Talk:Miracle of the Sun

Miracle of the Sun Photograph

I have a source that contradicts the claim that the photograph presented at the top of the article is a picture of the actual miracle of the sun event in Fatima. The following quotation is taken from the book The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary by Kevin McClure:

"There are many photographs of the crowd witnessing the vision; but in spite of the presence of cameras there is no photograph of the event that is even vaguely authentic; the one usually presented is actually of a solar eclipse in another part of the world, taken some time before 1917." (pg. 78)

On the following page is the same picture as presented in the article (albeit blown up a bit) with the following caption: "The photograph often presented as the solar miracle at Fatima."

McClure does not indicate how he knows that the photograph is of a solar eclipse taken at an earlier date in a different place, but at the very least, we should acknowledge that the authenticity of the photograph is in dispute. Albie34423 07:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

"[Not] even vaguely authentic [...] in another part of the world [...] some time before"

What a crazy sentence.

An accusation of inauthenticity followed by vagueness, then some vagueness.

Maybe McClure is correct, but he does not make a strong case for himself.

On the face of it, McClure has taken hearsay and grumbling from somewhere and passed that along as "fact".

But here is another case of a controversial photograph: The Falling Soldier.

Varlaam (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The photo is false, but not for the reasons gave in that book. The photo was taken by Antonio Mendoca in 1921, during a "repetition" of the Miracle some miles away from Fatima. It were then stolen ( after his dead ) by his brother, and finally published in the L'Osservatore Romano in 1952-1951 as Original. You can check more in this old News papers: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19520310&id=E3pWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=5-UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6919,4229365 , http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19520310&id=F3FQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LBAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5437,5928880 , http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19520310&id=mPUZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lSMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7177,4875622 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.208.62 (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, from the links you've posted, the "repetition" was not really a repetition. It happened several years later, and it happened at sunset, clearly because of special visible meteorological conditions, and it did not cause impression on that many people, otherwise it would have been reported somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.84.108 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed material on UFO comparison

I have removed material from the article which:

• was sourced to an unreliable source
• which violated WP:FRINGE
• which violated WP:WEIGHT
• which violated WP:NPOV

Per WP:BRD this material should remain out of the article, and the article in the status quo ante while discussion takes place.

Please note that contentious or controversial information which is not sourced to an ironclad reliable source can be removed on sight, per policy. The more controversial, the more POV, the fringier the material is, the better the source has to be. WP:FRINGE material cannot be sourced to fringe sources, and the WP:WEIGHT the material receives in the article can only be determined once it is supported by reliable sources. BMK (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I could find no sources independent of UFO proponents that mention UFOs and the Miracle of the Sun, which is a good indicator that it's a tiny minority view and need not be included, per WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It is hard to understand why on a section of this article that deals with the different explanations that have been proposed for the strange phenomenon, one of them (the UFO one), suggested by several researchers in different studies, is persistently excluded.

Reliability can be pretty subjective as an argument, actually there are even PhD's among the sources. And as for WP:FRINGE, how many studies have been written on this topic trying to elaborate an explanation for it? Maybe ten, at most? We have found at least _three_ of them supporting the UFO hypothesis. How can that be dismissed as "fringe theory" then? You have to accept that at least it is one of the most commonly proposed explanations for this phenomenon, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. Savig (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What's hard to understand? If the "researchers" are not considered to be reliable sources, then what t6hey say cannot gop into the article. BMK (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Kvaalen: Let me first of all set out what BMK has deleted. I changed the title of the section "Critical evaluation of the event" to "Proposed explanations", which I think is a more appropriate section name. I added back the sentence 'A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and one would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun".' This is an honest and pertinent statement of fact. I added back the sentence "McClure's account also fails to explain similar reports of people miles away, including non-believers, who by their own testimony were not even thinking of the event at the time, or the sudden drying of people's sodden, rain-soaked clothes." Again, this is a pertinent point, and I don't see why it should be removed unless one is tryin' to prevent readers from seeing the weaknesses of the proposed explanation. Finally, I added back (with slight modification) the paragraphs:

John Haffert, founder of the Blue Army of Our Lady of Fátima, explained the event as a vision of the Great Chastisement. The 200 witnesses whom he interviewed while researching his book Meet The Witnesses reported similar descriptions of the sun careening towards the Earth and a sense of the end of the world. He compares this description to a recognized vision of Our Lady of Akita on October 13, 1973, to Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa in Akita, Japan, in which she recorded:

As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful.

