Talk:Our Lady of Fátima

adding a CONTROVERSY section

Hello, I’m Natalie, and I’m new to Wiki.

i’m seeking assistance because I contributed a CONTROVERSY section to the “Our Lady of Fatima” page and it was deleted under the tag “personal opinion.”

I have since reworked the controversy section to eliminate all opinions, and yet trying to post a new version will result in it being deleted under the tag “removed my edit.”

So if anyone can help moderate, that would be very helpful, because Fatima certainly warrants a controvery section. Ghost apparitions (religious or otherwise) are inherently controversial.

The absence of a controversy section altogether on the Fatima page after so many years is bizarre and almost suspicious—especially since this vision of Mary promoted violence towards children. This is a particularly questionable, potentially very dangeorus “miracle.”

I will be citing from two books. The first one, THE IMMACULATE HEART, was published by the reputable Farrar, Straus and Young. It was written by a Priest who interrogated the witnesses firsthand.

The other book, FATIMA IN LUCIA’S OWN WORDS, was published by the Catholic Church (Imprimatur), which in normal circumstances would be considered a biased press; however in this case it should be admitted, because they are the memoirs of the Saint herself.

Marian apparations are a bit like the Loch Ness Monster, in the sense that only a few handfuls of people have ever seen them, and so it’s hard to find “credible” citations. For instance it would be hard to cite The New York Times reporting on a Marian apparition, or a Loch Ness sighting. That said, what is more credible a source to a Marian apparition than the personal journals of the only living witness to it?

(I would also like to mention that on the existing Fatima page, plenty of biased Catholic news outlets are referenced to substantiate the apparitions, and those sources were not deleted.)

I intend to re-post my new and improved controversy section at some point today or tonight. If any Wiki moderators could oversee, so that it doesn’t get automatically deleted, I would appreciate your time so much. The Fatima page is incomplete without thoughtful opposition. Thank you guys. Natalie.

This is what I intend to post:

Controversy

The Mary apparition falsely predicted the end of the war, with Lucia relaying what Mary had told her: "The war will end today (13 October 1917). You can expect the soldiers very shortly." 1

But World War 1 didn’t end for more than a year after Mary’s prediction that it had already ended.

This alarmed even the interrogating Priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose records of the children still exist: "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. 2

Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and she said the same thing. “(Mary) said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today.” 3

Although Mary correctly predicted the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the children may have facilitated their own deaths, as both were documented as having starved and dehydrated themselves during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.

Their biographer, John De Marchi, who was friends with Lucia, 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.” 4

For two full years leading up to their deaths, and even on their deathbeds, the children refused food and water, or drank dirty water from an animal and laundry pond from which their mother forbade them from drinking because it could cause illness, 5 and even kept blood-stained cords tied tightly around their waists.6

The vision of Mary praised them for their self-harm rituals, saying to them, “God is pleased with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope on; only wear it during the day.” 7

On multiple occasions Lucia voiced her concern that the Mary appearing to them was actually “the devil” all along. 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!’ 8

The young girl also suffered a dream during this time period wherein “the devil was laughing at having deceived me.” 9

And Lucia 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!” 10

CITATIONS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 De Marchi, Father John, I.M.C. The Immaculate Heart. New York: Farrar, Straus and Young. 1952. Page 159. Page 159. Page 155. Page 111. Page 111. Page. 71.

6, 7, 8, 9, Santos, Lucia. Kondor, Louis Fr., Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words (Memoirs 1-4) Fatima: Imprimatur. 10th Edition, 1998. Page 97. Page 80. Page 71. Page 71. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 22:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I've copied the controversy section here. There are multiple problem that need to be addressed before it can be incorporated into the article.

