as Fatima (which gets 1 million visitors on a single day each May) or Guadalupe (which set a record with over 6 million pilgrims over a single weekend in December 2009). That is where WP:DUE comes in. Another issue about how much real estate they get is if they have a feast worldwide, outside the local village where they are celebrated, etc. I had a list of most of them somewhere, but I have not been planning to work on this article - have other things to do. Good help is in teh wrong place b teh way, I will move it. But if you want to look for the others please do, with suitable sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

By other ones I'm guessing you mean other aparitions only approved by the local ordinary and not the Holy See? If so I'll get startd on that tonight. If you want to divide the article properly, one section should say 'apparitions approved by the holy see' and the other 'apparitions approved by the local ordinary' As at the moment its misleading having approved and approved by a local ordinary, as it almost implies that those approved by a local ordinary are less valid which is not true. Levi19910 (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I meant and I fixed the sections, as suggested. A good source for all of these is Ann Ball's book Encyclopedia of Catholic devotions. It is a standard reference. Another source is Michael Freze, 1993, Voices, Visions, and Apparitions, OSV Publishing ISBN 0-87973-454-X. Those are solid sources. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with the sources. Next I think we need a shorter summary of each, and if they are interesting a redirect to an article. This shouldn't be a book. Dominick (TALK) 16:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that is progress. Let us agree to use Ball and Freze as the baseline sources. The point is that a lot of work went into Ball's book and she knows the field pretty well - wrote many other books. And Freze is an OSV book, and a pretty solid Catholic publisher. And yes, no need for a long dissertation on each of these. I should point that Catholic religious order is in terrible shape and we could be fixing that instead of dragging this discussion out for ever. History2007 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me look at it then! I agree we should let this pot simmer for a bit. Dominick (TALK) 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Salvatore M. Perrella claims only 12 apparitions approved[edit]

I can't find his list anywhere. Can it be provided? Dominick (TALK) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the article. He clearly says there are only 11+1=12, but does not list them. If I had his list I would have added it directly. Else, his address is Viale 30 Aprile- 6, 00153, Rome and we can write him, or on your next vacation just show up, buy him a coffee and ask him. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually I have been told many times, no original research. Writing him or interviewing him is a job that would belong to someone else. :-) I assumed that was Roman hyperbole, I have heard things like that many times. Dominick (TALK) 15:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
But of course - my guess is that the interview would require buying a nice lunch.... I do wish the reporter had asked him, however. Yet, if you do go see him, let me know on my talk page, and that would be no WP:OR. Now jokes aside, the fact that there are only 12 should help cut back on the debate that any time a Bishop writes a letter (and there are well over 50 letters) that amounts to "Vatican approval". History2007 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, that should be said to the Kibeho edit just now. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have [3] which shows Vatican knowledge, but does not state Vatican approval and nothing else was stated from 2005. It is correct to say it is not Vatican approved. Lets go through each of these and source a Vatican Approbation. Dominick (TALK) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree about Kibeho. I researched that before for its own page and you are right. And yes, it would be good to verify each of the ones we have, and then get the FAQ together so we don't have to dance this dance again with someone new in 9 months. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

lower level approval[edit]

I think there should be less space for lower level approvals, given that they have their own pages. So Kibeho needs to get less real estate, as many others. There are just too many of them to have the same amount of space as Laus, etc. And source should not just be a Vatican source for the Rome approval, if Zenit or CNS say that it is good enough. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Have at it please! I like being edited. Dominick (TALK) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks but will have to be later. Other things to do right now. History2007 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Towards a better classification[edit]

i thought about this last night. We can agree on so many things but we are hung up on one apparition that is minor at best and has been obfuscated by unreliable self published sources. We need a way forward so let me put this out there. We classify everything according to approval status verified from sources we can agree on BY NAME.

  • Approved by the Vatican (sources listed, and must be a major publication or the Vatican tiself)
  • Approved by a local Ordinary (same thing, listed by a major source)
  • Approved by another Church (orthodox etc)
  • Unapproved or approval is uncertain (we don't have a source or it's a tenuous link to a source)
  • Condemned by the Chuch (with a listed source of condemnation)

History2007 is 100% right about not being caught in circular arguments. OLGS in Quito is one part of the life of a Saint, but is a minor apparition when compared to ones like Pontmain. I have heard about Pontmain since I was a boy, but looking for the original Vatican source online is hard. I plan to do what I said I would do and go to sources. Dominick (TALK) 13:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Good classification. I would, however, just say "not approved" for the 4th item. If we do not have a source and is not condemned then not approved should be ok. It should also be mentioned somewhere more prominently (it says it now but not too clearly) that just because the Pope prays in Manila does not mean Manila is approved. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hearing nothing else, I guess we have consensus. I will move things around starting tonight or in the morning. I think that clears up the problems with the unapproved part. Dominick (TALK) 19:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe the paragraphs will move by themselves overnight, like the moving statues..... History2007 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Boom they moved. I would love to hear your opinion. Dominick (TALK) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Overall, pretty good. I think this article is generally well above the average quality of Project Christianity articles now.

