Talk:Marian apparitions

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)

'...do any denominations other than the Roman Catholic Church investigate or recognize Marian apparitions?' Short answer is 'yes', but we're talking rare. The Anglican Church has orders and societies devotional to Mary, but the idea of Marian apparition is treated very, very cautiously. I can only think of one and I wouldn't bet the house on its status, so I won't say. Aleta Curry 04:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As written in the article the Coptic Pope recognized and verified the Egyptian apparition. Marian apparitions tend to be a Catholic phenomena but other faiths do recognize Marian apparitions.Mary Ash 04:14, 8 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)

Actually, I've known some Jewish scholars that were very knowledgeable about Catholic theology. What about Martin Luther?

You should review the CZ Topic Informant and Original Research policies. Even if you were there and the apparition handed you a (car) driver's license for Mary of Bethlehem, and you validated the license, you may not, under current policy, use that as a reference. At best, someone like Hayford could interview you and create a Topic Informant article.

In other words, 1 through 5 may be true or not, but they can't be used, at the present time, as CZ sources. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I requested this to be used as facts. It is a public disclaimer so people could not accuse me of showing bias based on my faith. To be honest, I was baptized Southern Baptist which is about as far as you can get from this topic. Currently, I consider myself as a non-denominational Christian.Mary Ash 23:52, 7 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)

A picture of Juan Diego's cloak on display in the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico might be a nice touch. The image on the cloak is directly related to the Marian apparition he witnessed. --Joe Quick 02:20, 8 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:

• http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/american-festivals/our-lady-rock-photos/ National Geographic
• http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-virgin13-2008may13,0,3541178.story Los Angeles Times
• http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/oct97/P1.lifestyle.html SFSU Journalism article
• http://www.califcity.com/virginmary.html California City COC
• http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/226666/our_lady_of_the_rock_california_citys.html Personal article
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeetzjones/sets/72157594535070184/ Photos
• http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-virgin13-2008may13-pg,0,286295.photogallery Photo from the LA Times showing a similar photo taken by a visitor in 2008.

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)

I do believe I provided sources, especially for the Egyptian sighting, where people were interviewed who claimed they believed in what they saw. As to adding the unapproved apparitions that's peachy with me. The one thing I learned from my very first college research paper was to limit your topic. I presented an article that included church verified and approved apparitions. As this is a wiki, anyone can add to an article perhaps you. I look forward to working with a new group of editors so I can get to know some new folks at Citizendium. Mary Ash 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthropological perspective

Good work so far, Mary. You have a lot of information here already. I realize this article is only a few days old and I don't want to step on any toes, but I noticed that it is listed in the Anthropology Workgroup and I thought I'd mention a little bit about how anthropology engages topics like this one.

The field of anthropology is very expansive and anthropological inquiry has ventured into just about every corner of the human experience. More than one anthropologist has said that working in the field is like having an "intellectual poaching license". Nevertheless, when anthropology branches into fields of knowledge like religion, it usually engages those topics within a broader context. To give a list of examples from a syllabus my adviser here at Madison used a few years ago, the anthropology of religion involves studies like: "religion and holy war, religion and peacemaking, cultural revivalisms, mystic and visionary religion, ancestor worship; shamanism, sorcery, and healing; scripturalism and "world religions"; secular religion, fundamentalism, relativism, and the place of religion among other 'ways of knowing.'" Basically, it connects religion to other areas of culture and society.

So for this topic in particular, it would be nice to see more about how Marian apparitions fit in those broader contexts. Are the sites where the apparitions occurred or the people who witnessed the apparitions significant in other ways? What do people think about the apparitions? What do they do about them? Do people react differently in different places? What kinds of values and practices are associated with the apparitions or the sites where they have occurred?

Like I said, I don't mean to step on any toes. I certainly don't mean to tell you what to do. The questions above might not even be the right ones to ask. But those sorts of connections are really important to anthropological accounts of this sort of topic. --Joe Quick 01:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the words of encouragement. As to the anthropological aspects you'll have to find someone to address that issue. I do not feel comfortable taking on that task. The wonderful thing about wikis is the ability to share our talent and resources to make the articles the best they can be.Mary Ash 02:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you could do it. I imagine there must be pilgrimages and processions focused around Marian apparitions. You could get started with a description of one or more of those events. --Joe Quick 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Request Speedy Delete

Based on Citizendeium policy, in which anyone including the original author, can request a speedy delete I have made this request. See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Delete

There is no mention of an author requesting a speedy delete. Also, I do believe a Constable or other CZ official should be responsible for removing a speedy tag. I make this request as I did not realize that this would be considered inappropriate and inflammatory.Mary Ash 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion request and gravitational collapse of the universe

There is an article on me, which I did not invite, and I asked to have deleted. The Constabulary informed me that I could not delete it as I had no standing to do so. Admittedly, there are greater priorities in life, but this was an extreme example of only editors and constables, under narrowly defined rules, being able to delete articles based on content reasons.

