Talk:Miracle of the Sun/Archive 1

Archive 1

RFC Response

This article continues to fail NPOV. Strikingly, "Descriptions of the event as documented prior to 1980's are remarkably consistent." This judgement call is unattributed. I expect it is also disputed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The questioned statement has been deleted as being without citation. Non-NPOV was not demonstrated - merely alleged without fact or argument, against wiki policy. pat8722 17:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

—

I have read that, according to Professor Stanley L Jaki, author of "God and the sun at Fatima," José Maria de Almeida Garrett was, in fact, a lawyer, and not a Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University. His father was, and his name was Dr. Goncalo Almeida Garrett. Both were, supposedly, present at Fatima and both wrote their own accounts of the event. In addition, can some names and written testimony be provided from anyone who was present that day who said that the event did not happen?

The conclusion of this article ("There is no scientific evidence that explains the reports of the crowd that day. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that such a miracle did indeed occur.") is a non-sequitur, and surely not NPOV. LeContexte 10:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please explain in what manner you believe the aforesaid quoted sentence "is an argument where the conclusion is drawn from premises which are not logically connected with it", as your sentence itself appears to be the relative equivalent to a non-sequitur. pat8722 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Let us accept, for the sake of argument, the premise of the sentence, i.e. that there is indeed no scientific evidence (sic) that explains the reports of the miracle alluded to in the article. It does not necessarily follow that the miracle occured. Perhaps there is a scientific explanation, but we haven't found it yet. Perhaps the reports were themselves mistaken (which is certainty a possibility given that other persons present claim to have seen nothing). Accordingly the conclusion of the sentence does not follow logically from the first half of the sentence - in other words, it is a non-sequitur. (Although this is really a red herring, for which I apologise: whether or not a non-sequitur, the sentence is plainly not NPOV) LeContexte 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The author doesn't say that it definitely was a miracle, only that it is reasonable to believe that it was a miracle. Given all the evidence cited, that the miracle was predicted, that it was witnessed even by unbelievers and skeptics, etc., that is certainly a valid conclusion. It would be extraordinarily obtuse to look at that evidence and insist it is unreasonable to believe that a miracle occurred.

Do you think it is also reasonable to believe that a miracle did not occur? LeContexte 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on our knowledge of the solar system and the quality of witness statements, it is not reasonable to believe that a miracle did not occur. To so believe must be based either on scientific evidence that the sun can act as it did, or that it can appear to act as it did, or on the impeachment of the witnesses, neither of which is reasonably expected. pat8722 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You have clearly spent some time editing this article, and have strong views on the subject. But you must appreciate that it is reasonable for others to take a different view. Certainly, some believe that the event was a miracle. Others believe it is more plausible that the event resulted from some combination of mass hysteria, optical illusion and the unusual political and social conditions at the time. The article must take a neutral point of view, and claims that the only reasonable conclusion is that a miracle occured is not a neutral point of view. LeContexte 23:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you will be both truthful and objective, this matter will be resolved more readily. The article did not state that "the only reasonable conclusion is that a miracle occurred", it merely stated that that was a reasonable conclusion. The evidence therefore was cited. Known principles of science would have to be contradicted to explain the reported actions of the sun that day, or else the witnesses would have to be impeached, and you have not argued otherwise, nor shown otherwise. Likely because of your religous beliefs, the truth of my statement bothers you. I invite you to look at it through the eyes of science, rather than your pre-conceived notions of what truth must be. You can't find the truth if you automatically discard everything which does not fit with your preconceived notions. pat8722 21:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Earlier today the article included a discussion of alternative explanations (not added by me) and you reverted it. It is an entirely reasonable and consistent position to say that witness reports seem contradictory and unclear, and that the known phenomenon of hysteria at religious events is a more likely and more reasonable explanation than the unknown phenomenon of divine intervention (or, for that matter, intervention by space aliens, the devil, or the flying spaghetti monster). I am not asking for Wikipedia to represent this as the only point of view, or even as the most reasonable point of view, but Wikipedia must remain neutral as between this point of view and yours. I don't quite understand why this is controversial, but I will RfC for some further opinions. LeContexte 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I should add a further point: I don't think any Wikipedia article should state "it is reasonable to conclude that...". If a given authority has said that he/she/it considers a conclusion reasonable then we should state this, but is it not for an encyclopedia to reach conclusions. Putting a conclusion in the passive voice does not help matters. LeContexte 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree only with your last statement. Conclusions do not belong in wikipedia. Even though the conclusions are true, the facts can speak for themselves and lead the reader to make his own conclusion. The only scientific conclusion, is, however, a neutral point of view, so NPOV was never the real issue, lack of citation to a published work in which the conclusion is found, is the real issue. You probably saw it as an NPOV issue because you come to scientific evidence blinded by your religious beliefs (presumably atheism). I additionally point out that you again evidence your bias and untruthfulness when you accuse me of reverting the discussion of alternative explanations. I clearly left in the matter which was not merely the commentary of the editor and for which he presented sources, even though his citations were incomplete. I removed some known falsehoods which repeatedly appear on this site, and for which there are no citations. pat8722 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For my reasons as stated, I have therefor removed the sentence which was the subject of this dispute. Next time, please cite at the beginning of your arguments the real reason for disputing the inclusion of particular sentence in wikipedia. pat8722 00:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think accusations of bias and untruthfulness are particularly helpful. My first comment was correct: the sentence was a non-sequitur and not NPOV. I'm not sure why you think anyone who is skeptical of the miracle of Fatima is likely to be an atheist, but I don't think my views are particularly relevant here. LeContexte 08:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That sentence aside, the article is riddled with POV. For example: it is POV to claim that Our Lady "had promised" that a miracle would occur. It is POV for an article to contain an unsourced response to Nickell's claim which asserts, without reasoning that there is no scientific evidence explaining the reported phenomenon. It is POV/original research for an article to contain an unsourced rebuttal of Campbell's article. here is no scientific evidence however, that explains the phenomena at they were reported at Fatima by the eyewitnesses. It is POV to exclude from the article references to similar phenomenon occuring elsewhere (whether it be Medjugorje or Nancy Fowler's followers). So I don't agree that this issue is resolved. LeContexte 08:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated how your first comment was not the relative equivalent to a non-sequitur, nor have you demonstrated that the conclusion was not a NPOV. It is not necessary to further discuss that issue however, as the statement was removed when you made the only verfied complaint, that it was without citation. I haved added direct quotations and sources to address some of your other concerns. I removed the statements about other alleged appartions because they are argumentative, and not relevant, as the place to discuss and dispute alleged apparations at Medjugorje or the followers of Nancy Fowler are on their respective wiki pages. The Fatima page will become too confused, lengthy, and incoherent if attacks on Medjugorje or the followers of Nancy Fowler, must be debated here, too. pat8722 17:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As your objections have been addressed, I have removed the POV tag from the article. pat8722 16:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuation of the discussion between LeContexte and Pat8722

I don't agree that the NPOV dispute is settled. For the reasons above, I think the article is riddled with POV. I'm also not sure it's helpful to remove the article from RfC. There are few links to this article and, accordingly, the discussion page is getting little traffic. It would be helpful to have input from others.

I have edited the article to remove judgment calls and include some skeptical religious and non-religious sources. If you consider any of the sources incorrect/misleading, it would be helpful if you could include appropriate sourced responses in the article. Some points to note:

1. de Marchi's name is inconsistently capitalised ("de" or "De") in the article, as well as in books and on the web (see, e.g., http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/tsfatima.htm where different forms are used in the same document). I have followed lower case throughout, as this is used in the majority of the sources, and is the capitalisation I'd expect an Italian name to have.

2. I can't find de Marchi's books (and they appear to all be out of print) and I may therefore be misrepresenting him. I'd be grateful if you could correct this. You may wish to add more material from him. That said, the article would benefit from the inclusion of supportive material from others. I may do this myself soon.

3. You may not think whether or not the event was unique is an important question: however according to Sullivan's book (see the article) those the Catholic Church charges with investigating reports of miracles do consider uniqueness an important factor in assessing the credibility of a miracle. So, for what it's worth, do I. This is, after all, the reason why miraculous claims for this event are more impressive than those for vegetables that look like Jesus.

4. I've removed unverified commentary in the witness testimonies: a poet being "noted", Almeida being an "atheist" (he appears to be have been a Catholic skeptical of the previous miracles - given the time/place it would be surprising were he an atheist but I am, of course, willing to be corrected).

5. When considering writings about a religious event, it is relevant to note an author's own religious beliefs (or lack thereof). I've tried to apply this consistently to those on both sides of the argument.

6. I have added references to authors who call de Marchi's account into question.

7. Is it really correct to say "The sun itself could not have actually moved so drastically given that this would have destabilized the entire solar system." This is not necessarily the case if, as is claimed, a miracle happened. However, I'm not sure the mechanics of how a miracle occur is particularly relevant, and have deleted the text for simplicity's sake.

8. I have deleted the passage "There is no scientific explanation as to how the crowd could have looked directly at the sun for up to 10 minutes without repeatedly turning away (witnesses reported feeling compelled to twice turn away from the sun because of "heat") or suffering vision loss." as (a) this is unsourced assertion; (b) it is unclear what point this is making - do any skeptics claim that witnesses looked directly at the sun for 10 minutes without turning away?

