Talk:Our Lady of Zeitoun

message: What interested me the most is that seemingly we don't have any photos taken in plain light of the day!  Curious, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.61.113 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading about the apparitions at Zeitoun for about five years. I've never thought about that. However, that also assumes that the apparition would have to happen during the day also to be authentically supernatural. Apparitions to individuals did happen during the day albeit not above the the St. Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church in Zeitoun. I think the book, When Millions Saw Mary, by Pearl Zaki explains several instances of individuals who were contacted by a divine being in their homes, including a Muslim man who had been whipping stones at Coptic Pilgrims. Mary, according to the story, instructed him to paint white crosses throughout Zeitoun as reparation. Also, scietifically there has been put forward an explanation for the phenomena, which is that of "tectonic strain". It's a somewhat unknown theory that holds that during times of increased seismic activity, people report seeing luminiscent beings and spiritual experiences. Some people have criticized this as going out on a limb, particularly because in 2000 in Jordan, white lights were recorded above an Orthodox Church during daylight while there was not a jump in seismicity. Either way, it makes for an interesting story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is there no picture? I would like to see a picture that is not an obvious fake, I have found none... 192.36.117.138 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daylight photographs 

message: I added two references. They are very thin brochures, and probably nowhere to get, except in their (complete?) form on the 'Zeitoun Web Gallery. It's a bit double, because this website is already in the External Links section, but I thought it makes sense, also because the two texts are not readily found there.
Main question: Is this enough to cover the 'citation needed' request in the article? I have assumed that it is and removed the request.Geke 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed ? 

message: I work for an evangelical & reformed seminary library and have an original copy of Pearl Zaki's "Our Lord's Mother visits Egypt in 1968." I discovered it in a box of book sale donations. It is a book (115 pages), not a thin brochure. The information on the website is only an excerpt of the text. Also included in the book is an image of "the Egyptian Gazette" article from April 11, 1969. I've entered the citations needed from pages 27 and 25 respectively.
--Wmmars 06:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: What about the photos you can find on Google? Could those be fake? If not, then the aspect that only a few light shapes were visible, mentioned in the criticism section, is actually untenable from my view.--77.180.221.153 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed!!--77.180.187.63 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: One could add those to the article if they're not copyrighted.--Der Spion (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

text: How do you know all real photos were taken by only one person?--Der Spion (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the material provided in the links. The only photographer I know of who had photos published in newspapers at the time was Mr. Wagih Rizk. His collection of photos are archived here: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/mrwagihr.htm
Oh, here is the link for the 'true photo' that is actually a drawing: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitun2002/cwdata/zeitun200212.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.156.51 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The drawing? It is not appropriate for many reasons, copyright being the main one. Also a drawing/painting isn't relevant as evidence for the apparition. Finally, there is already a link to the zeitun-eg.org web-site on the main page for anyone to follow and see this (and other) images. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Hi, I saw this on the third opinion page.  I must confess that I was rather surprised to find TST on a page about a Marian apparition!  There is what appears to be a WP:RS in terms of Persinger's article, but it strikes me as being much more about TST than Zeitoun.  So while I think there is a case to include it in some way, I would think that a simple sentence would suffice - something along the lines of "The Zeitoun apparition has been investigated as being a possible example of the tectonic strain theory."  I don't think that it would be appropriate to include anything beyond such a brief mention, and certainly not getting into the theory behind TST - that's what the links are for, if a reader is interested they'll follow it up further.  As the article stands I think the TST and Persinger material are given undue WP:WEIGHT - nearly 30% of the article is about something barely relevant to the actual article.   I would include a link to Persinger's page in the See Also section, however. MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. This sounds eminently reasonable. I will make that change. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. I simply objected to the fact that Persinger's theory was outlined in some detail, while there was no critical material to balance it out. Famousdog (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 3O

