Talk:Visions of Jesus and Mary/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Visions of Jesus and Mary. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Medjugorje

The status of Medjugorje is listed as indefinite. However, according to canon law, the authority to determine whether an apparition is authentic rests on the local bishop. Not one but two bishops of the diocese in which Medjugorje is located have condemned the "apparitions." Shouldn't this be mentioned in the relevant section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.253.52 (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg

The image Image:Padre Pio during Mass.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mamma Carmela

"Mamma" Carmela Carabelli is one of the most famous personalities with mistical experiences (she's a spiritual daughter of Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina), and when you say that you did a detailed websearch and did not find anything, you probably don't find many sources as I had cited in the article. Please, read first:

and replace the information - and I put sources when I edit the artigle! - in the article Visions of Jesus and Mary. Thank you very much. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated on your IP talk page, NONE of the sources you provided meets the Wikipedia standards for third party and reliable at all. Most of them are self published anyway and do not qualify as a "source" in the Wikipedia sense. I did do a websearch and did not consider the self-published items as valid. Another source is a free-website type page and is even lower quality. The sources in Portugese do not apply to Wikipedia at all. Do you have sources in English from major newspapers? The Osservatore Romano (English version), NY Times, Time Magazine, BBC news, etc. would be nice. The sources you have are not in anyway sufficient. I am sorry, but if I do manage to find a reliable 3rd party source I will read the messages myself and add the entry. As, is teh entry can not come in, else 300 other self-published items will also appear in 3 weeks, diluting the quality of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My friend: how can you tell that published books are not reliable sources? Please, most part of articles on Wikipedia don't mention any type of the sources cited by you (ex: NY Times, Time Magazine, BBC news, etc). You are providing a bad atitude when you refuse valid information and after I have mention more that ten different sources about Mamma Carmela. Please, if you are not satisfied, read a letter of Monsignor Pietro Santoro, Bishop of Termoli, addressed to "Fidelitas", Carouge-Geneve, by January 9, 1972. I had mentioned the sources, so please replace the information (because it is valid and reliable). 84.90.92.195 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As for 10 references, well that is an interesting way of adding up references. I think it may be trademarked as reference by exageration. You actually have 11 links there. The first link is in English on Libero, and will be discussed below. But the next 3 links are not in English and do not count on English Wikipedia. See the discussion on the Marian apparitions page as to why Portugese references do not count. So you have 7 links to consider. The last link seems to have an error, and does not open. Anyway, even if it opened, it would lead to a personal userpage on Fortune city and seemed like a personal blog site, so it would not be applicable. That leads 6 links. Link#6 from the top leads to a booklet description by cenacle's order website on a product order page. The booklet has no ISBN, so it is not usable. That leaves 5 links to look at. All 5 links are product order forms at cenacle. They do mention an ISBN. So in order to get an idea of what editors, other users, etc. say I tried that ISBN on Amazon.com and BarnesandNoble.com. Result: Nothing. I could not find it on Amazon or B&N. Can you? That means it is a really obscure item. So that left just 1 link in English at Libero. It is not at all clear who set up that website and what it is. It seems to be a simpel website set up by a personal user. Again, if you look at the debate on the Marian Apparitions talk page, this is the same scenario. Please do read that discussion page more carefully. This is a repeat of the same scenario as there. And the letter of the Bishop is only found at Libero as well. Wikipedia policies specifically state that:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

So I see no reliable references here. Period. History2007 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How can she pay to publish books if she's death? How can you refuse a statement from Monsignor Pietro Santoro, Bishop of Termoli? I will present this situation to the Wikipedia administration, because you are refusing valid information. As you should know, many sources don't exist on-line, but only in paper. You can consult and read the mentioned letter (and you can also confirm the official signature of the Bishop in Mamma Carmela's books). If you don't wanna help, I need proceed by other ways. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

By all means, please feel free to ask for arbitration on this matter, based on the policies of Wikipedia. I will be glad to discuss the matter through appropriate channels. History2007 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did follow the official channels, did complain, when your complaints did not work, tried to make friends, and here we are again, a few months later. The "new links" were really mostly the same ones, just repackaged: a dead link, some in Italian on a personal blog type site and a few from the same Divine Mercy booklets/pamphlets without a single notable Newspaper reference. And the letter from the Bishop is just a claim at the moment and I see no record of it anywhere. Even if the letter is found, it does not elevate the notability of that lady to the level of the other items on this page/article. For Heaven's sake, some of the other people included in this page are Padre Pio, Mother Teresa, etc. This is really a repeat of the same discussion that we had on the page for Marian Apparitions with you and user Tony Henrique who was eventually blocked. As discussed there, there are many reported conversations with Jesus and Mary and if the door is opened to non-notable entries, as was the case on the page for Marian Apparitions (before I spent significant effort cleaning up the page) there will be total chaos and a serious lack of quality. Please read the talk page there again several times, and the comments by the other users to understand, for this is in effect the same discussion, and I feel I am talking to Tony Henrique again. Please read the Marian Apparitions talk page several times until the issue becomes clear to you. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

first paragraph

I've reworked the first paragraph extensively, deleting such as the "Saint" this and that stuff which is not appropriate in an academic setting. Please restrict your proselytizing to more appropriate forums.

