Talk:Three Secrets of Fátima

message: This article is interesting and worthwhile, but in order to conform with Wikipedia policy, it needs to have a "References" section that lists where the information came from.  Please also be sure to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, to ensure that the article complies with those policies as well.  And best wishes! --Elonka 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References needed 

message: Recent remarks herald a new assassination attempt and the third secret of fatima? 146.115.120.205 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Third Secret was JP2's near-assassination in the early 80s.  The Vatican has spoken. Vashti 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pope Benedict remarks on islam

message: This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed over seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II. 
A resource:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm 
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.
The third secret relates the the Bishop in Rome, http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm, not the shooting of the pope, its a supernatural message not human meaning.
The struggle within the church is obvoius to all outsides, the level of corruption and greed is easy to see, for the catholic faith and church to survie it must become poor like this poor priest in Rome,
:That's interesting that you mentioned the relationship between the third secret and the shooting of the Pope, which is not addressed in the article. Do you know what the source of that interpretation was? I think the Pope himself made that interpretation, but I am not sure. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's commentary seems to disagree that the message is at all related to the Pope's near-assassination. Albie34423 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third secret update

message: This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed almost seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II. 
A resource:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm 
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.
Just becasue it was falsely represented does not mean its true the true meaning can be found in part at this link, 
http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm
: The section on the Third Secret provides the full text of the third secret along with some quotations from Ratzinger's commentary. What needs to be updated? Albie34423 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Update Needed - Third Secret Revealed!  

message: There is a statement in the article: "Pope John Paul II said that this secret forshadowed the assassination attempt on his life".  The cited source says: "Cardinal Angelo Sodano ... said that, after the 1981 assassination attempt by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca, 'it appeared evident to his Holiness that it was a motherly hand which guided the bullets past, enabling the dying Pope to halt at the threshold of death." My opinion is that the source fails verification for the statement in the article. I'm not asserting anything about what JPII did or did not think about the third secret, just that the source does not confirm the statement. I think the statement should be deleted, but I welcome other opinions. Ward3001 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe the statement should just be changed to reflect what the source says. I am not an expert on Christianity, and actually am not even Christain, so maybe we want an expert in this subject. (Or at least a Catholic.) Smartyllama 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing in the source about JPII relating events involved in the assassination attempt with any of the Fatima secrets. The statement only refers to JPII's belief that Mary intervened to prevent his death. The source is unclear about a relationship, if any, between the third secret and the assassination attempt. Without additional information, stating that JPII saw a relationship ("foreshadowed") is speculative. So I think the statement in the article should be deleted. Ward3001 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  You do have a point there. However, I remember reading somewhere that Pope John Paul revealed that he knew he was going to be assasinated due to the Third Secret. (Actually, the article was about the assasinator, who heard of this and sued claiming that he could not be jailed because the attempt was premeditated.) Smartyllama 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the statement in the article is not substantiated by the source. The assassination attempt occurred on May 13th, the same day as the first of the six apparitions in Fatima. It seems that JPII believed that this was not a coincidence and that Mary had something to do with his survival. It does not appear that he specifically links the third secret to this event. Albie34423 21:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Secret and John Paul II