The writer Lisa Schwebel claimed that the event was a supernatural extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel noted that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique: there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky.

Jacques Vallée (1965) and John Keel (1970) have pointed out the similarities to 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.

Since this section is on proposed explanations, then these are entirely appropriate. The reader may be interested in knowing what proposed explanations have been offered, even if they were offered by people whose world view differs radically from that of the reader. As for whether Jacques Vallée and John Keel, or the third author mentioned earlier by Savig, are "reliable sources", well I think that's a "red herring". They are not telling us that UFOs are "real" or anything like that (not here anyway). They are simply pointing out the similarities between the "Miracle of the Sun" and UFO testimonies.

I agree with Savig that there's no reason to delete this paragraph just because one doesn't believe in UFOs. Wikipedia editors are not meant to exclude material that doesn't agree with their particular point of view. Readers should be allowed to think for themselves, rather than be spoon fed only what certain people think they should read.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the UFO material should be returned, per Savig and Eric Kvaalen. The sources are notable, and valid. Jusdafax 13:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, since no further opinions are being added and most of us have stated our support to Eric's revision, I'm reverting to it. Thanks to everybody. Savig (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Six days is insufficient time for discussion. Even if parts are acceptable the unsourced editorialising is not. I am restoring the status quo until a proper consensus can be determined in due time.Charles (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The unsourced "pertinent points" meant to expose "the weaknesses of the proposed explanations" are purely WP:OR, and if they push a POV that's counter to the scientific orthodoxy, run afoul of WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This info should be removed, and left out. It is original research, argumentative, and POV pushing. As for fringe theory, you can't use another fringe theory to back up a claim. We need scientific and historical evidence here. --Dmol (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur with removal. It is true that UFOlogists see UFOs in almost every account of visions in the sky, but per WP:ONEWAY, we should not be including such arguments on the pages which are not specifically about UFOs. This page is not about UFOs. jps (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

Removing this (UFO) plausible alternative explanation for this eerie event is a mistake and the expression of bias and prejudice. The suggestion that atheist people from the secular press present partook on a massive hallucination is what I would define as pseudoscientifc Bigfootpegrande (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande

Please do not bring such nonsense to Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"Unidentified Flying Object" is not an explanation. It says nothing but "dunno". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you only take a few minutes to actually read into the topic of UFOs you will be surprised as of the wealth of evidence and credible documents sustaining the case for something mysterious and, whilst unexplained, real. It is not about explaining the happenings 100 years ago, but to present a discussion solidified in literature (e.g. Vallée) about the PLAUSIBILITY (way more plausible than mass hysteria, by the way) of the phenomenon being of a UFO nature. This exclusion only hilights the dark ages we are still living in the 21st Century.Bigfootpegrande (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande

I took a lot more than "a few minutes" to read into that topic. The people who think there is "something real" all use extremely bad reasoning along the lines of "I cannot identify this, and I am so smart that I should be able to identify it, therefore aliens". (Or: "therefore elves", as in the case of Jacques Vallée. Or: "therefore gods". Same bad logic, called God of the Gaps.) Really smart people don't expect to understand everything, therefore they never draw such conclusions. The ones who do are not reliable sources and cannot be used here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

You are missing the point, with your prejudice, about the relevance of the topic of UFOs in this discussion here (The Fatima Miracle of the Sun). The fact we can't explain the origin or nature of a UFO does not mean we should sweep it under the rug. We all know the sun didn't dance in the sky that day, we also know thousands of people, many skeptical, other plain atheists and some who went there exclusively to mock the Sheppard children confirmed the sightings/phenomenon. Let's just wave this away with our "reasoning" as hallucination? The UFO "explanation" can still be unexplained but would fit together with the rest of the 20th Century as a century of registered unknown aerial phenomena. Here is a lengthy discussion from the Portuguese TV where they brought historians, priests, UFO researchers and etc to debate the October 13th, 1917: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po36XF9HtqU Bigfootpegrande (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)bigfootpegrande

No, I am not missing the point. And that is not prejudice. Stop assuming that you know what I know and what I don't.