9. I have deleted the sentence "The reader may form his own opinion as to the likely effects of looking at the sun, whether through dust, or through a mere cloud, and compare his opinion to those of others and to the witness statements at Fatima." as this is unsourced and plainly POV.

10. I have deleted the response to Campbell's claims, as it appears original and unsourced.

11. I agree that the Judah Ruah reference on the anonymous website seems unsubstantiated, and I can find no references to it elsewhere. The paragraph should be deleted.

12. Final paragraph: do you mean the Documentaçao critica de Fatima? If it is to be mentioned then it needs to be given a more neutral treatment it seems inappropriate to dismiss its claims in this document without saying what the claims are. I cannot help here: my library has nothing bar the odd reference and the only useful internet sources I can find are in Portuguese (which, sadly, I do not speak beyond ordering from menus). As it stands, the passage is better off deleted, in my opinion.

13. It would be good to add some external links - supportive, skeptical and neutral (if such things exist!)

LeContexte 19:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That Almeida was an atheist was reported by De Marchi. I will re-add the statement when I locate the exact page number. It should not be so hard for you to believe he was an atheist, given that he was writing for an anticlerical newspaper, and his articles prior to 13 October had been to satirize the events.

I will locate my sources about looking directly at the sun before I re-add the statement.

I would like to verify the below additions of yours:

Your statement: "It has been noted that relatively few witness testimonies of the event were obtained before World War II." Please cite the page number.

Your statement: "However a number of reports contradict de Marchi and claim that some denied seeing any phenomenon." I deleted this sentence as being unsourced.

Your statement: "Karl Rahner, the late liberal Catholic theologian, is reported by as noting" Please fill in the missing word.

Your statement: "Kevin McClure, a skeptical investigator of the paranormal, alleged that less than half of those present had seen any phenomenon and, on reviewing the reports of those who had, noted that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years." Please cite page numbers.

Your statement: "[Jaki] assembled all available first person testimonies from the event" Please cite page number

Your statement: "McClure claims" Please cite a source

While I don't think it's appropriate to include mere opinions of authors on wikipages (as that is not very encyclopedic, and rightly open to the "non-NPOV" objection, I will postpone my argument on the point. I would ask, however, that you add the authors' bases for their opinions in this article, as that is more meaningful than the opinion itself.

I have deleted the paragraphs that deal with miracles in general, as such argument belongs on the wiki page for miracles, not on every wikipage that deals with a specific miracle. It is argumentative to include such commentary here, and would lead to a confused and incoherent article if both sides of the arguments on the possibility of miracles in general are now to be stated and argued here (and then presumably on every wikipage where an alleged miracle is described). I left in the miracle-commentary specific to the Fatima miracle. I note that this wikipage includes a link to the miracles wikipage, and I invite you to post your miracle-in-general commentary there, if you consider it be "encyclopedic" type commentary.

Based on his books which I have, De Marchi apparently prefers the capitalized version of his name, so that is what I have used in this article. Thank you for pointing that out.

pat8722 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been very constructive - it looks like we are approaching an article we can both be happy with. I agree the sourcing and references need to be improved. I'm a bit tied up for the next couple of days but will sort this within the week, and reply to you properly then. LeContexte 11:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My two pence; surely the phrase "The Miracle of the Sun is a miraculous event " in the opening statement is POV. The fact that it's qualifed later as alleging to have occured in neither here nor there. I think "The Miracle of the Sun is an alleged miraculous event that occured..." is a better re-write

Footnotes vanished... where?

hi everybody, I'm quite impressed by this article and I expected all the footnotes hinted by the numbered links to clarify the first section... but I don't know how to read them? Were they deleted by mistake? I'm working on October 13 to refurbish it to a higher level of accuracy (by the way if you have something to suggest I'm more than open to it) and I tripped over this goood article (and its discussion). - εΔω 10:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (I'm Italian: write as you like, I understand; forgive my poor English).

Footnotes can be found by selecting "edit this page" at the top of the article. Then do a search through the article for the word "ref", and you will see each of the footnotes by it's corresponding text. pat8722 14:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• That is not an appropriate citation style. The notes should be visible on the page without entering edit mode. Whoever made them that way should fix it. --Nelson Ricardo 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Having finally learned how to make the references display, I have added "==References== <references/>" to the article. pat8722

request for pictures

User: Khnottel 0900, 21 Jan 06 (EST) Can anyone offer why this event attended by 70,000 people including many from the press, is not documented by photos? I see only one reference to some mysterious photographer who reportedly saw nothing ... but even searching on the Web I find no photos of this event.24.60.232.48 02:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of the crowd can be found at http://users.ev1.net/~seektress/fatima1.htm. I have added a link to it in the article. Thank you for your inquiry. pat8722 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me add that the allegations that a photographer "saw nothing" are unfounded. Portcult.com claims Almeida's photographer (Judah Ruah) saw nothing, but has no reference to support it. Had Almeida located anyone willing to deny the miracle that he, himself a skeptic, had witnessed, he surely would have included that fact in his report for O Seculo, which was anti-clerical and hoping to discount the promised miracle (that is why Almeida was sent to cover it). That Almeida did not report anyone claiming not to have seen, is solid evidence that he was not able to locate anyone who had not witnessed it, including Judah Ruah. The allegation that a photographer saw nothing is of very recent invention, and is always made without citation to any source for the allegation. pat8722 02:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe what Khnottel is asking for are pictures of the event, not of the crowd. If a photographer is covering a miracle, surely he photographs the miracle and not the people looking at it. A crowd of people is nothing special; a miracle is, well, miraculous. 83.132.98.35 14:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But at the time you (83.132.98.35) wrote your comment, there IS a picture of the miracle in the article. You can see from the picture that the sun is darker than the light which it is radiating. To the best of my knowledge, the picture was not published until 1951. It would be reasonable to suppose there were other photos of the sun too, but it may take years, and the fulfillment of the message, before they are finally published. pat8722 18:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

what footnoting technique should be used?

Saxifrage has inserted into this article what he has termed the "harvard style" of footnoting, which at least two editors (including me) contend results in an article that is less readable than using that which most of us know as "standard footnoting techniques". I looked at the wikipedia: manual of style and did a search on "harvard" on that page, and did not find a hit relative to footnoting. Saxifrage is asked to be more specific in citing a policy under which he believes we must/should use his rather difficult footnoting technique. pat8722 23:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CITE, which is linked from the Manual of Style. The link is not as prominent as I thought, so I should have been more specific.

Using <ref></ref> to "hide" references should only be done when those references are complete in themselves: remember that Wikipedia will eventually see print and so must conform to style guidelines in references section as well as the body of the article. I would have used footnote-style references, but this is not recommended when there are multiple references to the same work but to different page numbers. The references section should never have more than one entry for a given source, which is what was wrong with the article before I converted it to Harvard style. If each sentence in the article wasn't using a reference to a specific page number then it would have been trivial to collect them all into a single footnote for each of DeMarchi's books, but there was no way to do this while preserving the page numbers.

What this article really needs is a more correct use of citation to get rid of the mess of citations, not sweeping the citation mess into the footnotes section. I would suggest as a starter that someone who has DeMarchi's books on-hand should condense the citations so that there is only one or two per paragraph instead of one per sentence. Alternatively, if the page numbers are not actually required, the article can gracefully use the footnote style of citation using the <ref name=DeMarchi-a/> shortcut markup which will generate only two entries in the references section, instead of a hundred as before. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're not going to answer, I'll take it as tacit approval of my reasons and change it back. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How do I know john de marchi didn't just make up the witness testimony or the number of people present?

Your entire bibliography was written by one guy, please expand it! I understand this happened a long time ago in portugal, but there must be other documentation I can refer to for verification. I've looked myself, but the library has nothing useful and I can't find anything on the internet either.

Please, alternate sources!

Need to complete citations

There are still a few citations that are incomplete. To make things simpler, I can going to use this version as a reference point. Cite 13 (the alleged miracle lasted ten minutes) and cite 20 need the page number, if available. Cite 17 (the first description) needs the exact book, although I suspect that it is DeMarchi 1952b. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed link

The two lines above were removed from the article. They were not inserted in a correct location and I thought maybe they should be talked about before being included.. and if so in the External Links section right? Lsjzl 07:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• After removal they were reinserted, and after being left alone for about 8 minutes still not corrected (wrong coding) so I decided to watch most of the video. I don't see that this as a video that NEEDS to be included without discussion so I invite the anon includer to discuss here. Merci! Lsjzl 07:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversies of Recent Development

Is it really relevant to mention that some anonymous website somewhere on the internet contains unsubstantiated claims regarding the phenomenon? It seems to me that this entire section should probably be removed. -Rosensteel 15:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't wan't to delete that section by myself, could some people give their opinion? I can't think of an argument to defend that section, anyhow; it seems like the owner of the site put it there. 9:56, 21 November 2006. --------- I've just seen that this section is cited three times in this talk page, all of them with distrust and with no answers in defense. I'm deleting it.

