Talk:Marian apparition

message: Hi there.  This article was a bit of a mess (for one thing, Kibeho was in four different sections as Church-approved, local-approved, not approved, and in some section where somebody was claiming the bishop's prosecution was a complication somehow with no source support) and I have been trying to clean it up and add sources. 
I know you all went over the specific question of "bishop's role vs. Holy See role" a few sections below, and it may be that the original posters are not reading this page any more (I see one showing in red), but I thought I would ask, does anyone have any actual source support for this section? 
::A Roman Catholic approved Marian apparition is one that has been examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either based on the criteria listed above (or internal procedures in place before that) and has been granted approval either through the local Bishop based on the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or received a direct approval from the Holy See.
::Although a local bishop may provide a preliminary assessment (and allow the devotion to proceed forward), formal approval can only be provided after detailed analysis by the Holy See. For instance, although the apparitions at Our Lady of Laus were recognized by the local diocese in 1665, they received approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith centuries later, in 2008.
Specifically the part about the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needing to step in and confirm the bishop's approval for it to be fully "approved".  I am not finding this in the sources so far and there are no citations in the section as it exists.  Furthermore, it seems like in the case of Kibeho, the bishop made a local approval, the Vatican then published his approval, and now Pope Francis is speaking like he's in agreement that Mary appeared in Rwanda.  I didn't see any place where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was explicitly involved in all that (of course, I may have missed it in the weighty documents).  
There have been a couple other local approvals by bishops (Our Lady of Good Help, and Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas in Argentina which has been reported in Catholic and secular media as being a big deal) where I am not seeing the Congregation involvement in the published sources, yet the approval appears to be accepted by the Church.  I am wondering if this confusion all stemmed from the fact that in some cases Bishops have not given the formal approval to the apparition although they've authorized  or permitted devotion (e.g. Pellevoisin, other places where churches were built and the bishop is not objecting but not promoting it either) and that somehow got confused with the bishop declaring the apparition supernatural after the investigation, per the Fr Perrella sources.  And of course there are the weird cases like the one where the Church booted Claudio Gatti, or Our Lady of All Nations where Bishop no. 1 didn't approve it and the Congregation agreed with him multiple times and then Bishop no. 2 decided years later to approve it and the Congregation is questioning that. 
Anybody have actual source support for the above paragraph?  If not I will have to look for some, or rewrite it. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does someone have references for this section? 

message: The Borġ in-Nadur apparitions are to be considered notable because:
* Pilgrims are locating to the site on a weekly basis, since 2006.
* Event was discussed many times in the local media: TV, newspapers.
* Official Web-page: http://www.borgin-nadur.org/en/links.php
* Further external linkds: http://www.frhayden.blogspot.com/ (Blog ta' Fr Hayden, http://www.borgin-nadur.blogspot.com/ (Theotokos Blog), http://www.youtube.com/user/ourladyera (Il-Ġrajja sħiħa u l-Messaġġi), http://www.youtube.com/user/lawgen123 (Videos tal-messaġġi fuq Borġ in-Nadur)
* A permanent strucutre (The cross) has been erected on the site of the Apparitions, marking the apparitions. Alan347 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the WP:Reliable guidelines.  Blogs do not normally meet reliability guidelines.  Youtube links are not allowed for references.  You must find some third party links to use as valid references and to meet notability guidelines. Marauder40 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Marauder and have to invoke WP:BRD for Alan. I am sorry to start with Alan on a warning note, but these comments do not help constructive editing. I hope Alan will read policies and act constructively. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: YouTube videos can certainly be considered reliable sources, depending on the reliability of the account responsible for publishing them. Consider this video about 9/11 survivors from ABC News. It is just as reliable as ABC News' website or television show. However, there are many reasons to reject YouTube videos as reliable sources. This includes the case of copyright violation. In this particular case of the YouTube links cited above, I do not see any particular reliability of the sources behind them. They appear to be independent people with no particular editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking. Therefore the sources would be considered questionable, and the links would not be usable for establishing notability or backing up any contentious claims made. Elizium23 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borġ in-Nadur as notable 