This is not about sweeping under rugs. This is about using reliable sources. Ufologists are not reliable sources. Youtube is also not a reliable source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

This removal does not make this article impartial. There is international official documentation on UFOs (Brazil, UK, Mexico, etc.). YouTube might not be a reliable source of information, but a public TV debate isBigfootpegrande (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande

"Impartial"? This is not a sports event where one type of tin foil hat wearer fights another. This is about writing an article based on reliable sources, listing notable opinions - not necessarily sensible ones, obviously, but notable ones. Public TV debates are where everybody and their dog utter an opinion. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. That is a completely different category.

Is there "official documentation" on people believing that little green men caused the "Miracle of the Sun"? If yes, name it. If no, whenever you feel the urge to talk about stuff that has nothing to do with improving the article "Miracle of the Sun", do it somewhere else, not here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is, and that is the point. See the section UFO hypothesis? above in this discussion page. Renoumed author Jacques Vallée: Anatomy of a phenomenon: unidentified objects in space – a scientific appraisal (1st (hardcover) ed.), pp. 148-51. NTC/Contemporary Publishing. January 1965. ISBN 0-8092-9888-0. Reissue: UFO's In Space: Anatomy of A Phenomenon (reissue (paperback) ed.). Ballantine Books. April 1987. p. 284.Bigfootpegrande (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)bigfootpegrande

And what does Vallée say about the Miracle of the Sun? And who says that his ideas on the subject are relevant? As far as I know, he is not taken seriously outside the small UFO weirdo community. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

"UFO weirdo community" is a flagrant Argumentum Ad Hominem. Wikipedia asks for primary sources. Jacques Vallée has one (others as well if you read into this talk page). He is a credible PhD who has contributed to Science. You, on the other hand, you're not helping knowledge about this event to come clear here, doing wikipedia a disservice in name of your 20th Century rooted prejudice.Bigfootpegrande (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)bigfootpegrande.

And what does Vallée say about the Miracle of the Sun? And who says that his ideas on the subject are relevant? Who exactly takes him seriously? You keep dodging the relevant questions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you failed to follow the simple instruction of reading through this discussion page I will recopy it here: "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.^User:Eric Kvaalen"Bigfootpegrande (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande

This discussion page has about 20.000 words. You giving the quote was far less work, in total, than me reading the whole of it.

So you answered my first question now. Still waiting for answers to the others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, "the phenomenon at Fátima was not the sun, but an unidentified flying object" is just stupid. It means nothing but "it is not the sun, but something else, but I do not know what". As I explained above: ""Unidentified Flying Object" is not an explanation. It says nothing but "dunno"". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Well it does say something, it says it was an object, not an atmospheric phenomenon or an optical illusion. --Savig (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

^^^I'll leave you with that, Mr. Galding...Bigfootpegrande (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)bigfootpegrande PS try clicking the link for Jacques Vallée for the second part of your answer.

You are still not answering my other questions. As I explained before, if you think the answer is hidden somewhere in a page, it is easier for you to copy it here than for me to read the whole page and scan every sentence for clues that this sentence may be what you mean. Are you planning on starting to learn how to have a reasonable discussion any time soon?

So, who says that his ideas on the subject are relevant, and who takes him seriously? Except other UFO nuts, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

See UFO: "An unidentified flying object, or UFO, is in its strictest definition any apparent object in the sky that is not identifiable as a known object or phenomenon." Object is not needed. Apparent object is enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• UFO material is absolutely inappropriate, for reasons previously stated. –Zfish118

^⋉talk 00:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

So, miracle is OK, but UFO too out there... Bigfootpegrande (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande

Yes. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The difference is, we have many Roman Catholic religious primary sources saying they believe that a miracle occurred, and (crucially), we have multiple independent secondary sources referencing those primary sources, discussing the belief found in those primary sources, i.e. that Roman Catholics believe a miracle occurred. However, we only have a couple of fringe primary sources (UFOlogists) who speculate that a UFO was sighted at Fatima. Until that speculation is noticed and commented on by reliable independent sources, it's not notable for Wikipedia's purposes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

So, miracle is OK, but UFO too out there... Bigfootpegrande (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Bigfootpegrande Yes. –Zfish118⋉talk 18:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC) This was not only totally impartial and nonsense, but also dictatorial and furthermore disgusting. This is an exemple of wikipedia being used not as a free information source, but as instrument to convey only a particular point of view. The acceptance of the Christian, absolutely non-scientific, explanation and the refusal of a proposed "UFO theory" is completely contradictory. Furthermore one of the cited primary sources for the theory was not "fringe", but a well known astronomer. Considering that many USA government agencies have now stated the existence of UFOs, or more precisely UAP, this voice should be revaluated. Grey99 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Provide a specific source that provides the information you want to see in the article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Criticism concerns