message: :: The following was added as a commentary on the supposed disputed status of the third secret. It is true that some groups of Fatima devotees dispute whether or not the full text of the third secret has been revealed by the papacy. I get news letters from "The Fatima Center" which frequently bring up this topic of late. However, this being Wikipedia, I think that we need to find some good sources for this so that it doesn't read like one person's argument in favor of a particular point of view. Albie34423 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note, I have a copy of a report from the Zenit Daily Dispatch dated Dec. 20, 2001, which claims that Lucia told Archbishiop Bertone in an interview that the secret has been completely revealed and published, and that no secrets remain. While this is not an example of Lucia making a public comment on the supposed completeness of the third secret as published, it is an example of a private comment of hers being made public.  So, something like the above statement should not be left alone without some qualification.
Yes, well, those are the same folks who wouldn't reveal the secret for eighty-five years, then release nothing which would explain why they wanted it kept secret for eighty-five years, and then merely "saying" Lucia "said" they had revealed the secret.  You can be sure, if Lucia had said the secret had been revealed by them, they would have placed her next to the "pope" on international television, saying so.  
Much in Wikipedia isn't sourced, and if you want to delete what everyone knows is credible unsourced information, you should at least be claiming that you believe that the information you deleted isn't true, otherwise you look very biased, and which disbelief you haven't stated.  The Zenit article you cite is a credible source for the existence of the dispute over the veracity of the Vatican's version of the third secret, therefore I have re-inserted the portion you deleted. 69.215.128.190 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I told you on your talk page to read WP:3RR and WP:Edit war, which you apparently didn't do. And about the source you cite: regardless of whether it's a "citable source", here is the issue that you don't seem to grasp: the source you provide does not include the information you have added to the article. If I make a statement in an article that space aliens have taken over the Vatican, and cite a source that talks about space aliens but says nothing about the Vatican, that is not an appropriate source. So essentially, you have not provided a source to back up you edits. That's where you are violating Wikipedia policy. You want the "single wiki guideline": thoroughly read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. And while you're at it, be aware that you have violated WP:3RR, for which can get you an immediate block if reported; and if you continue reverting without adding a source that verifies the information in your edits, I will make vandalism as well as 3RR reports. Wikipedia has some degree of flexibility for new editors, but edit warring, violating 3RR, and adding unsourced controversial information is not tolerated after you have been warned. And you have been warned repeatedly. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree, and I thank you for making a balanced and appropriately cited addition. Ward3001 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Secret Disputed

message: After a recent discussion on the Wikipedia:Help desk, one of the users is asking why can't he edit the article but although the article is semi-protected from editing, the user has noticed that there isn't any lock symbol indicating that it's protected, should the lock symbol be on the article if not why is the editing semi-protected. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is protected because of repeated, dynamic IP POV-pushing, adding unsourced or inadequtely sourced information, and deletion of appropriately sourced information by one user. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection of the article  

message: Should there not be some mention of the plane hijacking in the 1980s by Lawrence James Downey, who wanted the vatican to release the secret85.0.41.156 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be good if someone has information on it. Albie34423 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence James Downey 

message: There is no reason to believe, that the Vatican withholds the complete "Third Secret of Fatima". The prophecies of the Roman Catholic Alois Irlmaier and the "Prophecy of the Popes" e.g., are much more believable and relevant, and Alois Irlmaier has been proven right in the last years with the events unfolding that we now see. And no one withheld these prophecies. And both Alois Irlmaier's prophecies and the "Prophecy of the Popes" speak about the end of the world as we know it.
: Irlmaier has not been recognized by the Church, neither has he been noticed by a large group of the laity, unlike the case of Fatima. Interestingly, he also doesn't notice the persecution of the Church after the war which is explicitly noted in the Olivet Discourse - that is, contra Irlmaier, there is no scriptural reason to expect the post-war period to be one of "happiness". 76.24.104.52 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Secret of Fatima has been fully published 

message: Has anyone in the Vatican ever explained WHY the third secret was kept secret at all, since it's heavily symbolic and not all that earthshaking?
And really, how could anyone read that statement and think it was a reference to a single unsuccessful attempt on a single Pope's life?  Seems to me like a rather transparent attempt to fit a real event INTO the secret, even if it doesn't fit. 69.74.54.23 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the article? I think your questions are answered in the controversy section. Icehound (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone ever explained 

message: They are the links for Dr. Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada. I was going to delete them but wanted some input from others as I'm still new to this editing business. Lynn Maury (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should delete them if the links aren't going to a page on the right persons. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Unless you object, I plan on just removing the links and redirect altogether, because I believe that the convention is to not link a name at all if there is no corresponding page on the person. Readers who click on a person's name expect it to take them to a biographical page on the relevant person. A link to the "Miracle of the Sun" article can be achieved by working in a mention of the alleged phenomenon into the main body of the article and linking it.  YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Update: I have removed the internal links to the non-existent pages on these two persons and have added deletion templates to the entries. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  two links in the "Third secret" section redirect to Jacques Vallée? 