message: Hello, the New York Times had an article about Marian apparitions at a Wisconsin chapel, apparitions that were approved by the local bishop after years of investigation. I think this is notable enough to mention in the article but I don't know how to make it fit into the article--it is too recent to have had the cultural impact of better-known apparitions. Any suggestions? Thanks. LovesMacs (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Lady of Good Help apparitions 

message: This section consisted of speculation, so I removed it. The passage did contain some references, but none of them specifically confirmed the particular supposed apparition events described.   -- Chonak (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good move, although some may go back if sources are for sure. I have not looked into this much, but by and large they are folk tales. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "papal Marian apparitions" 

message: I moved this here:
Weeping statues are one of the rare instances where the Church authorities and the skeptics simultaneously pursue hoaxes. The upper levels of the Vatican have been very careful in their approach and treatment of weeping statues, and generally set very high barriers for their acceptance.
For instance when a statue of the popular Saint Padre Pio in Messina, Sicily was found to have tears of blood one day in 2002, Church officials quickly ordered tests that showed the blood to belong to a woman and then dismissed the case as a hoax.Weeping statue of Padre PioChurch rules out Padre Pio tears Even at the local level, Catholic priests have expelled people who claim weeping statues with apparitions from their local Church.Priest Expels Weeping Statue Man
In 1995, the owner of a Madonna statue that appeared to weep blood in the town of  in Italy refused to take a DNA test and the case was dismissed as a hoax.Catholic News on Fake Weeping Statue In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood.Court Trial for Fake Statue
In 1985 the Moving statues phenomenon at Ballinspittle, County Cork, Ireland, attracted thousands of devotees, some of whom saw a plaster statue of the Virgin Mary move. In 2002 Police Sergeant John Murray told the BBC that "suddenly, without warning, there was a gasp from the crowd as the statue, which is embedded in concrete, appeared to be airborne for half a minute. I was so convinced it was a fraud that I climbed up into the grotto the next morning and tried to shake the statue, but it wouldn't budge. I checked the back, the sides of it for any trip wires, but I couldn't find anything."Irish Independent article, May 2002
It ought to go in an article specifically about weeping or moving statues. This is a different issue from apparitions of Mary herself.  --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, probably so, although given that the Akita item is mentioned, there is probably need for a small mention here, given that many readers already associate statues with supernatural events. And given that there are so many hoaxes, it will be good to mention this. I will shorten it and add a small version in, then add the rest to the weeping page. By the way, for fun, I should tell you the attorney for the Civitavecchia fellow said that "The Virgin had to get the blood from somewhere, so she just got it from my client, so it has his DNA"... That was funny. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah hah hah hah... that's a good one. Thanks. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Weeping statues

message: Links were added to the article body and text was altered for Bayside Apparitions. It seems out of place to add them for one unapproved apparition, and adds nothing to the article. I am going to pull them, but wanted to add notice to other editors. Dominick (TALK) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There are those who will add Bayside back later... I suggest saying that Bayside was a "no go" and removing the external link to it at the end. If you recall, this page was a total mess with that table 2 years ago, so these are remnants of that. Fortunately, there has been some calm for a while. History2007 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bayside issue 