NPOV

This article is riddled with POV but the critical response section is in dire need of help. However, the vast majority of citations are only attributed to one source, De Marchi, who is a Catholic priest. I don't think we can call that a reliable source, especially for an article that is supposed to be POV free. My initial impression was this whole thing makes it seem like there is very little debate that a miracle did in fact occur. Which is obviously not the case as the majority of the religious world is not Catholic. Though on second reading it doesn't seem as bad as I thought.A mcmurray 09:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that De Marchi was a Catholic Priest who very much believed in the miraculous nature of the solar event and the apparitions in general, he did spent several years in Fatima during the 1940s carefully investigating these events. This includes digging up contemporary reports and interviewing surviving witnesses. I have read De Marchi's book and the basic facts that he reports seem reliable enough. The largest difficulty with regards to this event is trying to interpret exactly what happened both in the sky and on the ground that day. Jaki's book provides far more details and witness accounts. He is, however, a Benedictine priest, although unlike De Marchi he has a background in science. Jaki interprets the events as a meteorological miracle - that is to say, the only thing miraculous about it is the sheer coincidence of its timing. Kevin McClure and Joe Nickell each offer critical treatments of the event in their respective books, but these overviews are short and lack the depth of Jaki's treatment. Do you have any suggestions for what might improve this article? Albie34423 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me read it thoroughly and intricately and get back to you?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Albie34423 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I am usually more specific. Sorry. My WikiStress levels are through the roof, so I haven't been about as much as when I tagged this article and made the original post here. I promise I will get to it though.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I totally forgot about this. IvoShandor 05:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Paragraph

I moved the following unsourced paragraph from the main article here. When proper citations are added it can be moved back:

Another possibility is that a combination of fatigue and dehydration (some people had waited six or more hours before the event) combined with staring at the sun for a period of time caused neural fatigue (see Afterimage) which could explain the sun and landscape changing colors, the face of Mary being seen (partially through suggestion), and the spinning of the sun "like fireworks". Mental fatigue and lack of reference points in the sky could make people perceive the sun "dancing in the sky", when unperceived movements of the eye or crowd are the real source of the "movement". This would also explain why the reports often contradicted each other, and why some people say saw nothing unusual at all.

There are some interesting theories there, but without any citations it seems like they are the author's opinion/argument Albie34423 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats probably one of the best explanations I'v heard so far. But I must ask, wasnt the miracle preceded by rain? If people were so dehydrated that they were on the verge of hallucination, wouldnt they just have drank some of the rain water?Groucho2 8:14, 17 August 2008

Making links. Please do not claim POV.

I linking some terms, especially in the section "Critical evaluation of the event", to the appropriate Wikipedia articles. I am doing this solely so that the reader can gain a fuller understanding of the terms mentioned. Some of the items which I am linking may be controversial under considerations of POV, but the links themselves are not (although if you see any links that could be directed to more appropriate articles, please do so.) Thank you. -- 201.19.77.39 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More re making these links.

(1) IMHO, some of the skeptics' hypotheses are scarcely more credible than supernatural/religious beliefs. (I.e., I'm not personally trying to defend these hypotheses.)

(2) Some of the cites in the section "Critical evaluation of the event" need review.

(3) As noted in comments above on this page, rebuttals to skeptics' hypotheses in this section need to be screened per WP:WEASEL and WP:CITE (I.e. "Who actually said this?")

(4) See Wikipedia:Red link

Thanks. -- 201.19.77.39 12:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I agree there is a lot here that needs to be cleaned up or re-organized. I just need to sit down and do it at some point. As for some of the more dubious hypotheses by skeptics - as long as the article merely states matter of factly what was said and by whom, then it is up to the reader to judge the merits of that. Unless it's completely off the wall, then it is probably worth at least noting. Albie34423 08:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

• Newspaper pictures of the crowd Grimwires 12:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed edit

If nobody has any objections I would like to replace the broken link with a potential reference source to this article that has a relevant picture of the crowd. It also has information which expands on this article in a religious context. Since I don't subscribe to this belief it might be better if somebody else makes the amendments. For instance, this abstract:

"The Catholic Church has officially endorsed the Fatima Message "as worthy of belief" since 1930. Five successive popes have publicly indicated their approval and belief in the validity and critical importance of the Fatima apparitions. Several popes have visited Fatima on solemn pilgrimage and Pope John Paul II has gone at least once in every decade of his pontificate. His Holiness has publicly credited Our Lady of Fatima for saving his life during an assassination attempt in 1981 (which, parenthetically, took place on the 64th anniversary of the first Fatima apparition). The following year, while in Fatima to give thanks for Her intervention, the Pope stated that "the message of Fatima is more relevant and more urgent" today than even when Our Lady first appeared." referenced from:

• Fatima Portugal Our Lady of Fatima

Grimwires 11:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Paring down extraneous information

"Richard Dawkins considers that it is improbable that 70,000 witnesses lied, or that there was a mass hallucination or a trick of the light. He considers it even less improbable that the that the sun actually moved. Dawkins believes that there is no alternative but to believe there was no miracle, on the grounds that miracles are not possible."

That's nice, but not terribly relevant. I don't think this belongs in the article at all -- I don't think 70,000 people lied, or that there was a mass hallucination, or that miracles are possible either, but that doesn't mean that the article should include my thoughts on the matter. I've removed the paragraph, but we should concentrate on paring down some of the extraneous theories such as this one. --Pyran 09:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't have to be 70k people lying. How many people were actually reporting this event? Perhaps 100? 500? And suppose that each of those people had an interest in the event being significant, for religious or political or financial (or any other) reasons? Would there not be a readily selectable proportion of the 70,000 people there to assert whatever was required to satisfy these people's investment in the event. Suppose some people saw no miracle; would their story be related with the same hysteria as those who saw something miraculous? Or would it be conveniently ignored?

The filter that has been applied here is "what is amazing?", so it is unsurprising that non-supernatural viewpoints are ignored.Cosmo7 (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It may just be my personal oppinion, but I find it really hard to believe that a crowd of 70,000 people could stand on a hill, see nothing. And then, when 100 or 500 people start saying they saw a miracle, the remaining 65,000 people dont come forth to refute it.Groucho2 7:49, 17 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.39.69 (talk)

all dry?

I just wanted to comment that none of the listed scientific explanations address the fat that the drenched crowds became completely dry in a matter of minutes. (This comment was written by Lg1 on 01:25, 13 March 2006)

The statement about the "drying" is documented in the article by a reference citing John De Marchi "The Immaculate Heart" (1952) Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, at page p150. I thought it would detract from the drama of the cited quotations to include every available quotation about every available detail. You can read the entire story at "http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/tsfatima.htm, which contains the "The True Story of Fatima" written by John De Marchi, and which contains many very good first-person witness accounts. Although De Marchi limits his account of the drying to a short summary, which begins "The people, who had been drenched and soggy with the pelting, unremitting rain, were suddenly and completely dry-their shoes and stockings, their skirts and clothes...", John Haffert in "Meet the Witnesses" (a poorly structured book, missing the most important witness accounts), does include first person quotations about the miraculous drying, but for the most part the accounts read rather dull, as how many ways can you say "we become dry"? Here is an except from one the accounts, by Dominic Reis, who was 17 at the time, "There was a good three inches of water where I stood...it was raining just like you open a faucet...and then suddenly the rain stopped...In a few minutes the ground was as dry as this floor here...The clothes were dry and looked like they had just come from the laundry." I have here omitted Reis' comments about the sun, to avoid being repetitive with the article. Given the drama of the sun, it seems like too small and distracting a detail to include quotations about the drying in the main article. There are about 10 such quotations in Haffert's book. pat8722 14:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a question about this, did the "drying" effect everybody in the crowd? or, like the miracle, were their some people who reported it not happening to them and some people who said it did? Groucho2 8:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence beyond eyewitness accounts at all?Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Critical Evaluations

After reading through the section on critical evaluations of the event, I noticed that somebody has added a short sentence or two of counterarguments after each one. These counterarguments are always attributed to an unspecificed "somebody" or "some people" - but I get the feeling that author him/herself simply went through each point trying to refute them (which I would consider to be POV). Unless these asides can be attributed to some authority, then I think that they should be removed, as they are distracting.

Thoughts? Albie34423 06:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "He said she said" is a poor format in any event, but when the replies are POV it is surely unacceptable. LeContexte 10:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

After reading through it again today it really does sound like someone is just trying to argue with the article. I've gone ahead and removed all of these remarks. Perhaps a good idea for going forward here would be to have two sections, one that lists some commentators who are in favor of the miraculous nature of the event (certainly De Marchi would fall into that camp and so would Jaki, in a more limited sense) and another for commentators who are more critical or skeptical (like Kevin McClure and Joe Nickel). If I have time later I might be able to work on something like this. Albie34423 22:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm portuguese and I'm very well aware of the social impact of this event. I never heard of any serious investigation beeing conducted about this phenomena. You've got to realise that, lacking any physical evidences (ie photographs), it's almost impossible to be able to tell exactly what happened in that day. Religious people will always love to tell the story the way they like it, and any person who doubts it will be dismissed. Portugal was a country populated by ignorant people, extremely religious, some of which died without beeing able to belive that man walked on the moon (i knew people like that). My point is, this will forever remain a miracle, and no serious scientist will lose time trying to show the contrary, because of lack of evidence or 1st hand testimonial that he could confront nowadays. Surpreendido (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Stanely L. Jaki's book God and the Sun at Fatima (1999) is the only "serious" investigation that I am aware of, at least in terms of its thoroughness when it comes to the available eyewitness accounts. Albie34423 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to add in information which suggests that darting and pulsating effects witnessed during sun miracles are due to retinal burning. This is the conclusion that the Georgia Skeptics reached when present at the 1990 sun miracle in Conyers Georgia, at which over 3000 people were present. Quote

'As the miracle continued, people began swarming around my telescope. Everyone wanted to know what I had seen. They all said they had just seen the sun do miraculous things, and wanted a closeup look through the scope. I estimate that well over two hundred people viewed the sun through one of our solar filters, and without exception they saw nothing unusual when looking through the mylar.'

