Talk:Marian apparitions: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Mary Ash
imported>Bruce M. Tindall
Line 77: Line 77:
==Why I did not include Our Lady of the Rock in the article ==
==Why I did not include Our Lady of the Rock in the article ==
The reason why I did not include the Our Lady of the Rock in the article is because it is not approved Marian apparition by the Catholic church. If we were to include unapproved Marian apparitions, the list could on for a very long time. I tried to include some of the "biggies" which are Fatima, Lourdes and Zeution. Medjugorjie, which I always misspell, is another "biggie" but it is not an approved site. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The reason why I did not include the Our Lady of the Rock in the article is because it is not approved Marian apparition by the Catholic church. If we were to include unapproved Marian apparitions, the list could on for a very long time. I tried to include some of the "biggies" which are Fatima, Lourdes and Zeution. Medjugorjie, which I always misspell, is another "biggie" but it is not an approved site. [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
:Why should that make a difference? If the article is about "Marian apparitions," it should include the verfiable facts that there are various places where a number of people ''claim'' to have seen apparitions, along with the verifiable facts that the Catholic church, or skeptic groups, have pronounced them to be authentic or nonsense. What I (and, I think, others) object to is the claim, made by a non-expert CZ author on her own authority, that something may or may not be ''evidence'' for the ''truth'' of those claims (either of authenticity or of inauthenticity of the apparitions).
:Certainly, in such an article, there should be some mention of which apparitions have been accepted or rejected by the church. But the fact that the church has rejected the authenticity of the apparition does not alter the historical and sociological facts that there are people who believe in them; ''that's'' what CZ should be interested in reporting on if there's to be such an article at all.
:And apropos of the list, above, of newspaper and magazine articles "covering" one of the apparition sites: The fact that a newspaper has reported verifiable facts (e.g., that somebody believes in the apparition, that the believers say it happens at location X, etc.) is not the same as a newspaper reporting that the apparition really is what the believers claim it is. The fact that a newspaper reports that a belief ''exists'' has no bearing on the ''truth'' of the belief itself. [[User:Bruce M. Tindall|Bruce M. Tindall]] 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:06, 7 October 2010

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Alleged supernatural or paranormal events in which Mary, the mother of Jesus, is claimed to be seen by one or more people. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Religion, Psychology and Anthropology [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  1  English language variant:  American English

Status in non-Roman-Catholic denominations?

The section about the invesitgative process that refers to "the local bishop" made me wonder -- because in any locality in the U.S., at least, there may be several local bishops: Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Orthodox of various flavors, Methodist, A.M.E. Zion, etc. -- do any denominations other than the Roman Catholic Church investigate or recognize Marian apparitions? Do any groups of Muslims?

In any case, should perhaps this section make it clear that it is (usually? exclusively?) the Roman Catholic hierarchy, among religious groups, that investigates such claims? (Obviously, as the article already makes clear, some secular/skeptic groups also do so.) Bruce M. Tindall 23:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Comments

  • 1. I am not Roman Catholic so I can not address any theological issues. I've done my best to report what I could find.
  • 2. I was a skeptic of this phenomena until I went to Our Lady of the Rock where I was blessed with several unique photos including one that people claim to see the face of Jesus. This was also seen by the Marian priests who agreed. That photo will not be seen online.
  • 3. While I was at Our Lady of the Rock, I also smelled roses. I am very allergic to roses and they make me sneeze. This did not. The best description I can give is the roses smelled like the old Avon perfume Roses, Roses. BTW there were no roses present when I smelled this. I later found out the scent of roses symbolizes the saints, according to the Roman Catholic faith.
  • 4. As a working reporter, I went back to the site with our newspaper photographer. We were unable to get much for interesting photos but the photographer and I both witnessed some unusual sun/sky phenomena.
  • 5. I can not state what this means except there is something happening. I don't know what it is though.Mary Ash 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I must say I'm puzzled by the photo, and not just that I see no saints. The sun, against a dark sky? Were you in orbit at the time? Ro Thorpe 02:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the right side of the photo, imagine it's a clock, you'll see between 3 and 6 p.m. two figures to the lower right of the sun. As I am sure you are not being flippant about "being in orbit" I was not. I was standing firmly on the ground with the Polaroid camera pointed directly at the sun. Since I am not Catholic, and I am not out to convert, I'm not sure how those images showed up.Mary Ash 02:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You are adding photos to an encyclopedia that you claim contain ghosts. Are you being serious? David Finn 05:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
{{Image|The Saints Cropped.png|right|250px|Personal Polaroid photo taken of the sun at Our Lady of the Rock, California City, California. The "saints" were originally seen upside down in the photo but were reversed for ease of viewing.}}
I have moved the disputed image here until we get some expert verification on whether or not this photo contains ghosts, also noting that the caption needs rewriting. David Finn 05:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Returned photo as there is no dispute except for one contributor named David Finn. Also, I do not think the photo can NOT be arbitrarily removed by a single author. As to the authenticity of the photo, it makes no difference whether any "ghosts" are present. It was submitted as a photo taken at an apparition site by me. I will leave it up to the reader to determine, if anything is present. The photo was submitted as a sample and states the photo was taken at an apparition site. As to the cutline, I've written many through the years and this one fills the bill. I will contact a Constable for review if this photo is removed by Finn.Mary Ash 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
No need, I shall contact one for you. David Finn 15:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't bother as I already have. I figured you would dispute this...Mary Ash 15:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
David is not the only person objecting to the inclusion of this indecipherable photo with its unsupportable caption. Count me in, too. Bruce M. Tindall 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural things

I put the article in the Religion, Psychology, and Anthropology Workgroups.