message: Sorry its my first time editing wikipedia, I hope my edits and references as regards Our Lady of Good Success on the page Marian Apparitions are alright now? Levi19910 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am sorry they are not based on WP:RS sources - not reliable. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. They are self-published, "who knows if it is true" web sites. Please find a few Zenit News Agency, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Service NY Times Los Angeles Times type articles, then can add if you have those types of sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found three books, published by different publishers, with different authors, and a journal article? I hope this will suffice, if not why? They are the same sources used on the ppage of Our Lady of Good Success Levi19910 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry, some of those books are published by the same local organization and are not WP:RS. The "journal" is a personal website. Look, if this had been approved it would have been mentioned here as Fatima, Lourdes, etc. do and would not have been restricted to an unknown publisher and would have shown up on the EWTN website. It does not. The fact that you could not find "one single" reference in Zenit News Agency, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Service NY Times Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe The Guardian etc. already tells you it is not approved. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: None of these sources can be considered reliable for Catholic doctrine. I have researched the Foundation for a Christian Civilization (otherwise known as the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property) and found that they are an extreme right-wing fringe group who have been denounced by the episcopal conference in their founding country. (Source: pt:Tradi%C3%A7%C3%A3o,_Fam%C3%ADlia_e_Propriedade#Cr.C3.ADticas - Portuguese language). This statement says that they misuse the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Publications by this organization cannot be seen to accurately reflect official Catholic doctrine. As for Tradition in Action, this is again a fringe group, reviewed here by Catholic Culture, who assert that TIA's members are guilty of 'ridiculing the Roman clergy, the Pope, and many prominent Catholic leaders and religious. Their manner of presenting pictures and commentary completely aside from any context is both a misrepresentation of facts and disgraceful to the Church and Her hierarchy.' and that the website 'ridicules the living Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium and therefore, it cannot validly claim a right to defense of Holy Mother Church. We recommend avoiding it altogether.'. Again, this organization cannot be seen as upholding the doctrine of the Catholic Church and its publications are suspect for this reason. Elizium23 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: However, after doing some research on the particular apparition in question, I have determined that it is approved by the Catholic Church and worthy of inclusion here. There is an article about it on Fisheaters which I cannot share, thanks to Wikipedia's idiotic blacklist; Fisheaters can tend to the Traditionalist side but their articles are generally reliable reflections of Catholic doctrine. I'd still advise finding sources as History2007 suggests that are more mainstream and reputable to back up the information in that section. Elizium23 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to toss in WP:Third. So lets talk about the sources. As stated before, the books, "A Spanish Mystic in Quito: Sor Mariana de Jesus Torres" published by Foundation for a Christian Civilization"La sonrisa de la Señora: Historia de la Virgen del Buen Suceso", "Stories and miracles of Our Lady of Good Success" Tradition in Action are all essentially vanity publishers. These groups publish books in support of something they want to sway opinion about. While they may show someone has an opinion on the topic, it does not reveal verifiable facts. One danger on wikipedia is many sources that purport to publish Catholic Doctrine do not have have an imprimatur from a competent Catholic authority, and in these modern times, many texts on Catholic theology that are published by major houses never even seek an imprimatur. You may also uses books from a major publisher, that is not a vanity publisher. Alternatively, if you go to a periodical, like a city Paper, or even even a Diocecean newspaper you would have more success is p[roving your case. "Our Lady of Good Success, in Quito, Ecuador" is a online article, and that doesn't work on wikipedia due to WP:V. Dominick (TALK) 11:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Read below what I wrote. We know what we know, but we have to write here from reliable sources. Dominick (TALK) 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Lady of Good Success 

message: I can't find his list anywhere. Can it be provided? Dominick (TALK) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the article. He clearly says there are only 11+1=12, but does not list them. If I had his list I would have added it directly. Else, his address is Viale 30 Aprile- 6, 00153, Rome and we can write him, or on your next vacation just show up, buy him a coffee and ask him. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I have been told many times, no original research. Writing him or interviewing him is a job that would belong to someone else. :-) I assumed that was Roman hyperbole, I have heard things like that many times. Dominick (TALK) 15:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course - my guess is that the interview would require buying a nice lunch.... I do wish the reporter had asked him, however. Yet, if you do go see him, let me know on my talk page, and that would be no WP:OR. Now jokes aside, the fact that there are only 12 should help cut back on the debate that any time a Bishop writes a letter (and there are well over 50 letters) that amounts to "Vatican approval". History2007 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: By the way, that should be said to the Kibeho edit just now. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have  which shows Vatican knowledge, but does not state Vatican approval and nothing else was stated from 2005. It is correct to say it is not Vatican approved. Lets go through each of these and source a Vatican Approbation. Dominick (TALK) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about Kibeho. I researched that before for its own page and you are right. And yes, it would be good to verify each of the ones we have, and then get the FAQ together so we don't have to dance this dance again with someone new in 9 months. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Have at it please! I like being edited. Dominick (TALK) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks but will have to be later. Other things to do right now. History2007 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvatore M. Perrella claims only 12 apparitions approved 