Most people said that the sun was either pulsating or dividing into multiple lights. The apparent pulsation did not surprise me, since the eye would certainly rebel at focusing on the sun. From the descriptions of the multiple lights, I concluded that these were afterimages caused by looking toward the sun several times.'

http://www.lysator.liu.se/skeptical/newsletters/Georgia_Skeptic/GS05-02.TXT

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.105.50 (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds fine assuming it's tied to the sightings by a reliable source. --CliffC (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is their no information the effects of sun gazing on the retina, so called 'sun miracles' have been documented (amongst other places) at Heroldsbach, Conyers and Medjugorje and the effects witnessed are always the same. Seeing the sun change colour and dance is a known effect of sun gazing and has been documented in peer reviewed opthalmic journals: British Journal of Ophthalmology, 1988, 72, 931-934 (Can be found on JSTOR)

This article is woefully inadequate and excludes the most promising naturalistic explanation. Why is this not mentioned? Someone please add this in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.105.50 (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This sounds fine assuming you can find a reliable source tying the effect to the sightings. --CliffC (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the British Journal of Ophtalmology? It's peer reviewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.105.50 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

Solar retinopathy following religious rituals:

CASE 4 [This is just 1 case there are 3 more. Cases 1-3 display simmilar symptoms, after extended periods of sun gazing. ]

A 33-year-old woman presented to the RVEE Hospital in July 1987. She complained of a black spot in front of her right eye. In May 1987 she had been on a pilgrimage to Medjugorje. She had stared at the sun at 7.00 pm intermittently for a few minutes. While she was so doing, the sun had danced and changed colour from orange to black to white. When she looked away she noticed her vision was blurred, and there was a black spot in front of her right eye. Gradually with time her vision improved, but the black spot has persisted....Solar retinopathy is due to a combination of thermal and photochemical injury...We present here a series of four patients all of whom looked deliberately at the sun for prolonged periods of time. They were encouraged to do so by other pilgrims, who themselves had seen apparitions when staring at the sun. Two of the four patients were amblyopic in one eye, and suffered damage to the dominant eye. All four patients suffered irreversible visual damage, with persistent central scotomata.

A forceful argument can be built around this, pilgrims at Fatima were known to have stared at the sun for extended periods before the miracle.

Here's the URL for the article:

http://bjo.bmj.com/content/72/12/931

Add this in if you think it's any good. I'm not too confident when it comes to editing Wikis. Thanks for the feedback.

Sounds good, thanks. Have scaled it to size of the other evaluations and added it. --CliffC (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, It doesn't seem too convincing by itself though. I'm currently searching through journals for some more info.

I found this article, which is good.

http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/MirSun.pdf

'In a second experiment, realized at 3 p.m. in December 2002, I looked straight at the sun during a much longer time. After some minutes, I saw impressive colours, up to 2 or 3 times the diameter of the sun. They changed, but were mainly pink, deep blue, red and green. Further away, the sky became progressively more luminous. I stopped there, since I understood that these colours resulted from the fact that the red, green and blue sensitive pigments are bleached and regenerated at different rates. Moreover, it is well known that receptor fields combine the responses of cones, to form blue-yellow, red-green and whiteblack opponent pairs.'

I don't know too much about Meessen though. Other than that he is (or was) a professor at UCL (Belgium)

Shouldn't the views of Schwebel be removed to give the article some credibility? Considering the plausible explanations of Meessen and Nickel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalos1 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.105.50 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Have moved the optical explanation to the fore, it's clearly the most credible, backed up by the BJO, and the statements of a prominent opthalmologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daedalos1 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed somebody deleted a substantial portion of the article, in relation to the optical explantaion, please do not delete sections at will and without discussion.

I think you are referring to the deletions I made. The deletions were justified per Wikipedia policy, and the reasons were stated in the edit summary. If you want to discuss them here I would be glad to do so, but I think it would be a waste of your time. The matter which was deleted was sourced to articles which referred to neither the Fatima nor Miracle of the Sun. The connection to this subject was made by the editors of this article, not by the sources. As such, the deleted material was plainly wp:syn and/or wp:or. Mamalujo (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The connection was made in the Meessen article; Meessen cites the BJO article in his paper as it corroborates his position. This is the reason for its inclusion, I did not make the connection myself. From a realistic standpoint the BJO article was probably the most respectable piece of information pertaining to the miracle. Why delete it?

Well, I see that Meesen cites the BJO article, then why not just cite Meesen. I don't think its proper to bootstrap the BJO article into this article as a source. Meesen may have seen certain portions of the BJO article as relevant to the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, but I don't think that means that we as editors can use it as a source when that article specifically does not mention Fatima and only studied four cases, one in Kildare and three in Medjugorge. Meesen may have made a connection but his article isn't footnoted so we don't know what he pulled from the BJO article. Certainly the BJO article would be a proper source for a generalized article on Miracles of the Sun, but I don't think it is for this article. Mamalujo (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that the information contained within the BJO article appears to be invaluable when it comes to understanding the mechanism behind the optical explanation of the miracle. It would be a shame to leave out the only peer reviewed source in the entire article; as I said it's probably the best we've got in terms of explanation. Perhaps the BJO article could be tacked on in some sense? E.g. Meessen cites a BJO article which discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles, the article concludes that the effects witnessed during these miracles are due to solar retinopathy Daedalos1 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you think?Daedalos1 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there may be all kinds of articles where we think things belong but per Wikipedia policy, it is not the editor's place to do original research or to synthesize sources so that the article is saying something the sources do not. If a source does not mention Fatima or the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, it probably is not an appropriate source. What you might want to do is create an article on Miracles of the Sun. It appears to be a notable topic. That source would certainly be appropriate there, and you could have a link to it from this article. One of the problems with explaining the Fatima Miracle with sources that do not mention it is that it can be misleading. For example, I don't think I've seen any source which indicated vision loss at Fatima, despite, what, 70,000 people viewing it. Also, as Jaki points out, even if the event was explainable by natural phenomenon, it could still be a miracle in that the seers predicted it would happen when it happened. And unlike say Medugorje, there was not then a great longstanding precedent of sun miracles so that it would be expected. When you synthesize sources which don't address the subject at hand, you have them saying something they don't say. Mamalujo (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I really do dispute your claim that I am synthesising sources. I simply want to add that Meessen mentions the BJO article, not discuss it seperately. As for your other point Jaki favours a meteorological explanation, Meessen does not, the BJO article establishes that solar retinopathy and the associated 'miraculous' optical effects occur whenever one looks at the sun for long enough, there's nothing miraculous about it. At Fatima people had been looking for signs in the sun for many months before October the 13th (skim De Marchi’s book, The True Story of Fatima or even Jaki's God and The Sun at Fatima). De Marchi quotes an interview with Lucia after the event in which she discloses that it was the crowd that told her to look at the sun initially, not vice versa. However this is all beside the point. My proposal is that I simply note that Meessen mentions the BJO article, something like: Meessen cites a BJO article (among others) in his defence in which four modern examples of Sun Miracles are attributed to solar retinopathy. Do you still claim that this would be violating Wikipedia policy? How are we to resolve this?Daedalos1 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept your criticisms that the previous edit of the article which featured a separate paragraph on the BJO article may be in violation of Wiki. policy. What I cannot see however is how the proposed solution outlined above (i.e. simply observing that Meessen mentions the article) is in violation of the said policy Daedalos1 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since you last replied, what do you think to the points I have raised? Daedalos1 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume you've lost interest in replying to my objections. As such I propose the following course of action:

1.) I accept your original criticism that a paragraph solely on the BJO article may be unsuitable. 2.) I do not accept your objection that mentioning that Meessen cites the BJO article violates Wiki. policy. 3.) As such I shall go ahead with my proposed solution. Daedalos1 (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied recently, preoccupied with serious matters in real life. I think the reintroduced matter is still synthesis. The edit connects Fatima to the BJO study in a way that Meesen does not. Meesen merely lists the BJO article as a source, we can only guess as to what connection he is making. You said "I simply want to add that Meessen mentions the BJO article, not discuss it seperately", but the recent edit did discuss the BJO article, saying that it dismissed those other sun miracles as retinopathy. BJO did not dismiss Fatima as retinopathy or even mention it. Meesen may have seen some connection but did not say what it was. The recent edit is synthesizing sources to say something that neither of them says. It is original research. If you really want to have this material, why don't you start a general article on "sun miracles". It clearly could have that source in it and you could have a link to that article from this one. As to Jaki, I think you missed my point. It is not whether he saw the Fatima sun miracle as caused naturally by meteorological or optical causes, but that he saw it as being naturally caused yet still miraculous. Of course, that is somewhat of a tangent from our point though. Mamalujo (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think you are pushing the synthesising sources argument. Meessen's article is not entirely on Fatima; the thrust of his argument is that Sun Miracles share a common cause, the cause being the effects solar retinopathy. The BJO article clearly falls under this umbrella. I agree that it is not explicitly cited however Meessen references none of his sources, we are left only with a bibliography. The article is implicitly but obviously contained within the thrust of his argument. As for creating a seperate article I definitely have ample material, with 8-10 good case studies, and the time. However I lack the editing experitise, would you be interested in creating such an article? Daedalos1 (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I gather your above objection was that I discussed the articles contents. I shall simply mention it. I think this is an agreeable compromise. Something like Meessen also cites a BJO article that discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles. Daedalos1 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that a user(Mamalujo) added that Meessen states that his findings are compatible with Jaki's account, this is patently false please re-read the paper. I have edited this. Meessen's theory is that these optical effects happen whenever one looks at the sun for long enough. This precludes the miraculous.Daedalos1 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC.)