The Mary apparition falsely predicted the end of the war, with Lucia relaying what Mary had told her: "The war will end today (13 October 1917). You can expect the soldiers very shortly." But World War 1 didn’t end for more than a year after Mary’s prediction that it had already ended. This alarmed even the interrogating Priest, Dr. Manuel Formigao, whose records of the children still exist: "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." Jacinta, the youngest child, was interrogated separately and she said the same thing. “(Mary) said that we were to say the Rosary every day and that the war would end today.” Although Mary correctly predicted the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the children may have facilitated their own deaths, as both were documented as having starved and dehydrated themselves during the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. Their biographer, John De Marchi, who was friends with Lucia, 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.” For two full years leading up to their deaths, and even on their deathbeds, the children refused food and water, or drank dirty water from an animal and laundry pond from which their mother forbade them from drinking because it could cause illness, and even kept blood-stained cords tied tightly around their waists. The vision of Mary praised them for their self-harm rituals, saying to them, “God is pleased with your sacrifices, but He does not want you to sleep with the rope on; only wear it during the day.” On multiple occasions Lucia voiced her concern that the Mary appearing to them was actually “the devil” all along. 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!’ The young girl also suffered a dream during this time period wherein “the devil was laughing at having deceived me.” And Lucia 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!” References

I have addressed the issues listed above: encyclopedic tone, attributing all quotes to the children, removing the phrase "self-harm." All sources are cited. Thanks, Natalie Spyrazzle (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an improvement, but the specific claims must still be directly attributed to the author or researcher who made them within the text of the article. For example "Professor X cites as an example DeMarchi documenting the children fasting/drinking dirty water as potentially contributing to their deaths". –Zfish118^⋉talk 13:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I will work on additional changes tonight and tomorrow night. I hope that in good faith, someone with a conscience will help to preserve this controvery section for the years to come. Let me be frank. I am worried about modern-day children committing (essentially) copycat suicides. I speak from experience, because this particular “miracle” was pushed on me when i was a 9-year-old Catholic schoolgirl with an abnormally strong desire to please God, abnormal for a 9 year old certainly. Back then I was not armed with the facts of the story to protect myself. I did not have a car to get to the library. I also had not yet read the entirety of the Bible, which quoted Jesus saying “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” and “if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, truly i tell you, he will never lose his reward.” Which is the antithesis of what the Mary vision told these children, according to the children themselves.A controversy section, with the facts spread open, could save lives. Spyrazzle (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

"Although "Mary" reportedly predicted the deaths of Francisco and Jacinta Marto, the children may have facilitated their own deaths.[18]" - In the cited work, does DeMarchi explicitly claim or suggest that the children's actions may have contributed to their deaths? This is vital to Wikipedia mission, that it can only repeat what reliable sources state, and not make other conclusions based on it. If DeMarchi does not suggest the children's rituals made them more vulnerable to the flu or other causes of death, then the statement "may have facilitated their own deaths" would be considered WP:Original research and must be deleted. If DeMarchi did make this claim, then it must be directly attributed to him in the text to avoid appearing as original research. For instance "In his XXX dated report on the incident, DeMarchi noted that the children's actions may have contributed to their deaths. He noted actions such as...". Every similar claim must also be directly reflected in the underlying source, which is why phrases such as "self-harm rituals" were objected to, as it was not clear that your source material used that or similar terminology to describe the children's actions. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you did not carefully read my revision. DeMarchi himself referred to the children's sacrifices as "self-annihilations"---that is his term. To annihilate, according to Merriam Webster Dictionary, means "to cause to cease to exist; to do away with entirely so that nothing remains." Self-annihilation means to destroy the self. These children died, they did in fact cease to exist, and DeMarchi said their sacrifices leading up to their deaths were in fact "self-annihilations." You mention in your critique that my original phrase "self-harm rituals" was objected to because it was not DeMarchi who said it; therefore I searched hard and found a direct quote of DeMarchi using the phrase "self-annihilation" which is even more powerful than "self-harm." Therefore, it will stay in the CONTROVERSY section, where it belongs. It is cited correctly. Spyrazzle (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Self-annihilation" has a specific meaning in Catholicism. It does not mean physical harm, but spiritual submission to God. Self-annihilation in this context cannot be generalized to mean "contributed to their deaths". If DeMarchi did not explicitly state the children's actions may have contributed to their demise, then the statement must be removed. If he did, it must be directly attributed to him. –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the children died, and DeMarchi wrote the book after they died, knowing they died, it CAN be used. He uses the term self-annihilation in the same breath as talking about the dead children's dehydration practices, how tiny Jacinta was being treated in the hospital while still abstaining from drinking water. You are also changing the rules. You said I could not use the phrase "self-harm" unless DeMarchi himself said it. So I use the phrase "self-annihilation," because DeMarchi DID say that, and then you say "well, he meant it differently." You must work for the Catholic Church because you are attempting very hard to block information from the eyes of the people. This is gatekeeping. Since the children died, self-annihilation is the appropriate term, and DeMarchi used that term knowingly, knowing they were dead. Spyrazzle (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, my controversy section says the children “MAY have contributed to their own deaths.” It doesn’t say “they contributed to their own deaths period," it says “MAY have” with facts and testimonies to back it up. So if DeMarchi used the phrase SELF-ANNIHILATION when talking about the kids’ refusal to drink water while they were in and out of hospitals, but MAY have meant something else, because the phrase sometimes carries an obscure Catholic connotation, then the world has the same amount of probable cause to assume he meant it literally, since the kids died literally. He did not specifically say in his book “self-annihilations, in the Catholic sense of the word, meaning to give oneself completely to God.” He simply talked about the agony the kids were in before their deaths, and called their brutal sacrifices leading up to their deaths “self-annihilations” without explaining his use of the dictionary word. Which means I am justified to use the official dictionary definition in the controversy section.Spyrazzle (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being accused of "working for the church", and other innuendo. I specifically asked if Father DeMarchi said to the effect "their actions may have contributed to their deaths". This is a yes or no question that I have asked from the beginning, but you keep dancing around the answer.