message: I think there should be less space for lower level approvals, given that they have their own pages. So Kibeho needs to get less real estate, as many others. There are just too many of them to have the same amount of space as Laus, etc. And source should not just be a Vatican source for the Rome approval, if Zenit or CNS say that it is good enough. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have at it please! I like being edited. Dominick (TALK) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks but will have to be later. Other things to do right now. History2007 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: lower level approval

message: I've added a FAQ to the top of the page, as a sort of placeholder so you can see how it works.  Please feel free to improve it to cover whatever points seem to need regular repetition on this page.  (I'm not watching this page.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, will try to add to it later. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQ

message: The article, perhaps because it is simply too long, has redundancies, and at least one major conflict.  The Lady of Akita is not included in a list of Vatican-approved apparitions, but it is individually described so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.91.55 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akita is either Vatican approved or it isn't 

message: I just found out about Angela. There are a lot of film clips of the apparitions on Youtube, including a documentary made in the late 1940s, plus interviews with her today. I got newspaper reports from the region for citations, but I'd like to know if I could link to her videos or mention the many books she's written. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not even have Bishop approval, so is way, way too early. And in terms of WP:Note is not notable at all just with the Provincia item. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Angela Volpini

message: The article was assessed C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pilar2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Please do not speed undo South Ossetia 2008 apparitions before examining Russian sources. The blog source is the only English source I could find so far but Russian sources are reliable and apparitions have numerous witnesses. --ssr (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I left the text, but zapped the blog, per WP:RS. The Russian sources are not WP:RS, you need the Pravda English edition etc. to do it right. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Russian sources are widely used on Wikipedia concerning Russian topics. The Russian sources are information agencies. One of them, utro.ru, is widely used in English Wikipedia despite it's Russian, do a search. In problem cases, mediation on Wikiproject Russia is seeked and automated translation may be used, but not total undo. I am searching for reliable English sources (not sure I can find any, not very wide coverage, but the fact is definitely notable), and for persuasive examples of confirmed legitimate usage of Russian sources on English Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

text:  So, let'see the page Alexander Misharin it legitimately uses numerous Russian language sources. During conflicts over this article, mediation was involved and non-Russian mediator did refer to automated translation as there were, and are, little English sources. Later, the mediator asked people on WikiProject Russia. But he was not trying to completely remove the facts per WP:RS not allowing Russian sources, only he was questioning information reliability. I'm still trying to seek English sources, but it's not easy, not sure there are some beside blogs. --ssr (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

text:  Got one, great, adding (attributed 2009, but actually 2008). --ssr (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Dayton lists it, but lists many, many claimed apparition, as you see. 2008 is just too close and these things usually take decades and decades to be taken seriously. If this is to be serious, it will show up in mainstream European newspapers, again Pravda, Le Monde, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are problems with English sources as it may be viewed "too local", but there are reliable Russian sources, and usage of them is legitimate and recognized on English Wikipedia concerning Russian events as I proved earlier. So far, I can't find other reliable English ones other than Dayton. This source says the first recognized U.S. one is dated only 2010, so that Ossetia one may be also kind of precedent, but according to Russian sources it's definitely notable as it was viewed by so many people, and priests, and was involved in armed conflict, seen by both sides. This very reliable Russian source, Interfax, says apparitions influenced army moves and were mentioned in army's radio talks. This is very notable despite the sources are Russian. --ssr (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Got English Interfax! http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=5090 Adding! =) Thank you for support! --ssr (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For all I can guess, this may get to be approved in a few years... Time will tell. History2007 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Ossetia 