It may preclude the miraculous according to you, but you are not a reliable source. As cited in the article Jaki, a physicist, philosopher an priest posits that the occurance could have a natural explanation and nonetheless be a miracle. I'm reverting. Mamalujo (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing Jaki and Meessen. If you want to add that they are compatible put it in the Jaki section. It has no place under Meessen. His explanation is fundamentally sceptical.Daedalos1 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally Jaki's book refers to a very specific type of natural cause, namely a very rare meteorological one. Jaki nowhere in 'God and The Sun at Fatima' comments on Meessen. I doubt Jaki would find Meessen’s account compatible with the miraculous. What evidence do you have to suggest he would? Daedalos1 (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini

"On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fatima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens.[41]"

I’m curious to know whether this claim was substantiated by any other witnesses or if it has been refuted by those in the immediate area.

cheers (I'm not knit picking just interested.) Grimwires 12:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem likely. The alleged Miracle of the Sun occurred on October 13, 1917. Pius XII did not become Pope until 1939. In 1917, he was papal nuncio to Bavaria, so probably was not in the Vatican gardens looking up at the sun. The "secrets" and "miracles" are suspect, because the "prediction" of the Second World War was not revealed until 1941, when the war had been going on for two years. In about 2000, the "third secret" or "prediction" regarding the assassination of John Paul II was revealed, nearly 20 years after the event had occurred.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Similar phenomenon in Medjugorje

There is a similar phenomenon that allegedly took place in Medjugorje on August 2 2009, which also happens to be recorded on a YouTube video. It could maybe be mentioned in the existing article, along with critical a examination of course. [1] ADM (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are similar phenomenon that take place all over the world, including at Marian shrines and spots of both approved and alleged Marian apparitions. Just because it happens at Medjugorje, doesn't mean it ought to be added to the article.

Oct13 (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

POV again

I see that some editors here want this article to assert that this happened. As long as it does it is anything but neutral, eye witness accounts don't prove this happened, no matter how many say they saw it. IvoShandor 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary to make such (Humean) epistemic assumptions. It suffices to note that the interpretation of the event is in fact disputed by many people, so we represent those views. We don't need to affirm or deny whether eyewitness accounts prove historical facts; we simply relate the accounts and their widely held interpretations. Djcastel 14:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Memory is not static, it changes and is altered by perception. Even in criminal justice, eye witness accounts are held as very weak standings in any circumstance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_witness#Reliability 74.43.61.62 (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

UFO hypothesis?

What about the hypothesis that this was a UFO sighting? Sounds much more like that than anything else. Jacques Vallee apparently held this view. Maybe someone knowledgeable can add something about this to the article. Ben Finn (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not a hypothesis, that's a conspiracy theory. Also, it's not more likely than anything else, because you need physical evidence of aliens to first prove the existence of aliens, and you need to prove the existence of aliens before you can start talking about UFOs - even UFOs as evidence of aliens.

Oct13 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There is not any physical evidence that the sun actually moved. So, if what you are saying is true, the fact that the sun did change direction is also a hypothesis. And the proof that extra-terrestrials exist is shown in the Drake equation and the inverse, where the odds of humans being the only sentient beings in the universe are so astronomically large, it is almost impossible. 74.43.61.62 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea that it was a UFO is not a conspiracy theory! It certainly was an unidentified flying object. (Even the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft is not a "conspiracy theory". It's a theory.) But the anonymous comment of September is also not true. For some terms in the Drake equation we have no idea how small they may be. I am adding the following paragraph to the article:

It was suggested by Jacques Vallée in 1965 and by John Keel in 1970 that the phenomenon at Fátima was not the sun, but an unidentified flying object. Keel wrote that "In the initial reports of the phenomenon, all the witnesses agreed that the object was white and seemingly metallic, and that it changed color as the speed of rotation increased. Later, myth and mysticism replaced fact. The disk became 'the sun,' even though observatories around the world assured the press that the sun remained in its usual place during the miracle." He says the disk "waltzed" under the cloud layer, and angel hair fell from the sky.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Heavily Religious Bias and Poor Quality of Critical evaluation of the event section

This article seems to be heavily biased, or one-sided, towards religion and little information or content is given to the opposing aspect; being that it did not happen or was mistaken. Even the areas where contradictory evidence or alternate interpretations are riddled with belittling.

It is also noteworthy that the Critical evaluation of the event section is in poor quality. The section is disorganized and un-ordered (Ex. The declaration of this being a miracle is the last mentioned thing in this article, where it could best be stated at the beginning of the article). It cold just as well be separated into additional sections, such as Explanations or Theories. 74.43.61.62 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. IMHO the whole article needs to be rewritten by someone familiar with critical thinking. The very idea of a "miracle" is inconsistent with critical thinking. Those of us who think critically consider any purported event for which no hard evidence exists, the explanation for which is wishful thinking and imaginary friends, the claims being all unsubstantiated and dubious... we consider such things to be balderdash. A "miracle" by it's very definition is something that cannot be proven and for which no explanation can ever be acceptable because the true believers do not want an explanation. You can't explain it to them because they don't want to hear an explanation. How, then, can we expect to have any kind of meaningful discourse from such a source? The main problem I have with this article is that it takes the mythology of the "miracle" and reports it as if it were fact instead of presenting the claims for what they are... claims. Unsubstantiated, ridiculous, unsupported nonsensical claims. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"A "miracle" by it's very definition is something that cannot be proven". This is certainly not what believers believe. Although most often a miracle defines explanation, it is not always assumed that it might not have been caused by natural forces. Hence, for example, in the Bible, you often see the end of long droughts as a miracle, a sign of God's intervention, but, obviously, the end of a drought is simply rain, which has a very simple natural explanation. Also, as others have pointed about somewhere else in this talk page, examples like Father Jaki abound, where believers understand that God might act within nature laws to produce conversion.

Corrupt File

The media file for the Blue Army audio is corrupted, so I added a noticed. There is a video playlist on Fatima with the same guy here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSqNQaVZea-D8MaTGDqhh4o6SZP8MPar3

But I recommend prudence. John's views are not all orthodox - for example, he claims the Miracle of the Sun is the greatest miracle in history; whereas the Church teaches the Eucharist is the greatest miracle that was, is, and will ever occur until the Second Coming: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/tribunals/apost_penit/documents/rc_trib_appen_doc_20041225_miraculorum-maximum_en.html

Oct13 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Why don't there exist any photos of the miracle???--Der Spion (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are joking???--Charles (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No, why?--Der Spion (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sun dog?

The article asserts that sun dogs are static. I found a NASA video of a "dancing sun dog", to which I linked. The "it can't be a sun dog!" argument is weakened with factual evidence of "dancing sun dogs". However, the edit was reverted since it didn't "prove" anything about the perceived miracle. Huh? Why? Krementz (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that the "miracle" was related to a Sun dog? Lukas 02:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. But provable, that's another matter. JackofOz 05:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at a couple of videos of "dancing sun dogs", e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_hzZWc5gVU. The movements in these videos are not in any way comparable with the description that is that to have taken place. In particular, there are no sudden movements of the sun, it was not snowing, unusually cold. But interesting theory....

Speaking of which, I have a question. Has any similar phenomenom ever happend before or since the miracle? Just curious.Groucho2 5:28, 04 July 2008

For what it is worth, a Catholic lawyer named Coelho, who witnessed the October 13 apparition, wrote an opinion piece in a local newspaper shortly thereafter in which he claims that he and his companions returned to the same spot the following day and witnessed the same phenomenon under analogous circumstances (this time without any of the seers or pilgrims present). This is referenced in Stanley Jaki's book, God and the Sun at Fatima, pgs. 53-62. Variations of the "miracle of the sun" have since been claimed at other places where the virgin mary is claimed to have appeared, such as Medjugorje and Conyers, Georgia, to name just two. Albie34423 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of observations regarding your comment. The lawyer's account, whose full name is Domingos Pinto Coelho, are inconsistent. In another piece, it is written he saw the same phenomenon a few days latter in Lisbon. Not at the same place as where the apparitions took place, and not in the following day. It should also be added that Coelho was a traditionalist, monarch and Catholic, and hence believed in traditional believes like Jesus' Resurrection, Ascension, Virginal Conception, and many other miracles. The reference for these is here (https://observador.pt/especiais/fatima-100-anos-de-uma-historia-mal-contada/). It is in Portuguese, but you can Google translate. As another aside note: Coelho does confirm that something spectacular happened on the 13th Oct, which he himself witness on the 13th, and a few days later. If indeed the account from Coelho is true, and the *same* spectacular phenomenon repeated it self, many many other people would have certainly noticed it and would have reported it. Such accounts are missing. Furthermore, as you can also read from the link I just posted, the political circumstances at the time in Portugal gave reasons, to opposing parties, to confirm, or deny the supernatural nature of the event, or even that the event had occurred at all. There is thus ample reasons to doubt Coelho's testimony.