message: "The appariton has appeared during different nights and is still appearing in varying forms: Sometimes in complete body and others in half, always surrounded by a white glittering halo appearing either from the dome openings or from the space between the domes on which She used to move and march and bow before the cross on the church roof, giving it a magnificent light. She used also to face multitudes of people in front of the church, and bless them with Her hands and with nods from Her blessed head.
...
"The Papal Residence, by issuing this statement, declares with complete faith and great rejoice and with gratitude submitted through self-humiliation to Almighty God that the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared several times in clear and steady forms during many different nights for varying periods, that reached in some of them to more than two hours continually, since the second of April 1968 up to now in the Coptic Orthodox Church in Zeitun, Cairo, that is in Mataria Road through which the Holy Family had passed during their settlement in Egypt as well-known historically.
From THE PAPAL STATEMENT.
Bishop Grigorius. ST. MARY’S TRANSFIGURATIONS (The Coptic Orthodox Church of Zeitun). — Cairo: Dar Memphis Press, 1968. pp.16-18.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlix (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Approval of this Apparitions

message: The www.stmaryztn.org web site, the official web site, says that the picture was taken by a Mr. Fawzi Mansour (an architectural engineer who lived in Heliopolis, Egypt) on April 9, 1968. However, Pearl Zaki's book of 1977 states that the first pictures were not taken until April 13 by someone else, so there is a major disagreement there. It is widely accepted that the first photos which appeared in newspapers came from Mr Wagih Rizk (referred to as Wagih Risk Matta in the book). Most of his dozen or so photos are just blobs of light. What are the chances that someone else took one photo which is so distinct?
The web provides no information about the chronology of the alleged photo by Mansour. It looks suspicious given the light and shadow discrepancies evident on the top of the church. The shining apparition seems to be standing in front of the cross and yet the cross is as dark as the building below. Are there any photographic experts who might be able to comment on the veracity of this 'photo'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.156.51 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that very useful information. I have edited the photo caption to reflect the fact that this is almost certainly faked, but it's still useful to have an illustration of what witnesses claim to have seen! Famousdog (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The church web-site is not a reliable source as mentioned above. The alleged "photo" in question has not been declared real. Things aren't just "declared real". It's an unsubstantiated assertion which is contradicted elsewhere (eg. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Zeitun?ref=Guzels.TV). There is no evidence of a photograph from Ali Ibrahim or, for that matter, any evidence that someone of this name even existed . Unless such evidence can be provided this fairly obvious painting has no business in a factual article. (Also, POV does not apply to the Talk page of an article). 60.225.194.142 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

text: This is the best laugh I've had all year. Thank you and I look forward to your "action" with much anticipation. 60.225.194.142 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo Added To Article Is Probably A Fake

message: I love the exchanges and edits from years ago herein. A juicy quote from the previous version: 
"(...) photographs(originals? from what source?) taken(when?) by Ali Ibrahim(who is he?) and verified(by who?) as actual photos from The Church website were used in March 2009 by a film maker in Australia experimenting with altering light waves on images and photos. Unseen details were revealed, the face, hand in close up and clothing of the lady in the image as well as her holding a dark haired baby (currently under scrutiny and investigation(by who?) (...)" 
This is the WP spirit! Zezen (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great discussions here 

message: The idea that Nasser both was a purportedly convinced viewer of this apparition and yet indisputably engaged at times in persecution of Christians seems to be presented as a complete contradiction.  If the article goes there, it should go – very lightly – into the various Islamic viewpoints on Mary (it would be presumptuous to claim to present the viewpoint on Mary) since she is venerated by Muslims as well as many Christians.  This certainly doesn't need to be the main focus on the article, which is neither primarily about Nasser or Islam, but since this is mentioned, it needs to be addressed very briefly with a NPOV focus by someone both more knowledgeable and defter than myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B159:F6CB:946F:8EED:2EC9:224B (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic viewpoint on Mary 

message: Most of these Marian apparitions pages have some criticism or skeptics on it. This one used to but it has been deleted for some reason. One of the sources is literally just a christian blog, and the others are mainly christian books, with no independent sources from media outlets or other such things. I also doubt the authenticity of the photograph shown prominently, as previous have. The article should note that one o the prominent "photos" of the apparition were drawings, and that all the actual photos were taken by one person. Overall, this article is desperately in need of a "skeptical response" section and some better sources.
Jasper0333 (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jasper0333 Why aren't all photos on Wikipedia "alleged"? It's a photo like all others. I think Wikipedia has an overly skeptical bias. That's not science (which is curious, open-minded and only theoretical.) 2607:FEA8:1D5F:9EF0:602F:313E:BF82:58F5 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is ridiculous and clearly violates NPOV 