If Dr. DeMarchi said this in his report about the miracle, then simply say in the at the start of the paragraph, "DeMarchi notes in his report that the children's actions may have contributed to their deaths". If DeMarchi did not make this specific argument about contributing to their own deaths, then you cannot make that argument. Articles in Wikipedia can only repeat arguments found in WP:Reliable Sources.

I do not object to including DeMarchi's documentation of their behavior or even his use of "self-annihilation". This is factual information. I object only to using the "self-annihilation" quote in a potentially leading manner. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not dancing around the subject. You are. DeMarchi characterized the children's actions leading up to their deaths as "self-annihilating." That is his testimony. The children died. They didn't drink water, even when they had a respiratory flu, they bloodied themselves, and they died. He described the children as "self-annihilating" while he was describing these actions that preceded their deaths. He did not "note it in a report." He said it in his "authoritative" biography of the children. The argument has been made successfully. Calling the children "self-annihilating" warrants my use of the phrase "the children MAY have contributed to their own deaths." You are the one dancing. There's a reason none of these horror stories have ever made it onto the Fatima Wiki page after so many years, and it's because Catholics have been blocking the info. I am very aware that this is an "important" miracle to the Church because it added a prayer to the rosary. I am very aware of what's at stake for the Catholic Church when people lose faith in this miracle. And I am very aware why fanatical Catholics strive to block it. Nonetheless, these terrible things happened, and they are going to come to light.Spyrazzle (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Then this paragraph:

On multiple occasions, while the visions were still occurring, Lucia voiced her concern that the Mary appearing to them was actually “the devil” all along. She wrote in her memoirs: "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!"[23] The young girl also described a vivid nightmare she experienced during this time period wherein “the devil was laughing at having deceived me.”[23] Lucia 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!"[4]: 71

If you are quoting her memoirs, you cannot say that the "young girl said", as it is the adult women reflecting on what she felt as a youth. You also do not state the context or to whom she voiced her concerns. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GATEKEEPING

I have an issue with Gatekeeping.

I am new to Wiki, and I am trying to post a CONTROVERSY section to the Our Lady of Fatima page. My first attempt was removed for expressing opinions.

I have since revised my controversy section to eliminate all opinions. But when I try to repost, a gatekeeper swiftly takes it down with the tag “undid my revision.”