message: Looks like in November there were a bunch of edits adding links to an online book by Paul Kramer.  Is this really a reliable source?--Larrybob (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This book is available both online and in print form. Father Paul Kramer is a leading critic and Fatima scholar, and yes it is a reliable source for the purpose of a controversy section. The sections of his book challenging the authenticity and completeness of the Vatican's 2000 release are based on objective, verifiable evidence. And at least three other books by other authors, including an attorney and a journalist, have also been written making the same claims and relying on the same evidence, as noted and cited in the second paragraph of this section.  And there weren't a "bunch of edits adding links" as you say, to his online book. There was only one inline link, and the purpose of it was to provide a helpful note to the reader. Most published books aren't available for free at the click of a mouse, and people who are interested in reading this section to begin with would probably find this note to the reader very helpful, and wouldn't find out about it otherwise. And yes, selective, pertinent inline links to online publications like articles and other publications are allowed on Wikipedia, although various editors may disagree as to whether the particular link should be included inline or moved down to an external links section. The other links you're talking about were only added as part of citations, mostly as a second citation. And they were appropriate. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The section Third Secret controversy prob gives undue weight to a minority opinion, and shouldn't be treated too leniently. My advice is "shrink it to small", but not infinitesimal. I see lots of references in that section, but so far I've seen only Paul Kramer's ref as opposing the official papal stmt. The Kramer reference is a website essentially promoting a book with a conspiracy theory, the reference to the Vatican document essentially doesn't support the statements in the section. (Abstain from accusing me for apologism, I'm a Lutheran, and really don't care who's right, but Paul Kramer is wrong!) Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Also: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources a.k.a. WP:REDFLAG. The Kramer source seems to use various citations from clerical sources, including popes, out of context so to promote an image of conspiracy within the church. My estimation balances towards "crank", not towards "leading authority". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Opinion retracted, WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG retained. This is a political battle between Roman Catholic Church and traditionalists, especially around SSPX, here search for "Paul Kramer", where the three secrets of Fátima are just used as political weapons. The section Third Secret controversy should be placed in another article, maybe in SSPX because it is based around the book The Devil's Final Battle using fear as a advertizement method to sell a book, which revolves around the conspiracy theories about "Modernism" and "Liberalism", that uses whatever "prophecy" or alleged/debunked false prophecy they can find in order to prove that supposed "infiltration from Satan" into the top of the Roman Catholic Church. It's a wonder to me, that they have not been excommunicated. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the "Third Secret Controversy" section draws too much from Kramer's book then fix it. There are plenty of other sources quoting people who suspect that wasn't all there was to it. I didn't even know who Kramer was until I started reading this discussion page. --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Kramer material 

message: I want to know what to do about this tag. There are no secondary sources that "critically analyze" a lot of this material. It's written by priests or devotees, it's published, it's out there, there's no "critical analysis" of a lot of it. That doesn't mean it's the equivalent of alien abduction narrations. Give me a break. What does it mean, that we should go find reviews in the New York Times talking about -- I don't know, Lucia being delusional or something? I don't mind the third-party notable business, although trying to write things properly is sometimes an experience akin to chewing barbed wire, but confess to being more than a little annoyed with the way Wikipedia's rules are sometimes invented/applied in order to zilch articles on religion and subjective experience.  --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious texts as primary sources

message: As I just noticed in the main article about Our Lady of Fatima, I am here too seeing references to Pius XI.  Would it have said "next pontificate" instead?  I am asking this because this happened in 1917 and Pius XI wasn't elected until 1922.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article says, it wasn't published until August 1941, by which time it did say Pius XI. What it said before that, or whether it even existed before that, is basically something which an encyclopedia can't answer, though skeptics have used the Pius XI 1922 argument to question the credibility of the prophecy, and that is mentioned in the article.  Tlhslobus (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pius XI mentioned in 2nd secret? 

message: Whoever added that line did not understand the difference between solar flares and solar winds. 
The entire bit about solar flares should be removed from the article.--89.146.158.62 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The aurora borealis is caused by solar flare activity?