Talk:Therese Neumann

Untitled

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?

Problems

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.

110.74.222.76 (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

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: . I'll add it to the article so we can maybe find some other sources with can further substantiate or repute some of the facts asserted in the article. Dgf32 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

"the odour of sanctity"

While I lived in Germany there was a lot of press about this woman. After she died, it was claimed that her body did not decompose, that she had the "odour of sanctity" marking a true saint. If she hadn't had anything to eat and only air and water as sustenance for many years, there wouldn't be anything left to rot ;) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.92.233 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

POV-Pushing

I'd like to personally make something clear that I have noticed on many religiously-themed boards: many of the editors clearly have ulterior motives in not only disproving the topic, but over-reaching into topics outside of the main article. Meaning, the topic here is clearly Therese Neumann. To speak about the case of HER fasting and stigmata claims are relevant, but this is NOT a forum to insert personal opinions such as "science has proven..." or "scientists say..." unless there is a direct quote FROM a scientist about THIS case. Otherwise it is yet another clear case of POV-pushing (aka WP:POV and WP:SYNTH). Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, please try to Assume Good Faith as it is a core principal of Wikipedia, and please stop the accusations of POV pushing and other harassment. Secondly, I believe some of this may be due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Scientific consensus is not a personal opinion. WP:EXCEPTIONAL states that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Particularly exceptional claims (Red Flags) include "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people.". To state, in Wikipedia's voice, that anyone was able to survive without food and water for years would require multiple exceptional sources, as inedia is entirely dismissed by the scientific community. Biographies are not reliable enough for this type of claim, please read WP:MEDRS to find the requirements for sources making claims such as these. Additionally it may be helpful to read WP:FRINGE. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

One can assume good faith up until there is evidence of bad faith. After that, one should point out that bad faith. It's important for Wikipedia's credibility. Lkoler (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this article is heavy with point of view pushing.. Wikipedia is worried that the reader is too ignorant to figure out if the accounts of this extraordinary life are true or not, so we get reductionist rationalism shoved down our throats. Just tell us what happened and what people said and let us make up our own minds. Assume good faith? If it's about anything beyond the rock in front of your face on Wikipedia, I will assume that reductionists will get ahold of the article, and arrogantly push a certain viewpoint, whether it's true, or not...that is supported by prima facie evidence, my friend. Scientific consensus is not truth and has no basis of being the primary arbiter of what it appears in an.encyclopedia. Scientific consensus in 1475 was that the Earth was flat and that the sun rotated around the Earth, which was the center of the universe! Boy, we've really revised that, haven't we.Jack.B.2007 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Just tell us what happened and what people said - yeah, what the people who know what they are talking about said and what the gullible morons said. No thanks. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Scientific consensus is not truth and has no basis of If you do not like scientific consensus as the foundation of Wikipedia because it could be wrong, you are in the wrong place. Go to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and try to convince people to change the rules, then come back here if successful. Until then, we will use the current rules.

Scientific consensus in 1475 was that the Earth was flat This is patently untrue. See Flat earth. It seems that your caution in avoiding false beliefs is pointed in the wrong direction. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I knew somebody on Wikipedia would argue about whether the consensus in 1475 was that the Earth was flat! Thank you. In the meantime, this article is of poor quality. Yes, I know what Wikipedia believes in and is desperate to promulgate: it's obvious... the reason I am making these comments is that I didn't want somebody randomly coming here and wondering what was going on with this article to think that every editor and writer out there was fine with trashing anything suprarational or not explainable by observing what goes on in a test tube and making the simplest, reductionist conclusions--that actually works a lot of times in the chemistry lab. It doesn't work here, with matters of spirit, and things that are beyond simplistic reason.Cheerio. Jack.B.2007 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not arguing about it, I am telling you how it is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

under miscellaneous, paragraph beginning "Reinhard Lorenz"

this at bare minimum has grammatical issues, but I don't think I'm equipped to both correct those and parse which phrases are quotations. i cut the following from immediately after "the periodical of the movement." hopefully someone can clarify and determine how to present it neutrally:

It is said that the startling phenomenon of Konnersreuth is approved by God to be an impact that can't be argued away. Science will not be able to make out how the wonder happened and persist. Everyone should look into his heart for understanding and this will create various useful thoughts to understand the signs of the times. Because they consider it ungodly and amiss, some want dictate to God what to do, but God does what he wants and will achieve his goal at last. Blessed is he, who not gets annoyed at God.

TheNuszAbides (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Skeptical works

There appears to be two critical works written on Neumann written by Catholic writers, Paul Siwek, S.J.: Une Stigmatisee de Nos Jours (Paris: Lethielleux; 1950) and Hilda C. Graef The Case of Therese Neumann (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press; 1951). I do not own these works but will see if I can locate the books. Skeptical information can also be found in Bergen Evans's The Spoor of Spooks: And Other Nonsense (Purnell, 1955, pp. 96-99) HealthyGirl (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Inedia?

I can think of better terms to use ...why made the typical user get confused and have to go off page to look something up. Why not just say non-eating or something immediately understandable? Jack.B.2007 (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)