|WikiProject Women's History||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Therese Neumann said publicly in 1930's Germany that Adolf Hitler was possessed by the Devil.
For some unexplained reason neither the Nazi Party nor Adolf Hitler made any attempt at silencing her remarks. Considering her fame in Germany at the time, this remains an outstanding fact. It is a given, that Adolf Hitler had supreme power in Germany and could have easily sent Therese Neumann to a concentration camp. But he did not. Why... is a mystery?
Other than a minor, weakly sourced, bit in the Inedia section, this article cites one source, a book that is "the personal memories of a life-time family friend who was also an official witness in the process leading to the Cause for Therese Neumann's beatification". Throughout, claims are stated as simple facts. I don't know if this can be saved. Mdbrownmsw 15:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
What a strange comment. Why worry about 'saving' an excuse for an article that is deeply biased hagiography? If there were some small pieces of rational thought embedded, one might worry about rescuing those. There isn't. This has no place in an encyclopedia; it is an insult to Diderot's legacy. --kscally 13:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- So fix it. Hell, I'd fix it myself if I knew more about her. What I do know is that she was investigated and found to be a fraud. Everything about her behavior indicates that she was a Munchausen Syndrome drama queen. --Bluejay Young 21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Previous two dudes, you're obviously close-minded dogmatists of "Rationalism". You should honestly investigate claimed supernatural phenomena so you don't live bad lives and end up in Hell. You're the irrational one by insisting without proper investigation that such phenomena is automatically bogus. And shame on the next dude for just parroting a false and malicious conclusion. You show forth your stupidity in the most abberant manner. I am a real scientist and I have examined what evidence is available to me regarding claims about Therese Neumann. She was a Saint and her phenomena proof of the truth of Catholicism, which she herself indicates by her manner of life. She's not an isolated case. There's thousands of well-documented and reliable accounts of modern and past supernatural phenomena on the part of Catholic Saints that backs up their claims that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and that it's the only true religion.
Everybody with wisdom realizes Wikipedia has a heavy liberal bias and won't give us the truth on almost anything. Giving both sides of the story here is not truth. Therese Neumann is one of thousands of messages from God to the world that it should be Catholic.
And Neumann, if the yogi dude isn't lying, probably either didn't understand his words (Eastern religious jargon) or just wanted to be nice and not cause a fight. If he wanted her opinion, in Western cultures, you ask the person straight-forward. Hinduisms are not at all like Catholicism. Hinduisms are more like 'I think I am one, therefore I am'. Catholics are Catholics only if they do and say what the Church defines that Catholics do. E.G. murderers commit a mortal sin and stop being Catholics. And I'll be honest with you, guys like that would lie about what she said just to use her for their scheme. It seems more in line with what honest people record her saying that she told him he'd go to Hell if he didn't become a Catholic.
- Whether she was a fraud or not is not the issue here, with respect. She is notable because she was famous in her lifetime and beyond, and there's been a great deal written about her, including her alleged fraudulence. That makes her a suitable subject for any credible encyclopedia. -- JackofOz 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- My previous comment does not refer to the question of Therese Neumann having or not having an encyclopedia entry, but to the uselessness of the current entry (at time of writing) to a reader seeking reasonably full coverage of the topic. Lack of objectivity (by omission or otherwise) destroys any value in the article. What credibility is left to an encyclopedia composed of such pieces? --kscally 22:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Mdbrownmsw's assertion that the article is weakly sourced. However, we don't have a basis for saying the article lacks NPOV. The factual assertions in the article are supported by the citations, and so unless we find citations to the contrary, we can't really dispute their facutal accuracy just because they're dubious. A more correct tag is:
This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. (March 2008)
For example, it says "a medical doctor" observed her two-week inedia. This is what is says in all on-line writing about her. The doctor is never identified, the factoid never sourced? Bossk-Office (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Date of birth
I made a private note some years ago that she was born on Good Friday (8th April that year), but her parents considered it unlucky to be born on Good Friday so they often claimed she was born on 9th April, and 9th April appears in various parts of the literature as her birthdate. I don't have a cite for this, though. If anyone can come up with one, we should add a footnote explaining why 9th April is wrong. -- JackofOz 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- We're currently showing her date as 9th April, but we also say she was born on Good Friday. However, Good Friday in 1898 was on 8th April, not 9th April. It's either:
- Good Friday, 8 April 1898, or
- Easter Saturday, 9 April 1898,
- but we can't mix and match the way we're currently doing. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)