So if anyone can help moderate, that would be very helpful, because Fatima certainly warrants a controvery section. Ghost apparitions (religious or otherwise) are inherently controversial.

The absence of a controversy section on the Fatima page after so many years is bizarre and almost suspicious—especially since this vision of Mary promoted violence towards children. This is a particularly questionable, potentially very dangeorus “miracle.”

It makes me think Catholic gatekeepers have been removing the controvery section for many years without discovery.

The gatekeeper in this case is using semantics to block the page. He says my use of the term “self-harm rituals” is not encyclopedic language. Fact: the Mary appartion instructed small children to wear ropes tied so tightly around their waists that the ropes became bloody. How is that not a self-harm ritual? The children died afterwards. I have cited the child’s own journals with Mary instructing them to do this rope ritual.

My first source is the book, THE IMMACULATE HEART, published by the reputable Farrar, Straus, and Young. It was written by a Priest who interrogated the witnesses firsthand.

The other book, FATIMA IN LUCIA’S OWN WORDS, was published by the Catholic Church (Imprimatur), which in normal circumstances would be considered a biased press; however in this case it should be admitted, because they are the memoirs of the Saint herself.

If any Wiki moderators could oversee, so that the controversy section doesn’t get automatically deleted, I would appreciate your time so much. The Fatima page is incomplete without thoughtful opposition. Thank you guys. Natalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spyrazzle (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User Suggestion

I have just contributed a CONTROVERSY section to the Our Lady of Fatima page. While I do appreciate some of the contributions from username AukusRuckus, the user has suggested that the material does not warrant its own CONTROVERSY section. This information is certainly controversial though, it is stunningly controversial. Children reporting that a vision of Mary made a prediction about the war ending on a certain day that does NOT come true, then making a prediction about the children dying that DOES come true when the children essentially committed suicide (refusing to drink water for 30 days), etc etc. This is controversial. The manner in which two very young children died is very controversial. I am afraid of the material getting lost under categories like "history" or "political aspects." I can try to add more to the controversy section when I have time off work, but even standing on its own, it certainly deserves the title and its own dignified section. Username AukusRuckus also added asterisks in the text asking me to define "on multiple occasions" but those occasions are defined within the text and cited properly. In the same paragraph they are defined and cited. I don't know how to respond to AukusRuckus other than here, because I am new to Wiki. Spyrazzle (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Spyrazzle, thanks for your response. Just a couple of comments, which are offered only in a constructive spirit. You may take them into consideration at your own discretion.

In making my edit, I really went against best practice in commenting within the edit summary, rather than here on the talk page. Partly I did so because I do not have any strong feelings on this article, so thought I would make a remark without involving myself in full discussion. But that way just leaves things up in the air. So given that, and your comments above, I thought I would try to explain more of what I meant.

Firstly, regarding the section title "Controversy": It is not I think the issues you raise in the section are not of the gravest kind. It is more that to be a controversy, one would expect it be more an account of issues in contention. While clearly you - and many others - would find the course of events disquieting, perhaps scandalous, there is nothing in your inclusions to indicate any kind of push-and-pull argument and counter-argument of various viewpoints vying to be the prevailing one. That is the usual content of sections headed "Controversies" - not the seriousness of the incidents themselves. For some, even a belief in such visions might be "controversial", in the sense that they think it goes against what is factually possible. However, that's not a "controversy" in an encyclopedic sense, unless you are writing about how one subset of (reliably sourced) people say X about something, while another set say Y.

In the current context, to my mind, a controversy would be something along the lines of: "the children did such-and-such risky or questionable thing (according to this source / view), while some other people / authorities said what they did was not at all questionable or a problem. The sources that originally pointed out what an enormous problem it was, then accused the "It's-all-fine-and-dandy-group" (FADG) of condoning child abuse. The FADG expressed their view that the "Problem-pointing group" were just using this as a cover for their own prejudices, and had not considered X... Meanwhile, neutral child development experts had this to say ..."