Minor suggestions are as follows:

  • 1. I do not even remember where the Positive Criteria vs Negative Criteria came from, but I recall seeing it on EWTN. If you have a reference for it at hand, please add, else we will have to look for one. It seems lonely there with no ref.
  • 2. Kibeho is getting way too much mileage here now. It is in 4 separate places if you do a search. We just need to trim it back.
  • 3. The section "Roman Catholic approved by a local ordinary" is now somewhat strange, given that it just has two entries while there are many more in that category. I see that section as the weakest element now. Per WP:DUE we should give them all proportional representation. As is Kibeho and Success are getting royal treatment with respect to the others.

There are minor typos etc. but they can wait. So the main remaining problem is item 3. How do we handle that? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

My editing is sparse, sorry I have a cold. I did a reorder and some editing. WP:BOLD I agree, we need to cut each on a case by case basis. We can all agree Fatima is 100% approved. We have a load of documentation of the condemnation of Bayside. Everything else is a shade of gray. Dominick (TALK) 14:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


I've added a FAQ to the top of the page, as a sort of placeholder so you can see how it works. Please feel free to improve it to cover whatever points seem to need regular repetition on this page. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, will try to add to it later. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Akita is either Vatican approved or it isn't[edit]

The article, perhaps because it is simply too long, has redundancies, and at least one major conflict. The Lady of Akita is not included in a list of Vatican-approved apparitions, but it is individually described so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Angela Volpini[edit]

I just found out about Angela. There are a lot of film clips of the apparitions on Youtube, including a documentary made in the late 1940s, plus interviews with her today. I got newspaper reports from the region for citations, but I'd like to know if I could link to her videos or mention the many books she's written. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not even have Bishop approval, so is way, way too early. And in terms of WP:Note is not notable at all just with the Provincia item. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary[edit]

The article was assessed C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Pilar2.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Pilar2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Pilar2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

South Ossetia[edit]

Please do not speed undo South Ossetia 2008 apparitions before examining Russian sources. The blog source is the only English source I could find so far but Russian sources are reliable and apparitions have numerous witnesses. --ssr (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I left the text, but zapped the blog, per WP:RS. The Russian sources are not WP:RS, you need the Pravda English edition etc. to do it right. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Russian sources are widely used on Wikipedia concerning Russian topics. The Russian sources are information agencies. One of them,, is widely used in English Wikipedia despite it's Russian, do a search. In problem cases, mediation on Wikiproject Russia is seeked and automated translation may be used, but not total undo. I am searching for reliable English sources (not sure I can find any, not very wide coverage, but the fact is definitely notable), and for persuasive examples of confirmed legitimate usage of Russian sources on English Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
So, let'see the page Alexander Misharin it legitimately uses numerous Russian language sources. During conflicts over this article, mediation was involved and non-Russian mediator did refer to automated translation as there were, and are, little English sources. Later, the mediator asked people on WikiProject Russia. But he was not trying to completely remove the facts per WP:RS not allowing Russian sources, only he was questioning information reliability. I'm still trying to seek English sources, but it's not easy, not sure there are some beside blogs. --ssr (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Got one, great, adding (attributed 2009, but actually 2008). --ssr (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Dayton lists it, but lists many, many claimed apparition, as you see. 2008 is just too close and these things usually take decades and decades to be taken seriously. If this is to be serious, it will show up in mainstream European newspapers, again Pravda, Le Monde, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
There are problems with English sources as it may be viewed "too local", but there are reliable Russian sources, and usage of them is legitimate and recognized on English Wikipedia concerning Russian events as I proved earlier. So far, I can't find other reliable English ones other than Dayton. This source says the first recognized U.S. one is dated only 2010, so that Ossetia one may be also kind of precedent, but according to Russian sources it's definitely notable as it was viewed by so many people, and priests, and was involved in armed conflict, seen by both sides. This very reliable Russian source, Interfax, says apparitions influenced army moves and were mentioned in army's radio talks. This is very notable despite the sources are Russian. --ssr (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If Interfax says that then please remove the fact tag from that. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Got English Interfax! Adding! =) Thank you for support! --ssr (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
For all I can guess, this may get to be approved in a few years... Time will tell. History2007 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The word "comdemn"[edit]

