Talk:Our Lady of Fátima/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Controversy section controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i removed the poorly written and sourced and unverified controversy section, these are the reasons: removed "CONTROVERSY section" lacks credible sources, poorly written, and the entries are stated as facts even though they are opinions without authentic trusted sources, the sources given is a book that is written almost a century after the apparitions stating personal opinions of the author without giving any credible sources but based on here say, everything presented in the "CONTROVERSY section" are no more than unverified information from a doubtful weak source at best this website is a valuable resource for information to many people, please refrain from tampering with it without enough knowledge, or only based on personal "feelings" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove the controversy section based on your own religious fanaticism. That is vandalism and gatekeeping. You say the controversy section lacked "credible sources" except the only two sources used were the Saint's own personal journals, published by the Catholic Church, and the other source was the main authorized biographer of the children, who was friends with Lucia in real life. That biography was published by Farrar Straus and Young, a very credible New York publisher with fact checkers galore. They are also the SAME two sources used throughout the entire Wikipedia page on Fatima, in favor of the apparitions. Go to the library, get the two books, and read them. The sources are credible, the facts are grotesque, and the controversy section will remain right where it is or else I will report you for vandalism. Wikipedia is about facts, not religious fanaticism. Spyrazzle (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

you are quit childish, i explained to you that what you deem and controversy is simply you own personal opinion and interpretation of cherry picking through a book written 40 years after the fact and through 3rd and 4th sources here say.

show me were the educated community, or anyone note worthy ever brought up the flimsy arguments that you make to claim it was authentic or controversial.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A vision of Mary who predicts the war will end on October 13---"the war will end today!"---and is off by a whole year in her estimate is not cherry picking. You are just unhappy because you are employed by the Catholic Church in some capacity and you have been assigned the job of tearing the Wikipedia controversy section down. Your first attempts at tearing it down involved you asserting that the Saint's own memoirs were not a valid source. Who else was interacting with "Mary" but the Saint herself?? She is really the only source to these spooky wacky apparitions, because she was the only one still alive who had seen them. You are also seething mad that I have quoted Mary--in the Saint's own journals--telling the children to wear tight ropes around their bloody waists "only during the day!" Of course I will be bringing this story to newspapers and magazines once I acquire enough receipts of Wiki vandalism. If the newspapers can't justify the vandalism angle, they will certainly appreciate the story of gothic sadist Mary who loves torturing little kids by demanding bizarre bodily sacrifices. Especially when Christ himself said "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" hahaha. I will also be contacting Wikipedia about making Fatima a locked protected page because of religious tyranny and persistent vandalism that has gone undetected for many years. I noticed you tried to delete half of the Wikipedia talk page in addition to the controversy section, because you were afraid my previous arguments were strong. You wanted to mislead people again. Spyrazzle (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Friend i do not know what personal experience has left you so angry and bitter that you have to resort to such methods to get back at the God that you hate this much but i truly wish you to get better and find peace, as for the article no need to discuss any further, except for the incident where the contrition rope had some blood one it, all other claims you made came from de marchi's book written 40 years after the fact and information in it collected from 3rd 4th and 5th sources at best 40 after the apparitions, IT IS NOT RELIABLE, end of discussion.

another point is that you are taking giant leaps in twisting the late father marchi's words, he said they practiced self annihilation "here the self refers to the ego and not the body" but you concluded from this that the two very young children committed suicide!!!!!!! that is a lie, and you should be ashamed of it, also the dream about the devil you exaggerated the whole thing to make it sound like sister Lucia was possessed, you manipulate the words and the fact just to create a point that does not exist.

please try to work your personal issues away from page, and don't take your anger and bitterness on others that have nothing t do with your situation, thank you and may God have mercy on your pain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I never said I hated God. That is ridiculous. De Marchi was friends with Lucia. He got all the information FROM HER. From the Saint herself. Read the book. He was friends with her, he lived in Fatima, and the book was written 35 years after the incident, i.e. when Lucia was 45 years old and very much in good mental health, speaking to her friend De Marchi about everything that happened. Go to the library. Spyrazzle (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting your information from, but it is not true

The one with the bias is obviously yourself, "Father de Marchi spent hours and days researching for this book on location" this is from DE Marchi's book written by his own hands, he never met the children, nor did he meet with the priest responsible for them during the apparitions, where do you get the nerve to call it credible sources when it is at best 3rd or 4th person account, this is gossip at best, and only you used him as a source, beside lets go over your points one by one:

the article deals with the reported apparitions, the word controversy means that you will present point that the apparitions were false and never happened, lets see if you actually do that

1- you claim that the children caused their own death based on cherry picking and twisting words from De Marchi's book, the medical cause for death was not malnutrition or water born disease or a superficial wound caused by acts of contrition, the died from the flu, and even if your point was true it does not disprove the apparitions

2- the only source for the ww1 claim that you make is De Marchi's book, which at this point we should all agree is not a credible first hand account

3- the claim about the Lucia's doubt about the apparitions being demonic in nature also comes from De Marchi's book, the other claim of being harassed by the devil through nightmare's was taken out of context by you to imply that Lucia was doubtful and afraid, when her own account of the dreams were meant to show that the devil was unhappy with the apparitions and tempting the children