I am unsure why my addition was deleted? If you could let me know I would appreciate it. My intention is not to remove the criticism section, as it has already but determined to be relevant. I only wish to show the authors' intentions, which I believe are relevant to their particular point of view and should be made available to the wikipedia reader.2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Santiago

The author who deleted your text said it looked like it belonged on the talkpage, because your our text discussed the article, rather than the subject. You could probably reframe your text as encyclopedic content if you can appropriately source each claim. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Addressing Father Jaki, I feel the Wikipedia article is misleading. If you notice, Father Jaki is quoted in the Believers’ explanations and the Criticism section. I feel this is because Father Jaki believed all miracles that occurred could be explained through natural processes (he was a Distinguished Professor of physics at Seton Hall and a Jesuit Priest). I cite him from a website already used in the Wikipedia article. What I want to clarify and emphasize is his belief that God performed a miracle on October 13th 1917, albeit one that can be explained through science.

The references to Kevin McClure and his involvement with ASSAP, I think are relevant to his interpretation of the events that occurred. Numerous other examples of listing people’s credentials can be found, for example in the De Marchi accounts section it states, “Father John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher.” In the Believers’ explanations section it states, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University” At the beginning of the Criticism section it states, “Theologians, scientists, and skeptics have responded to claims…” I admit my reference is maybe too long, but McClure has an unusual background. I have a website that lists Kevin McClure as the editor of Common Ground (https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/journalism-and-publishing/journalism-and-publishing/common-ground -- see bottom of webpage).

I wanted to insert that quote from McClure’s book about half the people present not seeing the miracle, because it seems a lot of people refer to him as a Marian Apparition researcher and that is a bold claim that I can’t find any corroboration for, although I’m willing to leave that out. Lisa J. Schwebel quotes him a few times in her book, so she seems influenced by him, and I feel that is relevant to her conclusions.2601:8C0:4281:93E0:980B:B78D:DA16:18D (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Santiago

Criticism concerns

Kevin McClure the author of Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary was also the author of Common Ground an ex-publication of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). ASSAP is a group that uses scientific methods to prove the existence of ghosts, UFOs, and other paranormal events, “founded in 1981 to investigate, research and educate on a wide range of anomalous phenomena, from hauntings to UFOs, mediumship to monsters” (cited from http://www.assap.ac.uk/). McClure states in his book, “…it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle.”[10] There is no corroboration for such a bold claim. Lisa J. Schwebel in her book, Apparitions, Healings, and Weeping Madonnas: Christianity and the Paranormal references McClure’s book, Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary multiple times.

The criticism section also has numerous references to Father Jaki’s book, God and the Sun at Fátima. However, it must be stated that Father Jaki did believe a miracle occurred, “I merely claim, which I did in my other writings on miracles, that in producing miracles God often makes use of a natural substratum by greatly enhancing its physical components and their interactions.”[40] 2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Santiago

Existing text and quotes from Jaki are contained in the article that make it pretty clear that Jaki believed that “divine intervention” was responsible for various effects and claims. I don’t see the need for your suggested additions. Re McClure, there is no requirement that we find “corroboration” for critical statements, provided they meet WP:RS standards (and/or in this case, WP:PARITY) and are properly attributed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you on it being clear what Father Jaki's conclusion was. I also agree that McClure's statements should be left in the Criticism section. However, I feel that when McClure is first mentioned in the Criticism section, it be included, "former editor of Common Ground a past publication of the ASSAP" and link ASSAP to the wikipedia page for it. As I stated previously inclusion of credentials seems common and important to reflect beliefs. Also including in the Criticism section that Lisa J. Schwebel references McClure often in her book.2601:8C0:4281:93E0:40E1:A959:42E3:F378 (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Santiago

McClure is already attributed in the text as author of the relevant book. We don't add author's biographical information or note that other authors have cited them in the text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Numerous other examples of listing people’s credentials can be found, for example in the De Marchi accounts section it states, “Father John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher.” In the Believers’ explanations section it states, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University” and "Theologian, physicist, and priest Stanley L. Jaki..." In the Criticism section it states, "Skeptical investigator Joe Nickell.." McClure published Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary in 1983, the same time he was editor of "Common Ground" the publication for ASSAP. 2601:8C0:4280:30F0:C24:3C34:B4CE:33CB (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Santiago