Thank you. But I was referring to the movment of the sun. Not the apparition.Groucho2 8:20, 08 july 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.229.86 (talk)

I am referring to the movement of the sun. The movement was only apparent - obviously the sun didn't physically move. Albie34423 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry but I misread your comment the first time I read it. And I am aware that the sun couldnt possibly have moved. I was just wondering it their was any such instances of people claiming to see the "sun" move. Groucho200:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The photo of a sun dog on this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parhelion_2005_close.jpg, shows a vertical alignment. However, the Wiki page on Sun_dog seems to imply in several places that the alignment is always horizontal. Is this photo rotated by 90 degrees, or am I missing something? User:cfpops 23 May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC).

No, the photo here is correctly aligned, and shows the most typical appearance (which I've seen several times in southern England). However, sun dogs (aka parhelia) are formed at the intersections of a circle centred on the Sun and a horizontal line through it (approximately thus - ( O ) ); usually the former element is more prominent, but sometimes the latter is, leading to a more horizontal appearance. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"others, including some believers, saw nothing at all"

I've borrowed a quote from Our Lady of Fátima saying that some witnesses saw nothing at all. This claim has two references:

• http://www.sacred-destinations.com/portugal/fatima-shrine-of-our-lady-of-fatima.htm - This page mentions the alleged photographer, but does not itself provide a source for the claim. Should we consider removing this page as an unreliable source?
• Jaki, Stanley L. (1999). God and the Sun at Fátima - I haven't read this book myself. Has anyone read the book so as to verify the claim?
• A third book, called "The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary", by Kevin McClure, apparently states that "Secondly, it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle...". I don't know where he gets that information from. Any takers?

It's a significant claim that contradicts other accounts, so I don't want to repeat it if it's misleading. Rōnin (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The post at http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5666240&postcount=3 mentions "a few reliable witnesses". I don't know where Mike Dash got his information from:

"Firstly, not all pilgrims saw the miracle of the sun, some scholars, notably Mike Dash (In Borderlands) estimate only half. Jaki (In God and the Sun at Fatima) puts the number considerably higher but still maintains that there were a few reliable witnesses that claim to have seen nothing." Rōnin (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've not read Jaki's book yet, but have found and added a few cases from two other books. Rōnin (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read part of Jaki's book, and so far have found one minor reference to this claim, and one indirect testimony. I added the page numbers to the reference. There might be more. Still no idea about the sacred-destinations.com reference. Rōnin (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk references

RobP (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:FTN

There is currently a discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard concerning the subject of this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

POV problems with "Critical evaluation of the event" section

The critical evaluation section pays lip service to the criticism presented. Almost each instance of a scientific/skeptical analysis is immediately followed by a refutation from the original POV of the article, just strengthening the original pro-miracle POV presented throughout. Amazingly, the section even concludes with the pro-POV statement: "...but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle." This has the effect of negating all the prior criticism presented, and clearly was added to influence the reader that any criticism of this "miracle" is invalid. This needs to be revised drastically to maintain neutrality.

Note that I just summarized the criticism already in the article, and added this to the lede - which was lacking any mention of an alt POV. RobP (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Father De Marchi's "investigation" of events should not be used as the primary source of facts - or the default POV of the article. The choice of publisher (Catechetical Guild Educational Society) indicates his views fall within catechistic doctrine rather than objective observation. De Marchi's pro-supernatural views should not be used as rebuttals in the Critical evaluation section. If they are used anywhere in the article they need to be identified per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV e.g. "according to believer Father John de Marchi". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the tag after the problem was mostly fixed, IMO. KarlPoppery (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Fatima NOT dogma

There was a line in the "Catholic Church" section that was incorrect. It stated that Pope Pius declared Fatima to be "Dogma". That did NOT happen. The source says that the events at Fatima helped convince him to declare the Assumption of Mary as dogma. Fatima has always been considered to be private revelation, and never made belief in the Fatima apparitions to be mandatory, as calling it "dogma" would imply. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

100 years ago today. thank you.

100 years ago today. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.224.98 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play"...but yes, seriously, a good anniversary to remember and make note of. Thank you. Randy Kryn 22:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Misinformation article about the Miracle of the Sun

This article misinforms the neutral reader about the event and is attempting to polarize the neutral reader towards the Catholic stream at one end or the atheist stream at the other end.

The angel only presented herself as the Lady of the Rosary and at the time the Vatican didn't accept the event and even had the young girl arrested spreading rumors that it was all lies. The angel never said she was the virgin mary or the mother of god as the Vatican later states.

This event is more a pagan event - angels, sun and a temple requested to be built. Also the event didn't occur in the town of Fatima. It occurred in the Cova da Iria - itself a pagan title.

This article is basically rebadging and rewording the event in an attempt to link it with Vatican Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.97.245.84 (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So... the girl who lied about her imaginary friends was first condemned and then co-oped by an organization that bases it's business model around selling the notion that their imaginary friends are real, and who are now lying about what really happened because it turned into a money-making circus? I love the irony. So go edit the article to debunk the official story. I'll wait here with some toast that looks like it has the face of Jesus on it because I have a toaster that has it's heating elements arranged in the shape of the outline of a guy with long hair. I'll trade you the toast for you citing your sources. GO! Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Allthenamesarealreadytaken: Long outdated, but this section is utter nonsense... How exactly did the Vatican, on the Italian Peninsula, have a young girl in Secular Portugal arrested? –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section to replace religious perspectives and critical evaluation

I placed the NPOV sign because using the term "critical evaluation" for criticism imposes the POV that de marchi and other thinkers with a religious bent are not rationally evaluative.

I've have long experience in edit wars of this type in Opus Dei, and the balance that we reached, after a long give and take, is to create a Controversy Section which starts with Supporting Views followed by Criticism and then by Other Views. The logic behind the order is to avoid the set em up then knock them down arrangement.

Kindly consider this proposal. Thanks. Marax (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

While the naming of the sections is kind of clumsy, there really is no POV being imposed on the article. The event is notable specifically because of the religious perspectives taken on it. The critical section discusses views that are critical of the religious interpretation. The event has no particular notability because of criticism, so the content does not particularly fit within a single section. –Zfish118^⋉talk 04:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem lies in the word evaluation, which Wikipedia itself defines as "a systematic determination of a subject's merit, worth and significance, using criteria governed by a set of standards" and also the word critical which has two meanings, one implying criticism and other analysis. While for the religious aspect the word is merely perspective which implies subjectivity. Marax (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Also Christianity prides itself of being a rational religion based on objective truth and an analysis of facts. Marax (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to make sure that there's no possible confusion, I want to make clear that I didn't put the new NPOV tag, I think the article is now mostly fine. User:Marax put the tag because he believes that the religious POV is misrepresented. KarlPoppery (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Opus Dei, which contains criticism and defense of the behavior of members of a religious organization, isn't a good example for us to follow (e.g. there is no scientific "controversy" about whether or not the Sun spun on its axis and plunged toward the earth in 1917). I don't agree that there's a POV being imposed or an "edit war" at this article. But perhaps we could find a section title that's more descriptive of critical responses to certain specific claims about the physical world that contradict established scientific understanding. Any suggestions? - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed NPOV, I just placed criticism as section title. Hope that's ok. Marax (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced "Religious perspectives" with "Believers' perspectives". "Religious perspectives" implies that everyone who is religious believes in this event, when that's clearly not the case since many religious theologians don't believe it's a supernatural event. If that change is accepted, framing this as "believers' perspectives" vs. "criticism" seems fair to me, but I can't talk for others. KarlPoppery (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The lede still does not describe what people say they saw, just describes this as an 'event'. That would be fine if the paragraph wasn't included to explain 'the event', but then shouldn't the 'event' itself should be present in the lede as well? Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

But what is "the event"? This is unclear and needs time to explain, since there are so many contradicting accounts and different interpretation. I think it's fine to leave it at "witnessed extraordinary solar activity", and explain in detail what that means below. KarlPoppery (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think a sentence in the lead that summarizes the, er, claims of how the sun behaved would not be bad, so I added it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead criticism

Undue prominence is given to the beliefs of scientists to their theories regarding the miracle. A miracle is by definition something that cannot be explained with natural sciences. It is not criticism from a scientific perspective to say that the coordination of natural phenomenon is the nature of the miracle. –Zfish118^⋉talk 11:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Comment is in regard to this reversion, and addresses comments made the by the reverted editor in edit summaries. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your attempt to "define away" the criticism fails.

"Something that cannot be explained with natural sciences" may be the definition, but how do you apply the definition in practice? By trying to explain it and failing. That is what the Catholic Church did. Then scientists tried again and succeeded, which shows that the definition and its application are dysfunctional: if the persons who try and fail are fallible human beings, which they always are, their failure just means that some people failed to explain something, not that there is no explanation.