4- none of your points, not one can disprove or lay shadow on the apparitions, they are you poorly written attempts at creating something out of nothing

do not bring your bigotry to this site, and please refrain from any more editing to this page unless you can come up with a source better the De Marchi's book, who was not even present at the times of the apparitions and collected his information through 3rd and 4th level sources decades after the apparitions, "almost 40 years", you lack integrity in your research, resources and claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks, and sign your talkpage comments with ~~~~ LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, De Marchi was friends with Lucia. The book was written 35 years after the apparitions, not 40, and he opens his biography on the children with the sentence "The mature Lucia is my friend." A biographer who personally interviews the only living witness to the event, whose book is then printed by a reputable publisher, in this case Farrar Straus and Young, is a credible citation, and trying to discredit it only discredits you. The citations about World War 1 are direct quotations from a Priest who interviewed the children firsthand at the time the apparitions were happening. De Marchi explains this in the intro of his book: "A considerable portion of this book depends on the writings of the Portuguese priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose first work on the subject, entitled The Marvelous Events of Fatima, appeared in 1921. It is a faithful, painstaking account of the good priest's many interviews with the children." Initially you tried to tell me that the Saint's own memoirs weren't a credible source somehow, when she was the only living witness to it--haha. Then you tried to say De Marchi's book was not a credible source, when he was friends with Lucia, and lived nearby her in Portugal for several years, talking to her at length about these events. How can you not understand that one of my two sources is LUCIA HERSELF. They are the Saint's own memoirs!!! These two sources--the exact sources I used--are cited many times throughout the entire Wikipedia page, and you didn't protest their usage there. When those same two books are used to legitimize the apparition, you are happy about it. Only in the controversy section do those same books bother you, because the oppose your personal beliefs. Spyrazzle (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the version before all these changes were made, both of you please talk this out, or take it to WP:DRN before making any further edits to the article. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

i tried to reason with Spyrazzle, point by point, his editing of the page page is no more then personal opinions and interpretations of some flimsy sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Saint's own memoirs are not a flimsy source. You refuse to read the books. I am taking this to Wiki arbitration. Spyrazzle (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

this is misleading, all of your points come from de marchi's book which IS a flimsy source and to add insult to injury you add your twist and interpretations to his words, you are not dealing in good faith, only interested in adding your personal displeasure of the apparitions and make it seem as a legit controversial points when they are not, fasting becomes suicide, a nightmare becomes demon possession, acts of contrition becomes self harm, and finally and unsubstantiated claim about an unfulfilled prophecy about ww1 taken from de marchi's book, and never ever mentioned in the thousands of other sources on the subject, i tried to explain to you that people faith and beliefs are issues that you should not troll, but you still show your deep bigotry. to summarize, unless you can find another respectable source beside an out of print book written by here say accounts after 40 years from the events then you need to drastically change the controversy section,all entries frm de marchi's book ned o be scraped or at least do the following: change the language, don't write the statement as matter of fact, write de marchi wrote in his book that people he interviewed claimed so and so, keep in mind he never interviewed any of the children even lucia who was almost impossible to get access to her during her life, and yet you claim de marchi as a close friend of hers which is not true. you can keep the entries from lucias memoirs about the blood on the penitence cords, keep it word for word and do not add your spin to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

De Marchi was friends with Lucia in real life. This is well-documented. You keep fabricating history. This was an authorized biography by a Priest who knew the Saint when she was 45 years old, who lived side by side with her in Portugal. The other source is the Saint's own memoirs, written by her. You are attempting to discredit these sources, because you want to win. Anyone can get these books though. They were distributed by major publishers. I will be taking to Wiki arbitration and to newspapers/magazines. Spyrazzle (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

While we don't want to rely too heavily on one source, I don't see any compelling reason to discount the De Marchi sources; he had firsthand knowledge of those involved, and published several books about the events not long after they happened. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Spyrazzle, i revised the controversy section, unless you do have genuine hidden agenda and not interested in presenting facts and not personal opinions the new edit should be more than staisfactory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

During your block, please take the time to read WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, which your last and previous article edits have blatantly violated. In short, you may not append your own analysis or critique of a source in the article text. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would like to state my case. First of all, I am happy to post photographs of the reserach books I used. I am happy to post photographs of the exact pages I used, though they have pen markings on them.

User Fadi153 seeks to discredit the books themselves, but there are only two books, one is the memoirs of the Saint herself, and the other is De Marchi’s famous biography, published by Farrar Straus and Young. User Fadi keeps saying this book is a “flimsy hearsay” resource “from 40 years ago,” but the author was actually friends with the Saint, who was 45 years old at the time, and I can photograph the different pages for you in which he says that.

He kept removing the controvery section on the grounds that the two books I used—the only two books—were not worthy resources, but I have proved that is not the case. And I’m willing to prove it further with photographs, as I’ve just explained.

Another argument was that I took the phrase “self-annihilation” out of context, since the phrase sometmes carries an alternate obscure meaning in Catholicism, defined according to Collins Dictionary, as “loss of awareness of self, as in a mystical union with God.” According to Catholic.com there is a similar definition: “self-annihilation, a state of indifference in which the soul enjoys an imperturbable tranquility.”