Some visions predate the Reformation. But feel free to do your research. In the mean time I did a search and two references, Freze and Weibe state that Catholics do get many more visions (because of their practices) but that protestants have also reported some visions. I already added that. History2007 (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Catholics - more visions" - OK, I can live with that. Gonna do a little work on Innana and Ishtar, get back to you.

Ok, but I had no idea what those pages were, until I looked them up..... History2007 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph

The statement that Discussions about the authenticity of these visions have often invited controversy. should really remain there, since many people see these as controversial. Please discuss before editing. History2007 (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've had something of a monopoly on these articles for too long. More editors are needed to iron out wrinkles in style, delivery and substance. The article goes into great detail about their "controversial" nature, however that sentence alone is basically meaningless; it has to be qualified if it is to remain. Controversial to whom? In what ways? Not so much as a reference. This is not the way decent Wikipedia articles are written. Expect more, later. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So, now you said it. You clearly state that "I have had a monopoly" so the issue is now not the substance of the article, but your view of antitrust. The controversial issues are stated below in the article, e.g. letter to Vassula, Peter Popoff, Kozlowska, etc. The first paragraph needs to summarize these. And do I take it that you are going to look at my edit history and selectively pick up fights therein? A waste of time it will be. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm just suggesting that one editor working alone on various articles is never a good thing. There should always be checks and balances, and fresh points of view. There's no need to be paranoid. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dozulé

The information about Dozulé apparitions to Madeleine Aumount seams relevant and well sourced by many books in the Glorious Cross Wikipedia article. Should be mentioned in the article Visions of Jesus and Mary with, at least, a paragraph. 84.90.90.100 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. As that page states with references:

"In 1995, the Friends of the Glorious Cross of Dozulé were considered a cult in the 1995 parliamentary report on cults, and by anti-cult associations (ADFI, CCMM), notably because of its apocalypticism. In 1985, the bishop of Bayeux publicly condemned the message of Dozulé which is not recognized by the Catholic Church and thus considered as a "pseudo-catholic cult".

These items are just low quality, poorly researched and rejected items that clutter the page. As usual. History2007 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It seams to me that you really don't know nothing about the relevance about Dozulé apparitions. The apparitions of Jesus to Madeleine Aumount still being studied by the Catholic Church (recently was opened a new process). The major problem associated with the so-called "Glorious Cross" was the appearance of a new (false) "visionary" - named herself a JNSR (Je ne suis rien) - which misrepresented the entire original message and created a division among believers and among the clergy. If you like History about religious subjects, instead of erasing information, try to focus on this issue. 84.90.90.100 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It was called a cult in the 1995 parliamentary report. That is good enough for Wikipedia, not personal opinions. Personal opinion does not matter. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We are in 2011, not in 1995. Many things have changed since that date. Read the sources cited in the article and search about the actual state of the process (established recently by the local Bishop). Do not just do quick research on the Internet, please! 84.90.90.100 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia policies require the editor making the change to justify it. So you need to justify it, not tell me to do internet searches. As is the report said that. And the bishop condemned it. That is how Wikipedia works, unless the bishop states a reversal of opinion in a WP:RS source. That is how Wikipedia works.

The long and short of it is that your addition was a "questionable and low quality item" that did not mention those key issues and needed to be reverted. End of story. History2007 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

From 24th to 29th May 2011, Mgr Jean-Claude Boulanger (named Bishop of Bayeux and Lisieux) came from for his pastoral visit to Dozulé town and made a declaration in the local Mass establishing a person to "acting as coordinator between the parish and the pilgrims who often come from a considerable distance". This new Bishop does not condemn the apparitions, just requires some caution while is awaiting a final verdict by the Vatican. This same bishop knew that on 28 th March 2011 over 4000 pilgrims climbed to pray on the Haute-Butte (the mountain of apparitions) at Dozulé, France. Don't seams relevant information? 84.90.90.100 (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Wait until the "awaiting a final verdict by the Vatican" is over, then see. Again, I am getting tired of these repeated, repeated low quality additions. So I will stop now. Did I mention this is a low quality addition? Take a hint. Take a hint. Enough. History2007 (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you act as if you are the owner of the Wikipedia (without any respect by the other users contributions). Does not seem right. 84.90.90.100 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia has no "owner", it has policies. The policies need to be followed. I pointed out the policies. These edits are on the wrong side of policy. Simple. Is that clear? History2007 (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And your attitude and insults, are on the wrong side of what? Please! 84.90.90.100 (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I only commented on the "edits", and that is fully allowed by policy. Low quality edits can be called as such, so that the encyclopedic material retains its quality. Simple. And end of story. History2007 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

External links

External links are getting to be a too many (link farm), so need to clean up and please try not to add more external links. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Mary. Jesus

It would be useful to do 2 articles, one about Mary and the other about Jesus. Because about Mary the visions are many and there are entire books dedicated to listing them, while about Jesus, there is no systematic lists of visions as per what I know.

Suggest moving all mentions of visions of Mary to Marian apparitions, and move this to "Visions of Jesus". That would reduce duplication and give this article a little better focus. Manannan67 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Bernardo Fco de Hoyos.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

FaustinaKowalska.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)