message: I'm looking through this article's history and it used to be much better. There used to be an actual section for some skeptical views of the incident and the report of a sociologist who said she saw an ambiguous glow that could kinda be seen as a nunlike shape, but if you stopped trying to see it like that it just looked like a vague glow. Secondly she saw some flashing lights which was somehow interpreted as Mary by the crowd. Also, the photo being used here is extremely suspect, as mentioned earlier. There was only a set of very blurry photographs released at the time, and one painting that looked like a photo. The idea that someone had extreme high-quality photos they released tens of years later is... spurious. No one can seem to find who exactly this mysterious Ibrahim is either. Plus the photos look very fake, and their source is a christian blog. I recommend we change the photo to one of the worse, but better sourced ones that was originally released to the papers, as it more accurately summarizes the incident. Is anyone still watching this awful article? If not, I'll make these changes myself.
Jasper0333 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wtf happened? 

message: The photo used by this wikipedia page is unfit for purpose and we should use a different one. Here's why.
1. Contradictory sourcing. As mentioned previously, this photo has been sourced to two separate people on two different dates. This obviously undermines reliability.
2. The photos themselves are extremely suspect. The cross is dark, while the rest of the building glows. The entire roof glowing was not reported by any other source. The apparition has a halo, which only appears in one other source, a drawing. The halo is extremely consistent with pieces of christian art at the time, which were developed due to greek influences, not any communication with the divine. If you look at the apparition, it also appears very suspect. Almost all pictures had it being blindingly white, with only an admitted drawing and this having this sort of extreme level of detail and also lack of brightness. 
3. The leading image shouldn't be disputed in any major way, except perhaps if you include qualifiers underneath the image. Even then, many won't read it, and this discussion is too long and complex to write it down. I propose that we should find one of those indisputable but lower quality images that was placed in many newspapers. I'll be finding one and adding it to the article shortly. Any comments? Is anyone here?
Jasper0333 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think I'll remove the photo. Here are the reasons why 

message: Added back the old skeptical response section and put in a new source that I found. The image has been removed for reasons previously stated, however I cannot find any other images of the event in wikimedia commons, so this article will remain without an image until we get better verification on the original (doubtful) or download a new image to wikimedia. 
Jasper0333 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit is done. 

message: Added a lot of stuff. God, this is awful to dig through all these sources, so many with a blatant religious bias. Used a blog as a source, but hey, we're already using shitty religious blogs here. And the blog provides a really good summary of the whole situation, despite the author's... odd conclusions. Anyways, it's going in. No more biased than the literal copt blogs being used haha. Hope I can find a reliable photo to be used for the wikibox. Hmm.
Jasper0333 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  If anyone is still here 

message: This is one of many pages about Marian apparitions. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians (Copts?) hate the "Skeptical interpretation" section and remove it every month or so, only to get instantly reverted. Annoying, but whatever. Anyways, here are some important things to know about this page:
1. Christians/Copts: Please stop removing the skeptical interpretation section. We have it for every miracle/marian apparition. Yes, Cynthia Nelson not seeing Mary doesn't mean Mary didn't appear, but it is an important piece of information, and the only one written by a skeptical eyewitness. The most important part of a miracle is critically evaluating it and considering alternative explanations.
2. The photo. I initially removed it, but there were no alternatives on wikicommons, so now it's back with an "alleged" under it. I think that's good? I'm considering changing alleged to disputed, but that might be too biased language. 
3. Something to make the Christians cheer up after their failed attempts to get rid of "Skeptical Interpretation". There are more alleged miracles that haven't been added here. Namely, some hard to explain dove-like objects flying around, the shutting down of the electricity changing nothing, some miracle healings, and the supposed prophecy. Any Christians coming here to remove Skeptical Interpretation, try adding these things instead. Cynthia Nelson's report talks about the miracle healings and prophecy, while the Parasociology blog talks about the the doves. I don't remember where I read the electricity shut-off thing. Some religious site maybe? Just make sure to state that the prophecy was a rumor that was floating around, and hasn't been confirmed. 
4. The Nasser sighting. I haven't looked into the sources on this, but I've heard they aren't very good. It's possible this is a later rumor. Maybe make more clear the alleged part of the alleged Nasser sighting somehow?
That's all for now. Thanks for any help, and for the love of God, stop removing Skeptical Interpretation. Jasper0333 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  READ THIS if you are new to this page