Self-annihilation, also according to the dictionary, means self-destruction and/or suicide.

Likewise, the word “Father” also has two meanings to Catholics. Sometimes the word “Father” means Priest. But just as frequently Catholics say the word “Father” and they mean their biological or adopted father who raised them as children.

When De Marchi used the word “self-annihilations” to describe the kids, it was on the same page, the same short chapter, that he was describing their extreme suffering, their refusal to drink water when they were in and out of the hospitals. He was specifically talking about their bodies and how the children proclaimed that they were suffering out loud. “Do you suffer much?” Lucia asked. “Very greatly,” the child conceded. He was certainly NOT talking about their “tranquility” on that page. He was talking about their misery. That they were voicing out loud the tremendous bodily suffering caused by their sacrifices.

De Marchi was also using the phrase post-mortem. It seems common sense that someone would not choose that peculiar word “self-annihilation” about dead children without understanding the more common definition and how it might be construed by the masses of ordinary (non-clergical) people reading the book.

Since the children died literally, it is reasonable that Wikipedia could use the literal foremost dictionary defintion of the word “self-annihilation,” which means to self-destruct, especially when it is phrased as a likely possibility: i.e. the children “may have” contributed to their own deaths; their biographer called their sacrifices leading up to their deaths as “self-annihilations” and these sacrifices included “not drinking water for 30 days” etc.

In the same way that if it was written in a Catholic biography “Father took her to the beach,” but the biographer was unclear if he meant a “Father” Priest or a “Father” Dad it would be reasonable to say on Wikipedia “he may have been talking about his biological father in this context, since on the same page he mentions his biological father.”

Again, I have no trouble posting photographs of the numbered book pages containing these passages.

I am very concerned because Catholics have been blocking this information from Wikipedia for years. A Mary apparition who makes predictions that never come true, and then orders children to tie tight cords around their waist, until they bleed from the cords, until they die, is very controversial, and yet Catholic editors have been arguing with me “oh that’s not really a controversy at all.” Really? A direct quote from a Mary apparition encouraging small children to keep wearing painful ropes, and then the children die, isn’t controversial? And no one before me has ever posted it to Wikipedia? That’s very suspicious, considering there are 70 million Catholics in America alone, and this is a very popular “miracle” since it added a prayer to the official rosary.

Also, when I leave careful meticulous citations, other Catholic editors will delete them while I sleep, and then write in brackets CITATION NEEDED, in a further attempt to mislead people, i.e. “whoever submitted this must be making it up, they have no citations!” In reality, the user deleted the citations, right before adding the brackets “citation needed.” It makes me believe fanatical Catholics have been doing this undetected for many years.

This is more vandalism.

Before he was blocked, user Fadi 153 already attempted to delete 75% of the Fatima “talk page,” which I had to revert also. Deleting the entire talk page is dirty. It is an attempt to sweep under the rug arguments that were already successfully made.

If I try to revert destructive edits to the controversy section, then I get blocked by Wiki for reverting too much. It doesn’t matter if the other user gets blocked also, which they did, because there will always be another extremist who simply wants to destroy anything negative written about any “miracle.”

This is not an issue of refusing to collaborate. In the beginning I made numerous changes to the text in order to collaborate with other editors. Numerous. The problem is, when someone disagrees because of their own personal beliefs about God, their primary goal is to dilute the opposing material. Their goal isn’t that things are properly cited. Their goal is that it will ultimately read as less convincing. So they remove certain powerful sentences, certain citations, certain word choices, etc. The mission is dilute, subtract, discredit, delete.

User Fadi153, who I was blocked for “warring” with, sought so hard to discredit the Saint’s own memoirs and her authorized biography written by a friend of hers. Every time I tried to prove that the resources were solid, the other user would just scream louder and continue deleting everything.

Perhaps all religion pages on Wiki should be semi-locked and monitored, because I am sure these shenanigans are going on across the board, on every religious page, for every religion that ever existed.

Anyway, those are my arguments, for what it’s worth. Two different users blocked us for warring, and somehow Fadi got three days, and I got blocked indefinitely, which is certainly unfair, since they were the vandal. Spyrazzle (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

For instance the revision right now, I believe done by ZFish, it only says there's a "discrepancy" about Mary's prediction about the war ending on October 13, 1917. It doesn't have the more powerful, more factual statement that the war did not end until MORE THAN A YEAR LATER in November 1918. That part was removed somehow. Now that I'm banned, little powerful details like that are swept under the rug. Now it just says "oh, there's a discrepancy." That is diluting. So if anyone responsible can go back and include that, please do so. Spyrazzle (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Page version of the reversion

Not sure too sure of merits of who - what - where - of the actual content dispute, but I do not think the reversion was made to the exact place immediately prior to the edit warring. The list of sources had a lot of work done to it recently, and the reversion took it back to a time before that work was done. (I am only sobbing quietly! :-) ) Some of the refs were list-defined so it ended up a bit hit-and-miss. Have done my best to put it back, without reinserting currently disputed material. However, If I have made errors in that regard, please feel free to change, or else advise me, and I will correct.