The way it is framed now, the section presents certain facts and events. By placing them under the heading "Controversy" we, i.e. Wikipedia itself, is presenting the events as a controversy. And that is not WP's role. The sourced content itself does not directly say there is actually a controversy. [Controversy (noun): 1. A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views; dispute 2: Quarrel, strife. Controversy noun: A lot of disagreement or argument about something, usually because it affects or is important to many people.]

Articles are just to present the views - where pertinent - of sources, not editors. So, to be straightforward, we really need sources that say the children's actions or the reactions around them, or the ongoing commentary on them were / is a problem. (Or the way everything was handled, or the way the situation was interpreted by .. the parents? the church? created contention.) Somebody saying, for example, "It is appalling that there was no intervention in the families of these children", or religious authorities or commentators (of any kind) disputing the soundness of such experiences, or whatever it is that you perceive as the "controversy"

Also, it was not my intent to suggest that the content did not warrant it's own section - I see no problem with that. It was merely where the section should go, for the logical flow of the article as a whole I was musing on, and this is only my opinion, of course.

Unsure what you mean by the "asterisks". I added maintenance tags for the term "multiple occasions". This is too vague, even with citations. So for the tag specify, I was hoping for something like "On at least three occasions, Lucia told her cousins [something about her doubts] ... and for the when tag e.g."after the first and second experience", (for example - these are just made up, to illustrate).

To be fair, I think in this regard at least, you are drawing rather a long bow: the source (Lucia's memoir), says that her sceptical parish priest put the idea of the devil into her mind. He apparently responded to her first account of the vision by, as she quotes him:

It doesn’t seem to me like a revelation from heaven. It is usual in such cases for Our Lord to tell the souls to whom He makes such communications to give their confessor or parish priest an account of what has happened. But this child, on the contrary, keeps it to herself as far as she can. This may also be a deceit of the devil. We shall see. The future will show us what we are to think about it all.

Lucia then says:

How much this reflection made me suffer, only God knows ... I began then to have doubts as to whether these manifestations might be from the devil, who was seeking by these means to make me lose my soul. As I heard people say that the devil always brings conflict and disorder, I began to think that, 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! I made known my doubts to my cousins.

With the best will in the world, I think the most that can be gleaned from this is the anxiety of a child faced with competing pressures and natural fears, manifesting themselves in religious doubts. It appears these doubts relating to the devil, lasted from the time of the priest's remarks until the next apparitional experience . Here I really cannot grasp any "controversy" at all, nor is any implied by these passages, at least in my reading. Suggesting such doubts are, in and of themselves, controversies, amounts to original research and editorialising.

Sorry for the very, very long reply. It seems as if I can only write too little or too much! Anyway, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts. You and other editors are, of course, as always, free to build the article - together - as you see fit. All the best AukusRuckus (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

References

To answer your question about the word “controversy,” of course this material is controversial. The dispute is in the material itself. The definition of “controversial” according to Oxford English Dictionary is “giving rise or LIKELY to give rise to public disagreement.” These new facts about Fatima are likely to give rise to public disagreement. Hundreds of millions of Catholics believe these apparitions are the real thing, the real Biblical Mary appearing to children in spirit form. A controvery section detailing how Mary falsely predicted the war would end on October 13, but was off by more than a year (!!), is wacky. It sullies her credibility and you know that. It is LIKELY to give rise to public debate, and you know that already also. Likewise, a Mary who encourages small children to torture their bodies with ropes, and with severe dehydration, until the children actually die, is also controversial. It is VERY LIKELY to give rise to public disagreement about the authenticity of these apparitions. Especially since Jesus said in the Bible “If anyone gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones, because he is my disciple, truly I tell you, he will not lose his reward.” Mary told the children that God was pleased with their sacrifices and to keep them up—she is referring to an omniscient God who knew these kids were in process of going without water for 30 days in a row in the hot sun—who knew these children would die in agony—and Jesus said the opposite thing: to provide cold water to “little ones.” This is controversial also, God and Jesus disagreeing.

Therefore the controversy section will remain titled CONTROVERSY, and it will remain in its current prime location.

