Talk:Our Lady of La Salette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Catholicism (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject France (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Much too long and credulous[edit]

This article is much too long, and its style is more appropriate to a Roman Catholic devotional work than an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. Because there is so much 'confusion' about the apparition, a detailed account of every information available (referenced) is necessary to pre-empt other critiques (not sufficently motivated, referenced, ...). Especially concerning the historical fact and the text of the message, a full account is necessary in order to be objective and complete. --Stijn Calle (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the third stage?[edit]

The only reference to the third stage, that I could find, is a picture. What happened? (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Far too many links to dictionary words.[edit]

Please do not create a link to a Wikipedia article whose name is a dictionary word, unless the article is relevant to this article. I have just de-linked "resistance", but I note that there are a great manyu other problem links of this nature. -Arch dude (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In particular, please read the policy on overlinking. Thanks -Arch dude (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Need Copyedit[edit]

I hate to complain, but the English in this article is not very good, it was obviously written by someone whose native language was NOT English. Could someone more familiar with the story correct the grammar? For example: St. John Vianney should be described simply as a "priest" or a "late priest" not a "former priest" He was still a priest when he died, and he is a saint. Former means he was no longer a priest which is not the case. -User: 21:53, 31 May 2008

Confirmed or not confirmed?[edit]

Is it confirmed or not? Cite resources, or it is up for removal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxcoder (talkcontribs) 20:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV review as well, please. This is pure Catholic doctrine, and not supported by documents: the Vatican verification was triggered by Peter Julien Eymard's sworn statement of a miracle in 1848 - see his letters. Unfortunately the same letters show the miracle could not have happened as the subject was ill in Lyon on the day in question and neither she nor Eymard could travel as a result. The Curé d'Ars rumbled Eymard's fix and blew the whistle on it. He never became a devoted advocate of it as claimed and Maxime later denied his testimony, stating that the supposedly lay invigilator M. Dausse forced him to accept his dictation. Dausse was Eymard's follower as the letters clearly show, and Eymard was from La Mure, the village at the foot of the road up to La Salette: his sister lived there all her life and he routinely went there on holiday from Lyon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The claims by the previous writer are partly false, partly taken out of context, and he or she gives no references to back it up neither. A few answers:
  • Pure catholic doctrine: nobody, except catholicism has claimed La Salette. Prophecies are a part of catholicism, and thus it is logically that a big part of the history is only backed up by documents originating from inside the church, and dealing with church-rules.
  • Not supported by documents: The extensive bibliography gives an enormous amount of historical references. Important is that some books that have been published contain all these references as they are a collection off all the documents concerning La Salette. It is in three parts and published in French.
  • The Vatican verification was triggerd by Eymard's sworn statement: Untrue. Firstly, the Vatican and the episcopy have officially accepted La Salette after long and painstaking examinations. The testimony of Eymard (who was not a seer) is a small part of this proces. Consequently, the secondary deductions made on the basis of the primary statement (concerning the Curé d'Ars) is totally false. The Curé d'Ars did indeed not accept La Salette to be true, in first instance. And the precise reason for this has to do with Eymard. But the Curé d'Ars changed his opinion later on. By that moment it had become clear that the Eymard-statement was lacking truth. But numerous other statements and documents - parallel to it - where uphold after intense scrutiny. La Salette is based on an enormous amount of statements and documents, and not on the sole one of Eymard. There are others false statements, made by opponents of the Church, e.g. freemasons. In 1848 communication of information was neither systematic nor fast. The Curé d'Ars based his preliminary judgement on very few data, which was partly untrue. In all, it is NPOV to reduce La Salette to the Eymard statement, and to use it to denounce the full prophecy. La Salette is very complicated, structurally, and has lead to heated debate, that continuous until today. --Stijn Calle (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
0. I did not suggest removal, only asked for source of a specific claim, which has been provided as far as I can tell.
1. This is not a "doctrine" within the Church, but of course the Church conducts investigation into the matter. It is a Catholic pilgrimige site, who claims otherwise?
2. Not sure what you're trying to prove here
3. If something is false, please do correct it and provide your soruces. I don't know much about the topic to be honest.
--Paxcoder (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bronze statues[edit]

Is there any information about the bronze statues that are shown in the article? Mainly, the identity of the artist and their (approximate) date? Would be greatly appreciated! Twangoosen (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Enoch and Elijah[edit]

I read the text of the secret(s), and saw at one point that Enoch and Elijhah were mentioned, as though they were still alive. I would like it if some specialist of this eschatological affair would take time to explain the meaning of the terms Enoch and Elijah in the La Salette prophecy. ADM (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

see Two Witnesses article. Many people believed or said at various times that these would be Enoch and Elijah. Both these people are described in the Bible as not dying but being "taken away" by God. So there is this view that they will come back to earth still alive as witnesses and die (get killed) subsequently. (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank You for putting in the full account of Our Lady of La Salette, and for the full and unabridged accounts of Our Lady's messages.

MacOfJesus (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The full account has been made public on this site, however, people seem to choose to only provide partial information. I would appreciate it if those who wish to deny the full account of Melanie, would consider that this site should remain neutral and all relevant information, especially information that has been approved back in 1879, should be made public. Please do not replace my contribution with a biased, vague and uncited opinion based filler. Respectfully, Seedskebob (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Calvat's fake secret in 1870s?[edit]

I think it's unfortunate that the article, while being very long, ignores the major issue of the 1879 "secret" publication by Calvat, as discussed here . (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to your comment: I have added the full text of Melonie's secret published in 1879. The text comes from the publisher who authorize and encourage the free use and distribution of their content, there is not full or partial copyright violation.Proof is here...Seedskebob (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC) The fact that only recently it has been covered up and labeled as false, thus discrediting the original seer and therefore the apparition of itself, we should look at what it says more carefully. Truth cannot be destroyed, but attempts will be made to limit access to it or discredit it. God warns us of this.

B Class?!?![edit]

I wonder what has been drunk by the one who rated the article as "B Class"... it is instead a disaster full of format errors, typos, WP:NPOV:POV, unsourced citations, endless list of miracles with "..." instead of names, etc. "C Class" is a big favour for it. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Not any more... I think the article needs a fresh rewrite really. The presentation is even more convoluted than the history of the controversies regarding the topic. And statements such as "together with Our Lady of Lourdes (1858) and Our Lady of Fátima (1917) La Salette remains one of the most famous Marian apparitions of the modern age" are just not true, given the published number of pilgrims. Places such as Guadalupe, etc. just dwarf La Salette these days. My advice to readers: take two aspirins before even trying to read this, if at all. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Any attempt to edit it gets reverted by one of the folks who wrote it; he thinks this and Malachi Martin should be A-class, by the way.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewrote the article[edit]

I rewrote the article. Oct13 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If anyone could spruce up the history section - since it's just a copy and paste from the official website - that would be great. Oct13 (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you copy and pasted it from somewhere else, you need to delete it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the history section. Oct13 (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In my view, this new shorter version is preferred to the previous one. I removed the problem tags as well. History2007 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the article has been gutted. Now it's just a stub, with all the detail removed. Why? The other version was better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree. What was the reason for the gutting? I propose restoring that version unless someone presents a reason why it should not be restored. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)