The word "condemned" or one of its variations appears four times in the article, once in a section heading. As far as I am aware, neither the Catholic Church nor any other church condemns apparitions. In fact, it is not possible to condemn an apparition. A person who claimed to have seen one, or a group that publicised one, might theoretically be condemned, but I'm pretty sure such a thing hasn't happened since the middle ages. According to the Normae Congregationis article, only three judgements can be given by a diocesan bishop, all of which use the word confirm, not condemn, i.e. confirmed to be supernatural, not confirmed to be supernatural or confirmed to be non-supernatural. Can anybody suggest a neutral word or words to replace "condemn" in the article? Scolaire (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you're associating the word "condemn" with the phrase "condemned to death", which is only one use of the word, though I admit fairly common. Have you never heard a world leader say that he "condemns the terrorist attack" or something similar? It just means to be declared guilty or wrong (judicial vs. non-judicial use). See Webster's definition. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I mean "condemn" in the same sense as you. But you can only condemn something that exists, or something that has happened. The church could only condemn an apparition which it believed to have taken place. Obviously, that is the opposite of what is meant when the word is used in this article. What we should be saying, I think, is that the church does not acknowledge the apparition, or does not approve of its being publicised. That is a very far cry from "condemning". Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so you're saying that use of the word "condemn" is circular: you can condemn it if it's there, but if it's there then you can't condemn it.... something like that? I would say that the wording could be more accurate, like the Church condemns reports of a Marian apparition, or the Church condemns purported or alleged Marian apparitions. That's how I understand it. Do you have something more accurate in mind? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
What are the sources for this "condemnation"? I admit that I opened this thread so that people who regularly edit the article could check the sources, rather than having to do it myself. But, to the very best of my knowledge, no bishop has ever said "I condemn this report of an apparition." At most, the bishop would have said "I don't want people to come to this site because I don't believe the apparition to be genuine." I think "does not acknowledge" or "does not approve" is the more accurate statement.
The "Apparitions condemned by church authorities" section begins, "Not all reports of visions and apparitions are taken seriously by church authorities." It later says, "However the [Garabandal] apparitions were not declared a hoax and the possibility of future approval was left open", and later again, "the latter parts of the reported messages from Gianna Talone were disapproved by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore...To date, the Holy See has let the Talone matter rest at the local level of the archdiocese." Where's the condemnation? The section should be renamed "Apparitions not acknowledged by church authorities". Scolaire (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds clunky, but I don't think I have anything better. I'd say "denied", but they don't, as you point out. Go with it. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go with "approved", since that is the word most often used in a positive sense in the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, in revising the article I noted I did not find any sources using the word "condemn". The words used tend to be "disapproved" or in rare cases "rejected". I agree the word "condemn" has overtones and if it's not in the sources I don't see any support for it being in the section heading, so I replaced it with "disapproved", as that is the most frequently used in the sources. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


Don't use these here. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


I have just created pages for Estelle Faguette and Our Lady of Pellevoisin. The Church has never specifically pronounced on whether the apparition was supernatural, but has approved the scapular which comes from it and has recognised the miraculous character of the healing received by Estelle. To my mind, this gives Pellevoisin the same status as Rue du Bac - the devotion is approved which is tantamount to church recognition of the apparition. Perhaps those more familiar with the rules for this page can decide where Pellevoisin links should go, and whether they qualify for associated Templates, etc? Revd Dr Gareth Leyshon - User Gleyshon (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Our Lady of Tinos[edit]

Given that it's the patron of Greece, should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


From the talk page archive it appears that earlier versions weren't quite as pov. As an exmaple of the problem with this version, Marian apparition#Our Lady of Zeitoun states in Wikipedia's voice that " The sick and blind have been cured". Although it's possible that most of these alleged events haven't been challenged in reliable sources, it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

So fix it so it says "Believers have claimed miraculous cures" and give some citations. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality problems: Unattributed opinions[edit]

The article contains several passages in which opinions about Marian apparitions and Marian devotions are presented with vague introductions such as "this has been interpreted to be..." Opinions that cannot be attributed to specific people or organizations, with references to published statements, are not encyclopedic, are contrary to WP:NPOV, and should be removed if they can't be attributed.

Moreover, these critical views, if they represent particular schools of thought, should be brought together to form a distinct section of the article under a header such as "Critical views", to present views from atheists, from Protestants (of this or that school), and so on. That would provide the reader with an informative context. --Bistropha (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marian apparition. 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}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)