Aukus Ruckus, for someone who states that they “do not have any strong feelings about the article” you certainly and conveniently had all the source materials right beside you, and you wrote quite a bit, so obviously you do have strong feelings. You are attempting to sound like some neutral casual person who just happened upon this page at the exact moment it was posted, yet your actions and timeliness are showing you are actually extremely personally invested in the outcome.

It seems this talk page only has a few people on it, meaning I have no idea if you are the alternate screen name of the other guy disputing with me, or a friend of his, or a clergy member of the Catholic church who was alerted that this info was coming out and panicked. This might be good cop/bad cop and it certainly appears that way.

This is not paranoia on my part. The Catholic Church has a notorious reptuation of suppressing information from the people. Just last week—last week—BBC and CNN reported that the Catholic Church worked hard to suppress information that Catholic Priests and Nuns had raped and molested over 200,000 additional children. Not two hundred. 200 THOUSAND additional cover-ups.

In other words, there is a REASON why the gory disturbing details of the Fatima “miracle” have never existed on the Wikipedia page until now. For years and years, I have checked Wiki, wondering to myself, “How can the facts not be on Wikipedia of all places? How can the gruesome horrific details of this particular Mary, which anyone can find in any library, not be on Wikipedia when there are 70 MILLION Catholics in America alone?? This is one of the biggest Catholic “miracles” and yet there are no facts on the Wikipedia page until now. That’s suspicious alright.

As for Lucia’s dream that the Devil was tricking her, did a doubting Priest insert that dream into her REM sleep as well? If you want to tamper with the Controversy section, and deposit asides that Lucia had doubts—but only because a doubting Priest inserted them there!!—then I need to fiddle with the rest of the apparition page, and write my own asides in parenthesis like (but the prediction never came true!) and (but only because Mary encouraged them to harm their bodies!) Otherwise the arguments in favor of the apparitions will stay at the top of the page, where you like them, and the arguments against the apparitions will be confined to the controversy section.

If you guys continue to try to dilute the controversy section, or bury it at the bottom of the Wiki page, where conveniently no one will read it, which I know is your real intent, then I will take this story to every newspaper, and then henceforth everyone can cite with authority THE NEW YORK TIMES or THE LOS ANGELES TIMES or CNN about Wikipedia gatekeepers and bogus Catholic miracles that promoted child suicide for the rest of time.Spyrazzle (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I did not realise. Just thought we could talk it over, but that's okay, I don't want anything to do with ... whatever this is. Was only doing my best at attempting a thoughtful discussion, being honest and constructive. Hard to know what brought that response on, but - I really feel for you. Please take care. AukusRuckus (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation style

I am hoping to work my way through the refs for this article, converting them all to a consistent format. (I like tidying, it relaxes me!) Do other editors here have a preference? I'm happy to go with the consensus. I made a start, using list-defined cites, as some were already in that style, but there's also plenty in other styles. Thoughts? Please let me know your views. Thanks AukusRuckus (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Errors in Cite changes

You redid my citations wrong again. For citation 24 and citation 31 in the controversy section, they belong to 1952A, not B. Please change them. Accuracy is important here. It is fine if you "tidy," but you cannot change source material. Also the correct ISBN number for Lucia's memoir, for the edition that I used, is 972-8524-00-5. If it keeps coming up incorrectly in the coming year, I will have to add the citations back myself. I don't want to ever destroy your work, but I don't like mine being destroyed either. I worked hard on my contributions, same as you. Spyrazzle (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. However, I think you may not have noticed the 01:44, already corrected version and looked at an earlier - uncorrected - edit, instead of the latest. If you see the page from that 01:44 time stamp (or just look at the current page) you will notice that the correction had already been made, almost immediately. Thanks for the correct ISBN. I will put that in ASAP, but you should feel free to add it whenever you wish, too, if I am slow. (According to ISBN search, that is for the paperback 1998 edition; I had used a 10th ed. hardback ISBN, thinking that was what you had mentioned.) Best, AukusRuckus (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section controversy

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 wrote with a one 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 say questionable, spooky, sadistic apparition because 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 upbringing 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 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 when we die, God blessed those two children greatly with what he did to them.