We identify the name of the book McClure wrote and that he wrote it in the text. I suppose we could add the word “author” before his name, but it’s clearly implied. As for his affiliation with ASSP, I’m not sure why that is relevant or required, given that we’re citing a specific book he authored. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So identifying Jaki and De Marchi as priests and Lisa J. Schwebel as a theologian elaborates further on their role as authors; as does mentioning Joe Nickell is a "Skeptical investigator". Also consider Coehlo who said he witnessed a repeat of the miracle of the sun the following day at the same place(in Criticism section), he is described as a Catholic Lawyer. Describing McClure's background helps to give insight into his findings and I feel only enhances the article.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:345D:E969:2A82:6D0D (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Santiago

Again, what you are suggesting be added is substantially more than a one-word description. If you feel the article should imply the author has some bias one way or another, you need more than your own original research to justify it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the length of description, note the following from the Believers' explanations section, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University." I should have listed my websites for reference, one listing McClure as editor is, "Common Ground ." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. . Retrieved April 15, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/common-ground (the reference is at the very bottom of the webpage). Also I just found this on the ASSAP website (http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/htmlfiles/History%20part%203.html) under the section titled "ASSAP hits the bookshelves" it states, "ASSAP has also ventured into the world of publishing real books. 1983 saw the launch of the first in a series of ASSAP books entitled 'The Evidence for...' under Thorson’s Aquarian imprint. Hilary Evans, who edited the series, was the author of The Evidence for UFOs, and Kevin McClure The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary..." Since ASSAP actually published the book and Hilary Evans co-founder of the ASSAP (you can see his wikipedia page) edited McClure's book, I feel it is relevant to include that information with McClure's contributions; whether or not this biased McClure's findings I think is for the reader to determine, I do feel they should be given the relevant facts however. As you said, if the reference is to long, what about "ASSAP researcher" or "ASSAP investigator" or "Fortean phenomenon researcher for the ASSAP" and link ASSAP to their wikipedia page and use the second reference to the ASSAP website were they state they published the book?2601:8C0:4280:30F0:D51B:FB5:75FD:F97F (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Santiago

OK, I've added a brief author description, adapted from the one contained in the book being cited. There is no need to add further detailed biographical info of this author's career or a side-track discussion of Hilary Evans, Lisa Schwebel, etc. to the article text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help with the addition, well worded; have a good one.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:B1D1:70E7:D485:E3DB (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Santiago
• I concur with this phrasing. –Zfish118^⋉talk 01:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

a group that uses scientific methods to prove the existence of is a contradiction of terms. If you determine the result from the start, it's not science. This is definitely not a reliable source. And what is an "ex-publication"? I changed the indenting to make it clearer who responded to what. Structured text is easier to read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

By "ex-publication" I meant a publication that is no longer in print, I didn't know how else to phrase it. I didn't want to delete McClure's quote however, because as I found out(by following Schwebel foot note), Lisa J. Schwebel another author used in the criticism section references McClure's book, Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, a number of times.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:E1BD:FEF7:5A61:EF64 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Santiago

Clarification of Criticism Section

Under the Criticism section, fourth paragraph there is the statement, “Supernatural explanations, such as those by Father Pio Scatizzi, who argues that observers in Fátima could not be collectively deceived, or that the effect was not seen by observatories in distant places because of divine intervention[49] have been dismissed by critics who say those taking part in the event could certainly be deceived by their senses, or they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.[8]” The bold highlighted section of the statement is a paraphrase of Benjamin Radford’s explanation of the Miracle of the Sun. However, we should include a direct quote about how Radford explains the peoples’ senses could have been deceived. The quote I propose adding is this, “It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” We can add it directly after the end of the sentence, “…they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.” It is a quote from the same article under footnote [8]: Benjamin Radford (2 May 2013). "The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun". LiveScience.com. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 20 October 20152601:8C0:4281:5280:25DD:86A3:F184:BC04 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Santiago

I will add above changes if there are no objections 2601:8C0:4280:2430:F15A:6D1E:1767:FBB7 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago

Just wondering why my addition was deleted? I waited a whole month and no one responded on the talk page, but the sentence was deleted right after I added it, without an explanation. 2601:8C0:4280:2430:603C:4805:593D:791A (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago

For one thing, you didn't use quotation marks around the quote and attribute it to Radford. See MOS:QUOTATIONS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I see, it didn't make sense how I added it. Perhaps we can add, "Radford explains, "It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” Thank you, 2601:8C0:4280:2430:C9AB:3882:4E71:330F (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago

I did it for you, and nested it within the bounds of the existing citation. I'll take your word that it's an exact, unmodified quote. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Removing it. "..looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire." is NOT a wide cientific explanation for the illusion. Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 19:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a specific opinion from a specific source with specific context, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Radford and Skeptical Inquirer are WP:RS. No claim is being made that it is a "wide scientific explanation". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Realy? So you have to find realiable sources explaining that if you look up in the sky around the sun long enough you will see the sun moving... Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Radford’s opinion is not being given as a scientific law that applies to all situations, and certainly not in Wikipedia’s voice. It’s simply his opinion, which we make clear, e.g. “According to Benjamin Radford…”. If you feel his quote is somehow WP:UNDUE, then you can explain why you feel that way. Otherwise it sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do you give so much WP:WEIGHT to Benjamin Radford (only) opinion regarding the situation? Seems very like you WP:ILIKEIT.Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 21:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The article features plenty of other extended quotes from believers and skeptics alike without any detriment. I'm not married to having this quote in there, I was only trying to help the IP make their first edit an appropriate and successful one, but I do want to understand your objection to it. - 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but that alegation by Benjamin Radford saying that looking to the sun long enough will start moving to thousands of observers is hilarious. Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 21:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid explanation and pretty obviously what actually happened in this and in other "sun miracles". Any person that looks at the sun will start seeing spots and blotches, and tiny movements of the eye make it seem like these blotches are moving around in the horizon. People expecting to see a "miracle" will think those blotches are the sun that changed in shape in color. Radford isn't the first to give this explanation. VdSV9•♫ 23:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Realy? It happened also people that were not expecting to see anything at that time and far away from the place of the miracle saw the same behaviour of the sun. Benjamin Radford allegation is not a valid explanation. Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 03:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Really. Really really. Us arguing about it here is pointless. It is a quote from a reliable source talking about this specific thing. Your not liking, not getting, or not believing of Radford's explanation is irrelevant. Your counterarguments here are WP:OR. VdSV9•♫ 11:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Whether or not an editor agrees with a RS is irrelevant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The question is why Benjamin Radfords's allegation is reliable? Is he a doctor? No. Did he make experiences with people looking directly to the sun and colected data explaining this result? No again. Is just a explanation quote based on nothing real as hundreds of others of the same kind. Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 19:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

He doesn’t have to do research and collect data. His explanation is consistent with those of medical experts [1], [2]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a reliable writer publishing on a trusted magazine. Also, the explanation is as obviously true as the daytime sky is blue. It is what happened. Plain and simple. BTW, Meessen is (and has been for a long time) quoted on the page making the very same point "Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of Sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly, Meessen concluded that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[7]" VdSV9•♫ 23:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Awesome!! So the miracle is finaly explained by these guys, those conclusions should go to the lead sentence! Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 19:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vanthorn: I don't understand that response, and frankly the previous ones were equally incoherent. You haven't articulated any editorial policy and guideline-based reasons for why the quote shouldn't be included where it was originally intended. Conversely, the IP has made a good case for how the quote helps to clarify the preceding sentence, and upon closer review, I agree that adding it would improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It already is in the lead section. "Proposed alternative explanations include witnesses being deceived by their senses due to prolonged staring at the Sun and then seeing something unusual as expected." It's fine as is. VdSV9•♫ 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I must be honest my beliefs are more in line with Vanthorn. My intention for including Radford's quote was to bring balance to the argument. On the one hand the effects of staring at the sun can cause illusions and after images, yet on the other as Radford a respected skeptic and debunker explains it is quite dangerous to stare directly at the sun. Even Meessen sites an ophthalmologist article that describes visual deficits in religious pilgrims who attempted to see sun dancing by gazing at the sun. Three case studies show visual damage that lasted for weeks and up to 16 months. My hope was to help us all find the truth, not to cause distress, I appreciate all the hard work you guys do for this sight, thank you. 2601:8C0:4280:1F10:95BA:39FF:F423:3596 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Santiago

OK, but just a reminder: Wikipedia aims to cite verifiable facts when appropriate, and summarize significant opinions about a topic, represented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Our mission is not to help people find "the truth", e.g. WP:NOTTRUTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)