So, the success of those scientists calls into question the whole "miracle" concept and is therefore very relevant. (Of course, one could come to the same conclusion simply by reading David Hume. Or by thinking.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Zfish118 was trying to subdue criticism, since they have been helpful in reverting the worst of the POV pushing. In general, I advise caution on adding material that invokes science in support of supernatural causation, since we are bound to apply WP:FRINGE guidelines that compel us to clarify the relationship between minority and majority viewpoints. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:, the comments address specific inappropriate material that I removed from the lead. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Zfish118 for bringing up your edit in the talk page. :) I think the problem of NPOV is not a matter of analyzing the actual thinking of writers. What is important in NPOV is and I quote: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The article cannot leave out in the lead (which is a summary of the article) a significant view on the subject matter. In fact because of the prominence of Stanley Jaki his views should be given a proportional amount of space if we are to follow the policy. Marax (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Critical does not only mean criticism, but as per Webster, "expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work". So there can be a prominent philosophical and scientific analysis which can fall under the topic sentence.

As to LuckyLouie's contention that Jaki is fringe, it would be good to read Wikipedia's article on the man: He did post-doctoral research in Philosophy of Science at Stanford University, UC Berkeley, Princeton University and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. He taught at Yale University (1980) Oxford University (1988–1989) and Edinburgh University. And he was awarded the Templeton Prize which is the Nobel prize equivalent for science and religion. Difficult to find someone more prominent or more mainstream than that in this particular field where religion intersects with science. Remember the topic is "Miracle" of the "sun". Wikipedia WP:FRINGE guidelines says" "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." Marax (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is WP:PSCI (Emphasis mine) :

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

Let's all keep in mind that :

1. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community does not agree that a supernatural event happened in 1917. Any attempt to give prominence to the opinion of an authority figure who promotes minority viewpoint is pseudoscience.
2. Although this is partly an article about a religious belief, it also makes claims about the physical world that are of a scientific nature. The impact of the event on catholicism can be described using catholic sources, but any scientific claim can only be added if it represents the mainstream view of the scientific community, or if it's not given undue weight. KarlPoppery (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The paragraph says critical sociological and scientific perspectives. Speculating on the nature of a miracle is theology. There can be critical theological analysis, but not mixed with scientific analysis; there is no way to prove that Father Jaki is right or wrong, short of appeal to the Pope. You could arguably include Father Jaki as a theological response to scientific criticism, but including it as a scientific analysis is inappropriate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 10:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marax. Apologies if my edit summary was unclear. I was not calling Father Jaki, his person, or his career "fringe". His hypothesis, that in 1917 a supernatural force intervened to create natural weather conditions in response to a prophecy — if stated as a scientific position — is a minority (i.e. fringe) scientific position. And so the editorial treatment on Wikipedia of that fringe scientific position must follow per WP:PSCI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• In this case, Father Jaki's claim is not scientific. It is a theological explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the Church's acknowledgement of the reported miracle, and the various scientific explanations. His only scientific claim, in essence, is that there was an optical illusion that made the sun appear to move for at least some in the crowd. It is not even necessarily his scientific claim, but a concession to those who proposed purely natural explanations. This itself is not a fringe position, but it is also unremarkable. It is his theological claim that is of note, and is inappropriately placed among critics offering natural explanations. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you who have responded. :) May I propose this solution then, given that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says that the lede is a "concise overview of the article's topic.... summarize the most important points", then there has to a separate paragraph on believer's explanation separate from what is presently there that summarizes the critics viewpoint. Marax (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now added a synopsis of believer's perspectives in the lede, and mirrored accepted section title of criticism by removing the word "critical" in the lede. Marax (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your last lead, which was very far from acceptable. Overall I mostly agree with User:Zfish118. The article and the lead should be about the impact of this event on the catholic faith, and the scientific consensus on what we know of what happened in the physical word. There's absolutely no place in the lead for the opinion of "Catholic scientists", because there is no such thing as "Catholic science". Science always give you the same answer no matter what your background is, that's what is great about it. KarlPoppery (talk) 02:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Requests for a summary of believers perspective in the lead are misguided. The lead clearly identifies the event as a miracle (I suggest Marax read the linked article) that is believed to be miraculous by those that believe in it. The lead adequately summarizes descriptions of what believers say occurred that made it miraculous, as well as the position of the Catholic Church sanctioning the event as miraculous. Lastly, we can't showcase theological musings about science that give weight to pseudoscientific explanations in the lead, per WP:PSCI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Karlpoppery that Catholic science does not exist, for science is science. :) Although the Catholic Church is credited by many modern secular historians as having built a large part of modern science. See Science and the Catholic Church.

But the proposed lead does not talk about Catholic science but of catholic scientists, i.e. scientists who are Catholic believers. This is totally different. If we are to follow your "there is no place for opinion of Catholic scientists", then we have to remove these Wikipedia articles: List of Catholic scientists and List of Catholic cleric-scientists and all the scientific "opinions" created by all the scientists in the list.

Also I think the removal sounds like something against WP:NOTCENSORED. As far as I know, Wikipedia does not judge content, but only summarizes existing prominent content on the subject matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

Thank you! Marax (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There are great Christian scientists, but you can't say "Catholic scientists explained that..." If you're a scientist, whether or not you're a Christian is irrelevant. What has to be explained according to Wikipedia's policies is the scientific consensus when scientific claims are made.

I'm not sure what you think is original thought. Most sections of the article have been properly sourced. You'll have to expand on that. KarlPoppery (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why being a Christian is irrelevant to a topic about Miracle of Sun connected to Catholic's Our Lady of Fatima. The topic is not the Science of Miracle of the Sun and so it should include all perspectives about the topic.

Just to move on, since you placed the section title as Believer's Explanation, will you accept "Believers who are scientists explain...." ? Marax (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add that. The point is that a person's background has no importance at all when it comes to science. A muslim scientist will get the same result in a lab as a Hindu, because both are making sure to control their own biases. Auguste Meessen, who best explained the natural mechanisms behind the various "Miracles of the Sun", is a professor at a Catholic university but his background is irrelevant. He doesn't need to be described has a "Christian scientist". KarlPoppery (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Imposing censorship in lede against faith and science compatibility (3rd alternative) in miracle of the sun

The present state of the last paragraph only points to a denial of the miracle, i.e. the conclusion of critics is that it is false or non-existent (inconsistent reports or sense deception). We are making Wikipedia impose a denial (or censorship) of the existence of a third alternative, where the miracle is made compatible with science, faith with reason -- the great quest of so many believing intellectuals down the centuries. Stated pragmatically, what do we do with the problem that almost 1/3 of the article is not represented in the lede? Thanks for your patience. :) Marax (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that there's an arithmetic proportion imposed between the lead and the article, and I don't agree that a "third alternative" is missing from the lead, but obviously the lead is not perfect and could be improved. I'm sure you'll have many other changes to propose and we'll discuss them (though probably not tonight in my case). KarlPoppery (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree that the criticism in the last paragraph only regards "denial"; you yourself want to put in Father Jaki who concurs with the criticism that propose only natural phenomenon were observed. His theory bypasses that criticism to explain the miracle, which is why it is inappropriate to classify his theory as scientific. His claim that God manipulated the natural world to coordinate the solar activity observed cannot be falsified. As a respected physicist, Father Jaki would know this, and would object to his theological opinion being classified as scientific. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To Karl, why don't you agree that a third alternative is missing from the lead. Please identify where there is any mention of faith combined with science in the lede.

To Zfish, as I said Wikipedia is not a judge of content but just summarizes content. If you noticed, I placed his opinion in a separate paragraph from the critics'. So if we place his opinion where he puts together faith and science in a separate paragraph and not in the critics paragraph would you agree? Marax (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marax. A couple of points:

• Actually, there is no "third alternative". The Believers Explanations contained in the article propose either that God moved the Sun or that God controlled nature to create the appearance of the Sun moving. Father Pinsent's Catholic Herald article speculates that science is compatible with miracles IF you allow for a "free agent" (God) who can influence (control) natural systems (nature). In other words, God controlled nature. This needn't be highlighted in the lead, as it is no different from the other Believer explanations.
• The Talk page section header you have installed ("Imposing censorship in lede against faith and science compatibility...") is unnecessarily confrontational. It assumes that if other editors don't agree with you they are imposing censorship. You've been editing long enough to know WP:NPA and WP:AGF, so I hope you'll modify it to something more civil.

Thanks, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi LuckyLouie, thanks for your comments and nice reminders. :) I apologize if anybody thinks my sub-title is confrontational, but I do believe that it accurately describes what is happening from an external point of view, without judging the intentions (good faith) of the editors. Externally there is "imposition" (defined as forced acceptance) because there is persistent, outright removal of content; and "censorship" (defined as suppression of something thought to be objectionable) since what is being removed is verifiable and significant content about the topic. It should not matter if people agree with it or not -- whether there is catholic science or not, the explanation is science or not, it cannot be falsified or not, it is puffery or not, etc. I am sure people have good faith, but what they are doing, from my POV, is forcing acceptance of removal of good verifiable content, thus the title.

To say, as you have done in your edit, that the sun "appeared" to dance already covers all the believers' explanations is implying that believers only look at the appearances and do not analyze the data from the meteriological and intellectual viewpoint, that they do not look at possible scientific causes of the dancing. This makes all believers fideists, and that is not true. Thus sorry to say, there is a third alternative and should not be suppressed in the lead as it is verifiable prominent content. Marax (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll bite. Is it your contention that Wikipedia should remain neutral in the question as to whether it is possible for the Sun to literally change position with respect to the Earth via supernatural intervention? Please review WP:GEVAL before replying, if you would. jps (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is my proposed third section in the lede:

Scientists who believe that there was divine intervention and accept the testimonies regarding an appearance of solar movement have endeavored to explain the event, putting these together with the data from the observatories and of the vast majority of the populace that the sun did not move. Some state that the event is a natural meteorological phenomenon that can be considered a miracle in that the factors were coordinated and exactly timed to happen on the date predicted.