Also, just to point out to other interested editors, while there are apparent ongoing reversions on changes made by Spyrazzle and Fadi153 - on which I have no opinion - there is another editor (IP) making quite a few changes. Again, while I will leave others to sort out content issues, they remove references, and very upsettingly for a print-disabled user, keep placing <br > line breaks in - ones I specifically removed twice (and always do when I come across them) as they cause accessibility issues. Please see MOS:NOBR, and avoid if at all possible.

For similar reasons, I have refactored and given a new header to the above conversation, as I was having trouble following. Hope that is not stepping over any boundaries. Thanks for listening. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I just wanted to get it to the pre edit war version and that seemed to be it. Thank you for fixing that! LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No problems at all: it's quite understandable. I was flummoxed for a while. Very hard to see where it all started, and where to go back to! Thanks for being so intrepid :-). Best AukusRuckus (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

New heading

i see you edited the controversy section, which leaves a good impression in my mind that you are not a venomous bigoted atheists just looking to sow strife, i think this will be a good new start for us to talk about the controversy section and make additional changes to it. here is what i suggest:

In the DeMarchi account in his book "The Immaculate Heart" published in 1952 35 years after the apparitions, some sources claimed that the priest who interviewed the children, Dr. Manuel Formigao, was alarmed by the children's discrepant prophesy, where the apparition predicted that the World War I would end on October 13, 1917. "But listen Lúcia," Formigo said, "The war is still going on. The papers give news of battles after the 13th. How can you explain that if our Lady said the war would end that day?" Lúcia replied, "I don’t know; I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on that day ... I said exactly what our Lady had said."[22] Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and said the same: "[Mary] said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today."[23]

DeMarchi documented that for two full years prior to the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto in the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic,[24] the three children refused food and water as a penance, or else drank dirty water in defiance of their mother. DeMarchi also wrote, "In the scorching sun of the serra, when through the bright hours of the day the heat hangs like a hot stove everywhere, they abstained from taking any water through one spell of thirty days, and at another time for nine."[25] and described Jacinta as being hospitalized for severe bronchial illness, after which she confided to her older cousin that she was still abstaining: "I was thirsty, Lúcia, and I didn’t drink, and so I offered it to Jesus for sinners."[26][25], but the official cause of death for the two children remains complications from the Flu according to the medical experts that treated them.

In her memoirs, Lucia wrote that the children tied "penitence cords" so tightly around their waists that the ropes became blood-stained,[27] and that in the September 13th apparition, she was told, "God is pleased with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope on; only wear it during the day."[28] on one occasion before the 13th July apparition Lucia voiced her concern that she had doubts about the apparitions, Lucia wrote about doubts she expressed as a child regarding the authenticity of the apparition. She wrote, "I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil ... truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt!"[29] She also describes a vivid nightmare she experienced during this time period wherein "the devil was laughing at having deceived me."[29] DeMarchi states that Lúcia once told her cousin, "If [Mary] asks for me, Jacinta, you tell her why I’m not there. Because I am afraid it is the Devil who sends her to us!"[30], Lucia also writes in her memoirs that the doubts miraculously disappeared on he day of the apparition replaced by fervor to meet the Blessed Mother, these are excerpts from her memoir : ""On the following day, when it was nearly time to leave, I suddenly felt I had to go, impelled by a strange force that I could hardly resist. Then I set out, and called at my uncle’s house to see if Jacinta was still there. I found her in her room, together with her brother Francisco, kneeling beside the bed, crying. “Aren’t you going then?” I asked. “Not without you! We don’t dare. Do come!” “Yes, I’m going,” I replied. Their faces lighted up with joy, and they set out with me. Crowds of people were waiting for us along the road, and only with difficulty did we finally get there. This was the day on which Our Lady deigned to reveal to us the Secret. After that, to revive my flagging fervor" ""

i believe these changes are very reasonable, professional, show both sides of the story and well sourced, i hope you will review them with open mind and good faith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs)

User Fadi153, it was not me who re-edited the controversy section. The new edit is terrible. No, I am not an atheist, but in the future please refrain from calling me a "God hater" or later thanking me for "not being a venomous bigoted atheist" after someone else edits my work poorly in an attempt to mislead people. It is documented that Mary told the children that World War 1 would end on October 13, 1917. Both Lucia and Jacinta were interrogated separately and quoted Mary as saying "The war will end today." But the war did not end until November 1918 and that needs to be stated clearly, and not in this ultra-wordy diluted way that seeks to deliberately confuse the reader. Spyrazzle (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you are proposing. Why you don't start with a sentence or small section: e.g., "I propose changing current sentence or small section to proposed sentence or small section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

User Jamie, I am not the person who wrote the above proposal. But I do propose this change. This was the original beginning to the controversy section for weeks and it is succinct and well-written. "According to the children, the apparition of Mary predicted that the First World War would end on October 13, 1917. They quoted the vision as saying: "The war will end today. You can expect the soldiers very shortly."[4]: 159  World War I ended for all parties with an armistice in November 1918, more than a year after the vision reportedly told the children that it had already ended. This discrepancy alarmed the interrogating priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose interviews with the children were preserved: "But listen Lucia" he said on record, "The war is still going on. The papers give news of battles after the 13th. How can you explain that if our Lady said the war would end that day?" Lucia replied, "I don’t know; I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on that day ... I said exactly what our Lady had said."[4]: 159  Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and said the same: "[Mary] said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today."[4]: 155  (User Jamie, I am happy to photograph the pages of the books for you, if that helps, including the passage where the Priest talks about being friends with Lucia in real life, receiving her story firsthand.) Spyrazzle (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that's significantly different from the existing version [1]. The current version correctly notes that the prophecy was "discrepant" and that the war was still going on after the predicted cessation date. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It is very different, because it deliberately omits the end date of the war, which was more than a year after Mary's predicted date. The average person doesn't know dates of the war. To just say there was a discrepancy is to sweep under the rug how big and peculiar the discrepancy was. The discrepancy must be spelled out. Mary said it would end on this exact date; rather it ended on this date. This vague "discrepancy" stuff must end because the vagueness has a motive. It is also poorly written in the way it appears now. This was the original, which two other users participated in creating: According to the children, their apparition of "Mary" predicted that the First World War would end on October 13, 1917. They quoted the vision as saying: "The war will end today. You can expect the soldiers very shortly."[4]: 159  World War I ended for all parties with an armistice in November 1918, more than a year after the vision reportedly told the children that it had already ended. This discrepancy alarmed the interrogating priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose interviews with the children were preserved: "But listen Lucia" he said on record, "The war is still going on. The papers give news of battles after the 13th. How can you explain that if our Lady said the war would end that day?" Lucia replied, "I don’t know; I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on that day ... I said exactly what our Lady had said."[4]: 159  Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and said the same: "[Mary] said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today."[4]: 155 

Spyrazzle (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Spyrazzle , can you tell me why the saint did not mention anything about the unfulfilled prophecy of ww1 in her own memoirs? do you realize that the first line on De Marchi's book he says that his book was wrote based on interviews with people done 35 years after the fact, and none of these people are 1st hand witnesses, this is not me speaking these are De Marchi's words copied from his book "The true story of Fatima" "Father de Marchi spent hours and days researching for this book on location. He spoke at length

to many witnesses"....also why the unfulfilled prophecy was never mentioned in any other source even though here are many sources out there trying to discredit the apparitions? if you take a step back and think about it logically you find that the evidence for this claim is insufficient.

Hello, Ohnoitsjamie , i made a few changes, i will copy the original line and under it my suggestion for your consideration.

current: In the DeMarchi account, the priest who interviewed the children during the apparitions, , Dr. Manuel Formigao.

suggested edit: In the DeMarchi account in his book "The Immaculate Heart" published in 1952 35 years after the apparitions, some sources claimed that the priest who interviewed the children.

current: I was thirsty, Lúcia, and I didn’t drink, and so I offered it to Jesus for sinners.

suggested edit:I was thirsty, Lúcia, and I didn’t drink, and so I offered it to Jesus for sinners."[26][25], but the official cause of death for the two children remains complications from the Flu according to the medical experts that treated them.

current : Lucia also wrote about doubts she expressed as a child regarding the authenticity of the apparition. She wrote, "I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil ... truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt!"[29] She also describes a vivid nightmare she experienced during this time period wherein "the devil was laughing at having deceived me."[29] DeMarchi states that Lúcia once told her cousin, "If [Mary] asks for me, Jacinta, you tell her why I’m not there. Because I am afraid it is the Devil who sends her to us!".

suggested edit:on one occasion before the 13th July apparition Lucia voiced her concern that she had doubts about the apparitions, Lucia wrote about her doubts regarding the authenticity of the apparition. She wrote, "I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil ... truly, ever since I had started seeing these things, our home was no longer the same, for joy and peace had fled. What anguish I felt!"[29] She also describes a vivid nightmare she experienced during this time period wherein "the devil was laughing at having deceived me."[29] DeMarchi states that Lúcia once told her cousin, "If [Mary] asks for me, Jacinta, you tell her why I’m not there. Because I am afraid it is the Devil who sends her to us!"[30], Lucia also writes in her memoirs that the doubts miraculously disappeared on he day of the apparition replaced by fervor to meet the Blessed Mother, these are excerpts from her memoir : ""On the following day, when it was nearly time to leave, I suddenly felt I had to go, impelled by a strange force that I could hardly resist. Then I set out, and called at my uncle’s house to see if Jacinta was still there. I found her in her room, together with her brother Francisco, kneeling beside the bed, crying. “Aren’t you going then?” I asked. “Not without you! We don’t dare. Do come!” “Yes, I’m going,” I replied. Their faces lighted up with joy, and they set out with me. Crowds of people were waiting for us along the road, and only with difficulty did we finally get there. This was the day on which Our Lady deigned to reveal to us the Secret. After that, to revive my flagging fervor".

Also i bring to question this statement in the current version "DeMarchi documented that for two full years prior to the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto in the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic,[24] the three children refused food and water as a penance"

this is not what De Marchi wrote, he did mention that the children did miraculous fasting for 30 days "no food or water" and another occasion of 9 days, but the current statement is a personal conclusion by the section writer that the children starved them self for two years which is not what FR. De Marchi states

also please note that some of the points do not merit to be in this section, like a nightmare about the devil!!! or the whole first paragraph about the end of ww1 which was never corroborated by Saint Lucia in her memoirs nor ever mentioned in any other source.

Finally i would like to add that i believe the the freedom of choice is one of the most sacred Gifts humans have, by no means am i trying to modify the article to conform with me religious beliefs, no never, i simply want that facts to be presented truthfully without exaggeration, and let the reader make up his or her own mind. Thank you

Fadi, I cannot communicate with you any longer. You keep insisting that De Marchi is not a credible source, when he was friends with Lucia in real life. You keep insisting the two sources are "hear say" despite another editor agreeing with me that the sources are credible. De Marchi is quoting a Priest who engaged in real-time interviews with the children, in 1917, who published his findings in 1917. I am very happy to post photographs of the pages with page numbers. But I cannot engage in daily war with someone who constantly discredits two credible sources. You are slippery with the truth. You accuse people of "hating God" just because they don't agree with you that a vision of Mary who makes false predictions and who tells kids to harm their bodies with ropes is from God. You also are fine with those SAME two sources being used throughout the Wiki article when they are used in favor of the apparitions. This conversation is over because you do not care about facts, you just care about winning. I know you will be lingering on this page for years trying to tear down the controversy section, and that is so alarming. That is why there has never been a controversy section on Wikipedia until today. Since you are religious, I will remind you that even in the Bible it says "Satan disguises himself as an 'angel of light.'" And in the Bible, Christ himself says "False Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." Great signs and wonders are not always from God, according to Christ. Maybe it's time you consider that these visions are not from God, but from the opposite force, or maybe they are mental illness. But the Mary from the Bible strikes many people as very different from the facts of this questionable, spooky, sadistic apparition. Also, the controversy section needs to be limited to aspects that are controversial, whereas you are trying to insert sentences that praise the vision in a section labeled "controversy." Just like in court, the prosecution states their case, and the defense gets an allotted time to state their case too, without interruption. In a fair world, both sides get to state their facts, without interruption. What a horrible world it would be if it were otherwise. I cannot respond to you anymore. If anyone wants photographs of pages in hard-cover books, let me know. Spyrazzle (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Spyrazzle, my issue is not with the sources, nor is it with De Marchi's relation to sister Lucia, it is that the entire article was written with a tone of skepticism, or non committance, except for the controversy section that you wrote, it was written as a matter of fact language, another thing; you said: "questionable, spooky, sadistic apparition" probablly because of the acts of strict penance that was asked of the children, and i understand that that might sound like horrible child abuse to you because of your lack of knowledge of the catholic and many other religious cultures, please allow me to explain, one of the fundamental cores in many religions is mind over matter, meaning that your mind controls your body and its basic animalistic urges, humans can never be free to pursue the divine if they are slaves to the flesh, that is not a catholic concept, in fact it exists thousands of years before Christianity, to strengthen the soul you must tame the body fist, and then nourish the soul through the spirit,and the best time to do it and get into the habit of it is in the younger years of life, it is very hard to change someone who is already a fully grown adult, an infinite number of human issues that we face today can be traced back to severely lax upbringing, in Japan there is a saying that children are like trees, if not straightened and pruned early in life they will be ruined when they grow, if you love someone then you don't want them to grow up to have major issues in life that could have been avoided with proper disciplined upbringing, not one where all the urges and whims of the body are always catered to. how many children suffer from injuries when playing sports, some are even serious energies, and we go on about it like is usual business, but you want to make a huge deal about some blood on penance cord that was tied a bet to tightly, stopping short from comparing it with concentration camps, now i am not God and not all knowing, but i am absolutely welling to bet everything i own even my own life that those two children went up to enjoy eternal glory, happiness and bless so great that no human mind can ever comprehend, i say that is not a bad deal for minor suffering for two years, many of us suffer horribly all our lives and we still don't know where we'll end up when we die, God blessed those two children greatly with what he did to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

please watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZiNFYVymHs it will put things in prespective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Fadi, the children died. They didn't drink water for 30 days at a time--their words--and on the week that they died they were lying on their deathbeds with bloody cords tied around their waists, and then they died, and Mary TOLD THEM to keep wearing those cords, so don't downplay it. Everything you just wrote was very disturbing to me. And yes, you did object to the sources many, many times. That's exactly what we were warring about--you kept saying the two books were outdated and invalid, and now you are changing your story. Let me remind you that Jesus said "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" whereas the fake Mary told the children "God is pleased with your many sacrifices, but He does not want you to wear the ropes at night, ONLY DURING THE DAY." This puts Christ and God at odds with each other. Christ also said to give water to children. Mary knew they were not drinking water for 30 days at a time and encouraged them to keep making those sacrifices. Christ also said: "When you pray, do not repeat your prayers, like the pagans do, for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking." So a Mary apparition commanding children to say 50 Hail Marys every single day of their lives is a ridiculous amount of prayer repeating, we are talking thousands of the same repeated prayer, and that is also bizarre. This is my final response to you, because you lie, and because you support child abuse. Goodbye Fadi. Spyrazzle (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Spyrazzle i understand that as a protestant you were brain washed to reject everything about our Blessed Mother, but sometimes you have to stand back and question what you were taught because not all of it is true, abstaining from water for 30 is miraculous, but you cant see that, you only see child abuse, maybe according to you Jesus should not have fasted for 40 days, or even crucified, because that is just too painful, when God said "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" he was talking about the animal sacrifices that the Jews did as an outward show of faith but was not accompanied with true change in the soul to reflect God's teachings, it was not sincere, what Jesus said was carry your cross and follow me, other wise how do you explain the tortures lives and deaths of almost all the saints and even the disciples, Jesus suffered through his life and warned his followers that they will face the same, because if the world did not accept the master then it will not accept the servants. The children did die but not because of their miraculous penance and fasting, they died of the flu as God ordained, and finally 50 Hail Maries is one rosary and you are supposed to be reciting them while contemplating on the five mysteries of that day, not just repeating them with an absent mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Jesus said to give children water. Period. Mary told these suffering dehydrated children to keep up their sacrifices of not drinking water. And then they died. The official cause of death was pandemic flu. However the children testified that they were STILL NOT DRINKING WATER while being treated in the hospital. The CDC, the Center for Disease Control, has this to say about flus: "Give plenty of liquids at the first sign of flu. Sick people with the flu need to drink extra fluids to keep from getting dehydrated. Mild fluid loss can most often be treated at home. Yet, severe dehydration is VERY serious and must be treated in the hospital." The CDC capitalized the word VERY, not me. Dehydration in combination with the flu causes death, warns the CDC. Btw, I am not a Protestant either. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school all my life, was educated by Nuns and Priests, and then I simply read the Bible as an adult, the whole thing, and then I read the true story of all the Catholic miracles, the facts, not the Catholic spin machine, and I was less than impressed, I was horrified, I was laughing, and I was also relieved. Christ didn't whip himself, he didn't tie cords around his waist, he didn't crucify himself either. Carry your cross means life is difficult and people may treat you badly in this life; carry on. It doesn't mean torture your own body until you die. What a sad interpretation. Spyrazzle (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Attention editors, when person/people were revising, they deliberately diluted the content to omit certain quotations of the children. For instance, an entire portion was reduced to "dirty water." In truth Lucia described the water as "filthy!" and she also described the water as an animal and laundry pond. She said her mother forbade them to drink from that pond specifically because the water was so dirty it would cause illness. That needs to be noted in the controversy section and not just diluted to "they drank some dirty water." This was filthy water, known to cause illness, that was used only for laundry and for the animals. Also, the quotes about the ropes were all curiously deleted. It needs to be stated that the kids were still wearing them on their deathbeds, during their final days alive. On one of her final days alive, Lucia describes in her memoirs how she was summoned to the little girl’s bed and given the rope: “’Keep it for me; I’m afraid my mother may see it. If I get better, I want it back again!’ This cord had three knots, and was somewhat stained with blood,” Lucia notes.[22] 10-year-old Francisco has a near identical dialogue with Lucia on his own deathbed. In the same memoirs, she recounts a final encounter with him: "One day shortly before his death, I asked him, 'Are you suffering a lot Francisco?' 'Yes, but I suffer it all for love of Our Lord and Our Lady.' He gave me the rope that I have already spoken about saying, 'Take it away before my mother sees it. I don't feel able to wear it any more around my waist."[22]. These are key details. They belong in the controversy section. To delete them from the original was sneaky and it certainly had motive. Please, would someone responsible add the details back, and please also pay careful attention in the future to certain editors who try to conceal/delete/dilute information.Spyrazzle (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Spyrazzle you have too much anger and aggression, its is apparent in all your posts, i wish you well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversy Section Moving Forward

The above discussion has been going on since at least October 15, 2021, more than a month ago. It has become frankly toxic, and must not continue in this manner. All parties are warned that continued uncivil behavior will not be tolerated and will be promptly reported to administrators. Possible sanctions include involved users being subject to a WP:Topic ban, prohibiting the editor from future work on Fatima related articles, or even complete revocation of editing privileges on Wikipedia. Name calling and personal attacks ("militant atheist", "agent of the church", "sabotage" etc) WILL NOT be tolerated. Several editors have already been banned from editing the article, but have have abused their continued talk page privileges. The above discussions are closed and future discussion will occur under a new heading in a WP:civil manner, with all editors adhering to WP:Talk page guidelines and WP:Assume good faith. This is a FINAL warning.

The good faith version of the "controversy" section made on October 22 in response to my comments on 18 October 2021 should NOT have been deleted wholesale. The contributing editor removed all content that violated policy. After that revision was posted, I provided specific advice on how to improve the section to meet Wikipedia practices, which was insulted and ignored. Having Now revised the content in the article to address two specific outstanding issues, there are no further grounds to delete the section. Deleting the section again, without a consensus built in a civil discussion, will not be tolerated. Revisions made following ordinary Wikipedia procedure may of course continue be made to refine the content, with specific advise to adhere to avoid WP:Original research and WP:Synth. All content, particularly any controversial statement or claim must be attributed to a specific WP:Reliable source. Dr. DeMarchi's account, and Lucia's memoirs are already frequently cited on this page. They may be used to document what Dr. DeMarchi and Lucia believe about the alleged Fatima miracle. Claims or thesis statements not directly attributable to the source must not be added back.

Insults about good faith edits will not be tolerated. Revisions shall be politely made, or objections with clear and succinct explanations shall be discussed here in a civil manner. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Continued discussion regarding controversy section

The way the children died, prematurely and with bloody cords tied around them, the same week of their deaths, was outlandishly controversial. The children’s quotations on their deathbeds are disturbing and bizarre and they need to be re-inserted back into the controversy section. In a direct quote "Mary" instructed the small children to continue wearing tight cords around their waists, and the children suffered immensely because of those cords, and Lucia herself wrote down her little cousins' agonized words about the cords while they died. The cords that "Mary" wanted them to wear. Please refer to the October 21/22 revision, linked above, to recoup the exact quotations and citations.

The fact that the children were deliberately drinking hazardous water, that their own mother warned would cause them illness, needs to be reinserted back into the text too. It is not okay to simply gloss over it and say sometimes they drank dirty water. What is dirty water? Water with a tiny bit of dirt in it? No, these children died, and we need to write what Lucia wrote -— which is that in addition to going without water for weeks at a time, when they did drink water they elected to drink from a “filthy” pond, used only for animals and laundry, which their mother specifically forbade them from drinking because it was unsafe water that would likely cause illness.

These children died officially from the Spanish Flu, but in Lucia’s own words they were not drinking water for weeks at a time, or they were drinking contaminated water, and even when they were in the hospital they refused water. The CDC, The Center for Disease Control, states clearly that people suffering from the flu need extra fluids to survive, the CDC says that children in particular are likely to be hospitalized if not given enough fluid while experiencing the flu, and that a flu can quickly become lethal for a child who is not drinking enough fluid. That is why these details are controversial. Removing all controversial book quotations from a Wikipedia controversy section is controversial in itself. Spyrazzle (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please copy the quotes or text from the previous revision that you would like to have reinserted into this discussion, and I will considered adding them back to the article. Regarding dirty water, I am willing to revise the sentence to say "or else drank contaminated water from the laundry pond; DeMarchi noted that [x]'s mother had forbidden drinking from the pond due to the risk of illness."

In general, I do not object to noting that the children deprived themselves of food and water, as DeMarchi and Lucia make this clear. However, unless DeMarchi or Lucia in her memoir speculated that dehydration contributed to their deaths, I cannot add that statement into the article; citing the CDC would be WP:Synthesis (ie, combining information from two different sources to make a novel conclusion), which is prohibited. However, if you can provide an alternative source that asserts that dehydration contributed to the children's deaths, I would include such a properly sourced statement. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To avoid leaving the above invitation for edit suggestions hanging, I personally am not inclined to make any further edits to the the controversy section. In my humble opinion, we have reached a stable version of this section that accurately reflects the underlying sources. However, if additional reliable sources are found that comment negatively about the penitential rituals, I actively encourage such material to be added to the article, provided such content is proportionately represented. –Zfish118^⋉talk 22:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reviewing the De Marchi account, Dr. Formaigo appears to clarify that the prophesy was that the war would end after October 13th, not necessarily on that date (Direct link to page 158: "[2]" - a free account is needed to review the book). –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  It should also be noted that throughout the portion of the book in which the cited interviews were given, the children are often identified as being exhausted and continuously haggled by strangers for information, resulting in what is perceived as a mechanical response to the questions. Lucia herself states on page 160 "I can't remember now exactly how she put it."

  This seeming discrepancy is ultimately resolved on page 164 where it is stated that "Our own persuasion is that the declaration closest to the truth was made by Jacinta on that tirtheenth of October while she was walking with Dr. Formigao along the road from Aljustrel to Fatima. When asked what Our Lady had said on this last occasion, she replied, "I have come here to say that men must not offend Our Lord any more because He is already very much offended, and that if they amend their lives the war will end.""

  It seems to me that the controversy section warrants an edit for the sake of providing the full context under which these statements were made by the children, and the conclusion drawn by Dr. Formigao on the topic as to what was ultimately said on that date. Strangefunction (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Any text about the resolution of the discrepancy must be clearly attributed to Dr. Formagio within the narrative. For instance: "Dr Formagio noted the children appeared exhausted, and concluded the children inadvertently misstated the apparition's prophecy." Wikipedia cannot interpret prophecy, but it can quote with proper attribution the interpretation of a relevant third party. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• In her apparitions leading up to the final (13th Oct.) apparition, Our Lady linked praying the rosary to the ending of the war - i.e., on 13th May she is quoted by the children as having said: "Recite the Rosary every day in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war", and again on 13th Sept: "Continue to pray the Rosary to obtain the end of the war". Hence, the full quote on 13th October should presumably read: "Continue to pray the rosary every day [that] the war will end soon and the soldiers will return to their homes" 2A02:8084:2162:E980:2082:691C:A599:71DA (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Any quotes need to be exact and bracketed text very narrowly used to clarify missing context, not change the meaning of a sentence. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie Hello the controversy section now is balanced, fair accurate, comprehensive and with no personal opinions, i have no more complaints, i thank you for your fair arbitration, i will direct all future comments if needed to you Mr. Ohnoitsjamie, since i am starting to feel very uncomfortable talking with Spyrazzle due to the aggressive, angry and stubborn tone that i get from all his\her posts. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Angelic Apparition" category

Absent any objections, I would like to delete the category, "Angelic Apparitions", as Roman Catholicism does not consider Mary to be an angel. –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So removed! ([[Category:Angelic apparitions]]) –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)