Mary, it's acceptable for an author to put in a personal photo of something straightforward, such as a bread machine. Before you conclude a photograph is evidentiary, however, do look at the policy on Original Research. --Howard C. Berkowitz 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, it is a copyrighted image where the author has withdrawn all rights, with the note attached that it can be used for CZ and nothing else, which, as far as I know, is a violation of copyright policy. David Finn 15:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. I have licensed use at Citizendium and have requested advance written permission for other use per Citizendium policy. See:
 Licensing/Copyright status [edit]

This media, The Saints Cropped.png, is copyright © Mary Ash, all rights reserved.

Use of this image for any purpose requires the express written permission of the copyright holder, Mary Ash. Mary Ash has granted permission for use of this image on the Citizendium.

Notice of CC-by-sa incompatibility

Text on the Citizendium is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. This media may not be used under those or closely similar terms without separate permission of the copyright holder.

Please review photo use policy. Thanks!Mary Ash 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard I am not claiming the photo is evidence of anything except that it was taken at Our Lady of the Rock and shows an example of what people are getting for photos at that site. There are many others doing the same thing but Citizendium was fortunate enough to have someone who could offer a photo from that site. I am trying to make CZ a better place and unique from Wikipedia which has nothing like this. Be thankful that I am a resourceful reporter, even if I took this photo when I was not a working reporter, and that I am willing to bring home the bacon so-to-speak. Thanks for moving this to the right work group. I look forward to working with the religion editor.Mary Ash 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
From the cutline, "The photo is evidence something unusual may be occurring".
"An example of what people are getting" really doesn't add anything. As I mentioned in the UFO article and elsewhere, photographs claiming unusual characteristics need to have scientific validation: photogrammetry, checks for artifacts, ideally spectrometry. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Removed offending statement although it was prefaced with maybe which means what it says. Left in weather conditions and time to reflect that information.Mary Ash 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Mary, this is not a newspaper where "alleged" lets one speculate. It's not clear to me what the photograph adds if it's not evidentiary. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The photo is not evidence. It's just something showing what a photograph looked like from a Marian apparition site. One that I freely offered to jazz up the article. One that I rarely share with anyone and for the first time offered with copyright protection as I was trying to make Citizendium look good. If you like, I can find a public domain painting of the Virgin Mary and insert it instead. Of course the a photo from an apparition site would be more appropriate, timely and informative.Mary Ash 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in jazzing up articles with things that don't add information.
How does a painting add evidence? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Howard you know eye candy sells things. I was trying to upload a photostat public domain image from a Portuguese news article but have had no luck. Oh well...no image for this article.Mary Ash 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the Our Lady of the Rock

The Marian site was featured by both the Los Angeles Times and National Geographic. Here are links to the web site to verify this site does exist:

Mary Ash 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I did not include Our Lady of the Rock in the article

The reason why I did not include the Our Lady of the Rock in the article is because it is not approved Marian apparition by the Catholic church. If we were to include unapproved Marian apparitions, the list could on for a very long time. I tried to include some of the "biggies" which are Fatima, Lourdes and Zeution. Medjugorjie, which I always misspell, is another "biggie" but it is not an approved site. Mary Ash 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should that make a difference? If the article is about "Marian apparitions," it should include the verfiable facts that there are various places where a number of people claim to have seen apparitions, along with the verifiable facts that the Catholic church, or skeptic groups, have pronounced them to be authentic or nonsense. What I (and, I think, others) object to is the claim, made by a non-expert CZ author on her own authority, that something may or may not be evidence for the truth of those claims (either of authenticity or of inauthenticity of the apparitions).
Certainly, in such an article, there should be some mention of which apparitions have been accepted or rejected by the church. But the fact that the church has rejected the authenticity of the apparition does not alter the historical and sociological facts that there are people who believe in them; that's what CZ should be interested in reporting on if there's to be such an article at all.
And apropos of the list, above, of newspaper and magazine articles "covering" one of the apparition sites: The fact that a newspaper has reported verifiable facts (e.g., that somebody believes in the apparition, that the believers say it happens at location X, etc.) is not the same as a newspaper reporting that the apparition really is what the believers claim it is. The fact that a newspaper reports that a belief exists has no bearing on the truth of the belief itself. Bruce M. Tindall 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Marian_apparitions&oldid=806728"