From what I see these significant data and analyses are not contained in any part of the lead.

Kindly suggest improvements here. Thanks. Marax (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that you find a valid secondary source that supports your statement, like a book that summarize the range of opinions of Christians on the miracle. It would make your case stronger. Right now this looks like WP:SYNTH. I also need to stress again that any variation of "some scientists believe this was a true miracle" is not okay per WP:PSCI. KarlPoppery (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

What evidence that a "meteorological event" took place is there other than the mass hysteria reporting? Like is there any weather station data? I do not see any evidence that would argue in favor of such a peculiar claim. jps (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with [Karlpoppery]. Father Jaki is an apologist defending the Catholic Church's designation of the event as a miracle. He is not speaking as a scientist, only speaking as a theologian to explain that science does not preclude belief. Further, the sun "appearing" to move covers both belief that the sun physically moved, or belief that of an optical illusion that it moved. This description is compatible with any interpretation of the event; it does not "[imply] that believers only look at the appearances"; I believe you read too much into my edit summary. I object to your assertion that not including Father Jaki in the lead is "censorship"; Father Jaki and others are very clearly covered in the article, not suppressed. The content you are adding to the lead is not being suppressed, but is being edited to comply with Wikipedia policies. Your original version was not appropriate, because it conflated theological opinions with scientific opinions. You have added the same content repeatedly and it has been removed repeatedly, because no meaningful changes to make the content appropriate were made. Your latest proposal above is still inappropriate; at a minimum, you must provide reliable sources that state that this "third-option" is notable or significant the Catholic Church's or other group's beliefs regarding the event. What I would find useful for the lead would be content regarding what investigation and criteria the Church used to designate the event as a miracle. If, for instance, Father Jaki's work was influential in the designation, that would make a stronger case for his inclusion in the lead. Well source content regarding the church's criteria would make the article stronger, and perhaps address your concerns that the believer's perspective is not well addressed in the lead. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's only one "o" in my name, by the way :) KarlPoppery (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oops! –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

As to WP:PSCI of Karl and to which Zfish agreed to, it does not apply to this proposal. Because it speaks more of making Wikipedia declare that "the earth is flat". But it does not disallow that Wikipedia says that "Homer and Hesiod say the earth is flat".

It says word for word : "any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight." KarlPoppery (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Jaki's view does not cover the entire lede but only one sentence. So there is no undue weight there.

I have found further that Jaki concludes that it is "only a hypothesis". Thus the new proposal is

Scientists who believe that there was divine intervention and accept the testimonies regarding an appearance of solar movement have endeavored to explain the event, putting these together with the data from the observatories and of the vast majority of the populace that the sun did not move. Some hypothesize that the event is a natural meteorological phenomenon that can be considered a miracle in that the factors were coordinated and exactly timed to happen on the date predicted. Marax (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

To Zfish, Kindly re-read what you wrote: "Your original version was not appropriate, because it conflated theological opinions with scientific opinions." This looks to me like a dogmatic censorious statement that no one should attempt a conflation of theology and science. :) Marax (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

To Karl, as re WP SYNTH - " Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Kindly identify the conclusion not explicitly stated in the source. Thanks! Marax (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the source you are summarizing? KarlPoppery (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Jaki's God and the Sun at Fatima. Marax (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

From this person's opinion, you're creating the group "Scientists who believe that there was divine intervention and accept the testimonies regarding an appearance of solar movement" and you're associating thoughts to this group. You need to prove that valid secondary sources have made those generalizations before you for it to not be original research. Even if you could, your proposal goes agains't WP:PSCI, which I and others have already explained multiple times, so I don't know how to communicate this to you. KarlPoppery (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see my reply to wp psi above. Marax (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marax. WP:PSCI prevents us from obfuscating scientific mainstream views, or giving weight to a tiny minority views. It's pretty clear that your proposal obfuscates by creating the impression that scientific opinion is divided, or there's a significant dispute regarding the topic among scientists. And I think you will agree, even if Jaki was speaking as a scientist in a scientific forum (he wasn't), his view would be a tiny minority view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marax: You are wildly and borderline obnoxiously overstating my position. I am referring to and only to your proposed additions regarding Father Jaki. It is innappropriate because you are misrepresenting his and only his theological opinions as scientific theory. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Marax: You have proposed texts with the same objectionable language repeatedly, and started throwing frivilous accusations of censorship. This is niether pursuasive nor intimidating. Either introduce significant new reliable sources, or just stop. This is not welcome. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit for introduction of article

The final paragraph of the introduction is suspect for a couple of reasons and should be deleted: One of the citations goes to no web page at all, another goes to a source not considered to be encyclopedic, other sources and citations are not up to the standards of Wikipedia, and finally the information in that paragraph is covered in the article. It is also important to note that what is covered in that paragraph is revisionist history and does not constitute any information that was considered true at the time of the event. Theanswerman63 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, it summarizes the most important points from the article body. Which specific sources are “substandard”? Also, this is the first time I’ve ever heard our articles can’t contain information that wasn’t considered true at the time of the event. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I knew a fellow who stared at the sun once, on purpose, and stupidly burned a hole in his retina. So for thousands of people to stare at the sun for a prolonged period of time and the event not to be known as an event where hundreds of eyes were damaged seems unusual in itself. Theanswerman63, would also be interested in the analysis of the sources mentioned, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The skeptics of that time period who were present did not make objections to the event or consider it a hoax. Their testimonies are available in newspaper accounts and articles of the time period. Therefore, for a modern skeptic to brush aside the event would make it revisionist history. What Wikipedia is looking for is facts and information, not revisionist speculation by someone not present. As R. Kryn mentioned as well, the sources mentioned are substandard. Theanswerman63 (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the sources, haven't checked them (I don't click on many "random" links). Guesswork about reputed miracles is common and necessary to keep an encyclopedia balanced, and this event in particular is notable when it comes to "miracles", so some skeptical information in the lede seems fine but not if sources are substandard. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Except if needed for WP:PARITY, but I also didn't evaluate this yet. Here is a possibly relevant discussion thread (note: that's an archive of a previous discussion, a new one could be started as necessary at WP:FTN, but here is a fine place for now to pursue the current discussion). —PaleoNeonate – 14:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, previous discussions on this very talk page also show the process leading to the current version, of course... —PaleoNeonate – 14:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, probably somewhere in the above discussions there is debate/conversation about the quality of the sources, to answer theanswerman63's question. I don't have a long memory of this page, have ducked in from time to time, and haven't read much of the above discussions. So the sources say that the witnesses, reporters, and skeptics made the same stupid decision at the same time to stare directly into the sun for a long period of time. And while doing so, without burning their retinas all to hell, their brains began to try to adapt to this newly-experienced never-tried-before sensory overload (staring into the sun, sounds like a plan) by imaging all kinds of colorful solar acrobatics. Then how were most of the people's retinas not partially burnt? Should be in the sources, and I'd guess that other sources would bring up the eye-damage question and analyze it from a medical and scientific point of view. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This kind of thing still happens, by the way, and it is established that symptoms of retinal damage from miracle seekers looking at the sun can diminish in the short term, and in the long term there would be subtle degradation over time that most people would likely associate with the natural aging process. Which is one of many factors that contribute to why you probably won't find circa-1917 medical sources reporting widespread retinal damage. - LuckyLouie (talk)

No one has stared into the sun for 12 minutes and not burned their eyes (with the exception of the Miracle of the Sun), so we can assume that the event was miraculous. The modern skeptics have tried to explain it away, but have not provided any cogent explanations. Going back to the original problem, the sources/footnotes to that paragraph have problems. Theanswerman63 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia can’t assume anything is a miracle. And it would help if you’d specify which sources you feel have “problems” and what specific editorial policies you believe they violate. -LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is to have a neutral point of view and articles about the miraculous are valid. Please note that there are many articles that discuss miracles and the miraculous. LuckyLouie, it is against the norms of Wikipedia to claim that Wikipedia does not report on miracles. Theanswerman63 (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I never said Wikipedia “does not report on miracles”. We certainly report religious beliefs, but we are careful not to endorse those beliefs as true, especially where they explicitly make claims that such beliefs are scientifically proven or provable. Also, you need to review our actual editorial policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY before you disqualify skeptical sources based on “the norms of Wikipedia“. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Lucky Louie. Your idea that the Miracle of the Sun falls under a fringe theory doesn't hold. There were 70,000 witnesses present at the event, major newspapers from around Europe were present to record the event and all reported the same outcome. An example in Wikipedia writing of a fringe theory is that Hitler and Napoleon were the same person. By contrast, the New York Times carried a very good, balanced article about the Miracle of the Sun of 1917, as did many newspapers in Europe and around the world. Theanswerman63 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see WP:FRINGE. The number of people who attest to something is not what does or does not make a topic fringe. I appreciate your example of a fringe theory I've never heard of before, to be sure, but that's not the only kind of fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the proposal. Theanswerman63, NPOV policy is that we report all significant well sourced points of view on a topic. I didn't check all the refs, in fact I didn't even have to bother looking past the LiveScience.com ref to see that it was Reliably Sourced. Please trying to delete well sourced content that you dislike. Alsee (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)