Talk:Miracle of the Sun

message: I am unsure why my addition was deleted? If you could let me know I would appreciate it. My intention is not to remove the criticism section, as it has already but determined to be relevant. I only wish to show the authors' intentions, which I believe are relevant to their particular point of view and should be made available to the wikipedia reader.2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The author who deleted your text said it looked like it belonged on the talkpage, because your our text discussed the article, rather than the subject. You could probably reframe your text as encyclopedic content if you can appropriately source each claim. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Existing text and quotes from Jaki are contained in the article that make it pretty clear that Jaki believed that “divine intervention” was responsible for various effects and claims. I don’t see the need for your suggested additions. Re McClure, there is no requirement that we find “corroboration” for critical statements, provided they meet WP:RS standards (and/or in this case, WP:PARITY) and are properly attributed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on it being clear what Father Jaki's conclusion was. I also agree that McClure's statements should be left in the Criticism section. However, I feel that when McClure is first mentioned in the Criticism section, it be included, "former editor of Common Ground a past publication of the ASSAP" and link ASSAP to the wikipedia page for it. As I stated previously inclusion of credentials seems common and important to reflect beliefs. Also including in the Criticism section that Lisa J. Schwebel references McClure often in her book.2601:8C0:4281:93E0:40E1:A959:42E3:F378 (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  McClure is already attributed in the text as author of the relevant book. We don't add author's biographical information or note that other authors have cited them in the text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous other examples of listing people’s credentials can be found, for example in the De Marchi accounts section it states, “Father John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher.” In the Believers’ explanations section it states, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University” and "Theologian, physicist, and priest Stanley L. Jaki..." In the Criticism section it states, "Skeptical investigator Joe Nickell.." McClure published Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary in 1983, the same time he was editor of "Common Ground" the publication for ASSAP. 2601:8C0:4280:30F0:C24:3C34:B4CE:33CB (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We identify the name of the book McClure wrote and that he wrote it in the text. I suppose we could add the word “author” before his name, but it’s clearly implied. As for his affiliation with ASSP, I’m not sure why that is relevant or required, given that we’re citing a specific book he authored. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So identifying Jaki and De Marchi as priests and Lisa J. Schwebel as a theologian elaborates further on their role as authors; as does mentioning Joe Nickell is a "Skeptical investigator". Also consider Coehlo who said he witnessed a repeat of the miracle of the sun the following day at the same place(in Criticism section), he is described as a Catholic Lawyer. Describing McClure's background helps to give insight into his findings and I feel only enhances the article.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:345D:E969:2A82:6D0D (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, what you are suggesting be added is substantially more than a one-word description. If you feel the article should imply the author has some bias one way or another, you need more than your own original research to justify it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the length of description, note the following from the Believers' explanations section, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University." I should have listed my websites for reference, one listing McClure as editor is, "Common Ground ." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. . Retrieved April 15, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/common-ground (the reference is at the very bottom of the webpage). Also I just found this on the ASSAP website (http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/htmlfiles/History%20part%203.html) under the section titled "ASSAP hits the bookshelves" it states, "ASSAP has also ventured into the world of publishing real books. 1983 saw the launch of the first in a series of ASSAP books entitled 'The Evidence for...' under Thorson’s Aquarian imprint. Hilary Evans, who edited the series, was the author of The Evidence for UFOs, and Kevin McClure The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary..." Since ASSAP actually published the book and Hilary Evans co-founder of the ASSAP (you can see his wikipedia page) edited McClure's book, I feel it is relevant to include that information with McClure's contributions; whether or not this biased McClure's findings I think is for the reader to determine, I do feel they should be given the relevant facts however. As you said, if the reference is to long, what about "ASSAP researcher" or "ASSAP investigator" or "Fortean phenomenon researcher for the ASSAP" and link ASSAP to their wikipedia page and use the second reference to the ASSAP website were they state they published the book?2601:8C0:4280:30F0:D51B:FB5:75FD:F97F (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've added a brief author description, adapted from the one contained in the book being cited. There is no need to add further detailed biographical info of this author's career or a side-track discussion of Hilary Evans, Lisa Schwebel, etc. to the article text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thank you for your help with the addition, well worded; have a good one.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:B1D1:70E7:D485:E3DB (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