Now, we seem to have a revert war over a delete request by an author, who has no "ownership" of the article. Reverting the deleting of the deletion request...

The gravitational collapse of the universe may be near. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some heavenly sounds needed urgently. [1] Ro Thorpe 18:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I caved in to community pressure. Mary Ash 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the pity. In my mind's eye, I see the Dominicans sternly supervising the march to the auto da fe. I see Winston Churchill blushing at the thought of caving to pressure and not fighting them on the beaches, etc. I know, I know. It's the community's fault, not that of an individual. Perhaps this is motivation for an article on Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery", or Edith Piaf with "Non Je Ne Regrette Rien". Howard C. Berkowitz 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I hope Hayford doesn't mind, but I have preserved here an edit comment he made while removing the delete tage: authors, even partial authors, may not request that articles be deleted unless for specific cause -- there is no cause here, and many other authors have worked on it. It is NOT your article! Howard C. Berkowitz 18:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As Hayford stated, authors may not request that articles be deleted unless for specific cause. I have now removed the tag. Please see my comments on the forums. Also, the mainspace is not a talkpage. Do not leave messages for people at the top of articles. --Chris Key 19:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Straight from the Deletion page:

" Procedures for deletion marking and deletion [edit]

For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance, any author or editor may help by placing the{{speedydelete}} template. Please add a REASON for your request and sign it like this: <noinclude>{{speedydelete|REASON|[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}}</noinclude>.

Be sure that this template is the very first item on the page, with the ... around it. The latter is necessary for the case a page is transcluded by another page. Alternatively, you can use

   <noinclude>{{speedydelete|REASON|[[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)}}</noinclude> 

to the same end.

See: n http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Delete

The policy states any author or editor can request a speedy delete. I'm not sure what the policy is here concerning tag removal but at wikiHow repeated offenders were banned for this action. I made a reasonable request for review by a Constable. Chris you are a Constable and have reviewed the article. You have deemed the article appropriate and non-inflammatory. That was the only thing I asked as I received plenty of heat over this topic. I also had to bear tag removals by well meaning authors or editors. What does this say for the behavior of Citizendium Citizens? Thank you for reviewing this matter and agreeing this article is indeed appropriate for CitizendiumMary Ash 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...this is not wikiHow, so wikiHow's culture, rules, customs or manners are simply irrelevant to the handling of specific articles. Nothing would prevent you from making a proposal to a Council to change CZ's rules to match wikiHow's, but, until then, its society is as relevant here as that of the Knights Templar, Illuminati, National Academy of Sciences, Temple of Satan, or the American Chemical Society.

Who complained the article, as opposed to behavior associated with it, was inappropriate or inflammatory? I remember substantial comment that a photograph was inappropriate. I wouldn't use the term "inflammatory" to suggest that this article is likely to invite criticism, in being perceived as fringe.

What it says, or does not say, about the behavior of Citizendium citizens is irrelevant to an article talk page. Chris did not necessarily agree that the article is appropriate, because that is not fully within the scope of Constables. In general, appropriateness, beyond blatant violations, is determined by Editors and then enforced by Constables. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not mis-interpret my words. I neither reviewed the article or decided if it was worthy of inclusion in Citizendium. All I have done is review the request and deemed that it is out of the Constabularies jurisdiction. You reasons may be valid, but that is a content matter and out of the hands of the Constabulary. That is for Editors to decide.

As fpr "any author or editor can request a speedy delete", this is not true. The key words are "For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance". This means it must fall under one of the reasons I stated on the forum. If it is for any other reason then it is only an Editor who can make the call. --Chris Key 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium policy states "For articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance, any author or editor may help by placing the speedydelete template. Please add a REASON for your request and sign it like this: noinclude speedydelete|REASON|[[] 19:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)/noinclude." Note: I removed the brackets for easy reading. The policy clearly states any author or editor may help by placing the speedy delete template on an article for Constables to review. This is done so "...articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance." My interpretation, which I suspect is correct, states ANY Citizen may place a speedy tag on a article for Constable review. If this is the case, the tag should not be removed until reviewed by a Constable. It's as simple as that. Mary Ash 20:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that the identical text is posted here and in a Forum thread. Do focus on one place of complaint.

"My interpretation, which I suspect is correct..."

Why do you suspect that? You've been told by active and past Constables, Editors, and people with several years experience at CZ that you are wrong. Yet, you continue to argue the rightness of your position. Since you've opened the issue of what other wikis do, I'll suggest a USENET term for such insistence: trolling. --Howard C. Berkowitz 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)