message: Don't use these here. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I have just created pages for Estelle Faguette and Our Lady of Pellevoisin. The Church has never specifically pronounced on whether the apparition was supernatural, but has approved the scapular which comes from it and has recognised the miraculous character of the healing received by Estelle. To my mind, this gives Pellevoisin the same status as Rue du Bac - the devotion is approved which is tantamount to church recognition of the apparition. Perhaps those more familiar with the rules for this page can decide where Pellevoisin links should go, and whether they qualify for associated Templates, etc?
Revd Dr Gareth Leyshon - User Gleyshon (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pellevoisin

message: Given that it's the patron of Greece, should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page. — LlywelynII 14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Our Lady of Tinos

message: From the talk page archive it appears that earlier versions weren't quite as pov. As an exmaple of the problem with this version, Marian apparition#Our Lady of Zeitoun states in Wikipedia's voice that " The sick and blind have been cured". Although it's possible that most of these alleged events haven't been challenged in reliable sources, it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it so it says "Believers have claimed miraculous cures" and give some citations. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The article contains several passages in which opinions about Marian apparitions and Marian devotions are presented with vague introductions such as "this has been interpreted to be..."  Opinions that cannot be attributed to specific people or organizations, with references to published statements, are not encyclopedic, are contrary to WP:NPOV, and should be removed if they can't be attributed.   
Moreover, these critical views, if they represent particular schools of thought, should be brought together to form a distinct section of the article under a header such as "Critical views", to present views from atheists, from Protestants (of this or that school), and so on.  That would provide the reader with an informative context. --Bistropha (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality problems: Unattributed opinions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613025421/http://carmelnet.org/biographies/SimonStock.pdf to http://carmelnet.org/biographies/SimonStock.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214093001/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100513_fatima_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100513_fatima_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529140148/http://campus.udayton.edu:80/mary/questions/yq2/yq324.htm to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq2/yq324.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081008051051/http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/ds02ital2.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/ds02ital2.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.ocarm.org/pls/ocarm/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=648
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504164642/http://www.zenit.org/article-23225?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-23225?l=english
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212214242/http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/avantgo/new.php?n=12546 to http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/avantgo/new.php?n=12546
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315104228/http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/buby/mfl1.htm to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/buby/mfl1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210145541/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005014.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005014.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213223836/http://www.gbdioc.org/newsevents/news/857-worthy-of-belief.html to http://www.gbdioc.org/newsevents/news/857-worthy-of-belief.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819233806/http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/Akita.htm to http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/Akita.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004220207/http://www.kuravilangadpally.com/contentpage.aspx?pid=History to http://www.kuravilangadpally.com/contentpage.aspx?pid=History
*Added  tag to http://www.ourladyofsiluva.com/our_lady
*Added  tag to http://www.de-vrouwe.net/english/index.html?d__May_31__2002__Approbation_of_the_Apparitions258.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121209052653/http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110527014513/http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=419853&language=en to http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=419853&language=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229120525/http://www.walsingham.org.uk/romancatholic/history.html to http://www.walsingham.org.uk/romancatholic/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201135940/http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/concepcionistas-cumplen-500-anos-500997.html to http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/concepcionistas-cumplen-500-anos-500997.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606061329/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36550&wf=rsscol to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36550&wf=rsscol
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220192010/http://www.walsingham-church.org/site/Welcome.html to http://www.walsingham-church.org/site/Welcome.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marian apparition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160912050150/http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/welcome/index.htm to http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/welcome/index.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=csom_content&task=view&id=2583&Itemid=29
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified