Talk:Stigmata/Archive 2

Scientific Research Section Should Be Expanded

I think someone should expand the section about scientific research because it leaves out several possible natural causes of stigmata. Some of these other possible causes are discussed in this stigmata article. For example, an alternate personality could temporarily take over and create the stigmata, and the main personality wouldn't know how it happened. There are also various ways to create fake stigmata, such as applying acid to the skin, or simply painting marks onto the skin. I think these possibilities should at least be mentioned in the Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryw200 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the innumerable ways in which those with no faith in God grasp at straws in order to not have to be confronted with reality should be treated as thoroughly as possible 108.182.88.129 (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a kid, I had this around my ankles and palms/back of hands. It itched so bad I often scratched it bloody. I was sure it was the stigmata. Oops. http://www.aocd.org/skin/dermatologic_diseases/dermatitis_herpeti.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.42.115 (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Stigmata?

Should the following people be included in the notable stigmatics section:
"Myrna Nazzour, resident where the alleged appearance of Our Lady of Soufanieh took place
Zlatko Sudac"
I personally think the first one shouldn't because she doesn't even have her own page yet. As for the second one he has his own page, but I am not sure he is notable enough. Yes he had one magazine article about him, but does that equal notable. Also should we change the title of the section to "Notable Alleged Stigmatists" since it is my understanding that other then St. Francis the Church never definitavely said anything about the stigmata on any of the people. Also I am sure those outside of church community would said "alleged" no matter what. Of course we could then get into a discussion of whether just having the marks makes you a stigmatist, whether they come from a miracle or you doing it to yourself (i.e. what exactly is the official definition of being a stigmatist.)Marauder40 (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above comment, an IP editor keeps trying to add a red-linked Sr. Rosy to the list. First off she doesn't appear to have a page and doing a web-search on a Sister Rosy the only article I can find about her is a blog. You need to meet notability before adding her. As you can see I am questioning the two stigmatists listed above. Does she meet the notability of the other stigmatists on the list. Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP is a joker. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought at first but did a search for "Sister" "Rosy" "Stigmata" on yahoo and got a hit on a Carmelite nun in Pondicherry. However nothing that I found meets Wiki standards for verification, reliability, etc. Marauder40 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it should be left out. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

male-female ratio

The article contradicts itself on the male-female ratio. Either "The majority of reported stigmatics are female" or "the male-to-female ratio of stigmatics, which for many centuries had been of the order of 7 to 1, had changed over the last 100 years to a ratio of 5:4" must be wrong.

I don't have access to the second source. But I believe the mistake happened using the first source. The given list there is an incomplete selection of famous stigmatics. The selection is mostly female, however the source does not state that this would be typical. If nobody finds any other proof for the first statement, I would simply remove it, leaving the second statement unchanged. Robinandroid (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. As written this is misleading. It could be (for example) that the changing balance over the 'last 100 years' means that 80% of the most recent stigmatics are female, but if this is what the person who added meant they should say so clearly. Samael92 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second part that's incorrect. S/He's interpreted a ratio of 7 women to 1 man as 7 men to 1 women. Given that, the ratio of 5:4 might well be their attempt at writing 4/5. Perhaps more importantly if there are only 320 odd cases through history, then if a small number occur in one century that go against the general pattern I question the value of calling attention to it. Samael92 (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location - wrist or palm?

The current article states that stigmata are located on the wrist, but images of stigmatics such as Padre Pio show them to be in the palm of the hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Padre-Pio-young.jpg). 87.114.121.115 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more. History2007 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity of topic

The very first opening sentence throws off the entire article. It should start with "Stigmata is a term used by members of the Christian Faith to describe bodily marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ, such as the hands and feet." Saying that "Stigmata are bodily marks etc" makes it sound like a real medical condition or something. I'm going to fix it. Shax (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you Shax and think the article would benefit from this clarification Media Michael (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

correction under description

at the 6th paragraph under the main heading description, it states no case of stigmata was known before the 1300th century ... when au contraire, sir robert st leger/legare, was known to have the stigmata of bleeding from the hands circa 1100 AD. Pls correct. ... 68.195.88.82 (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC) desc willy bob joanz sr, stig27th[reply]

Very Similar to Catholic Encyclopaedia entry

Ummm, this article seems almost exactly the same as the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry. Is that problematic?

173.56.52.128 (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Cytoplasm[reply]

Non-scientific tone

The overall tone of this article severely needs a change. A lay user could easily read this and leave with the idea that stigmata are something that actually happens in the natural world, despite the fact that literally no evidence of it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a bodily mark the definition of evidence? Granted it says nothing about it's cause, but I wouldn't go as far as you emphasize. -UltimaNerd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.162.177 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda is a problem that it says nothing about the cause, since the cause is the only thing that's supposed to set stigmata apart. Bodily marks themselves are not remarkable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.77.208.74 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has been in a bad way. I am in the process of fixing this article. HealthyGirl (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]