text: * I concur with this phrasing. –Zfish118⋉talk 01:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: is a contradiction of terms. If you determine the result from the start, it's not science. This is definitely not a reliable source. And what is an "ex-publication"? I changed the indenting to make it clearer who responded to what. Structured text is easier to read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "ex-publication" I meant a publication that is no longer in print, I didn't know how else to phrase it. I didn't want to delete McClure's quote however, because as I found out(by following Schwebel foot note), Lisa J. Schwebel another author used in the criticism section references McClure's book, Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, a number of times.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:E1BD:FEF7:5A61:EF64 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism concerns 

message: Kevin McClure the author of Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary was also the author of Common Ground an ex-publication of the Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena (ASSAP). ASSAP is a group that uses scientific methods to prove the existence of ghosts, UFOs, and other paranormal events, “founded in 1981 to investigate, research and educate on a wide range of anomalous phenomena, from hauntings to UFOs, mediumship to monsters” (cited from http://www.assap.ac.uk/). McClure states in his book, “…it is clear that only a proportion of the crowd, probably less than half, actually witnessed the miracle.”[10] There is no corroboration for such a bold claim. Lisa J. Schwebel in her book, Apparitions, Healings, and Weeping Madonnas: Christianity and the Paranormal references McClure’s book, Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary multiple times.
The criticism section also has numerous references to Father Jaki’s book, God and the Sun at Fátima. However, it must be stated that Father Jaki did believe a miracle occurred, “I merely claim, which I did in my other writings on miracles, that in producing miracles God often makes use of a natural substratum by greatly enhancing its physical components and their interactions.”[40]
2601:8C0:4281:93E0:38D2:F12F:D6A6:AB54 (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Existing text and quotes from Jaki are contained in the article that make it pretty clear that Jaki believed that “divine intervention” was responsible for various effects and claims. I don’t see the need for your suggested additions. Re McClure, there is no requirement that we find “corroboration” for critical statements, provided they meet WP:RS standards (and/or in this case, WP:PARITY) and are properly attributed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on it being clear what Father Jaki's conclusion was. I also agree that McClure's statements should be left in the Criticism section. However, I feel that when McClure is first mentioned in the Criticism section, it be included, "former editor of Common Ground a past publication of the ASSAP" and link ASSAP to the wikipedia page for it. As I stated previously inclusion of credentials seems common and important to reflect beliefs. Also including in the Criticism section that Lisa J. Schwebel references McClure often in her book.2601:8C0:4281:93E0:40E1:A959:42E3:F378 (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  McClure is already attributed in the text as author of the relevant book. We don't add author's biographical information or note that other authors have cited them in the text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Numerous other examples of listing people’s credentials can be found, for example in the De Marchi accounts section it states, “Father John De Marchi, an Italian Catholic priest and researcher.” In the Believers’ explanations section it states, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University” and "Theologian, physicist, and priest Stanley L. Jaki..." In the Criticism section it states, "Skeptical investigator Joe Nickell.." McClure published Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary in 1983, the same time he was editor of "Common Ground" the publication for ASSAP. 2601:8C0:4280:30F0:C24:3C34:B4CE:33CB (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  We identify the name of the book McClure wrote and that he wrote it in the text. I suppose we could add the word “author” before his name, but it’s clearly implied. As for his affiliation with ASSP, I’m not sure why that is relevant or required, given that we’re citing a specific book he authored. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So identifying Jaki and De Marchi as priests and Lisa J. Schwebel as a theologian elaborates further on their role as authors; as does mentioning Joe Nickell is a "Skeptical investigator". Also consider Coehlo who said he witnessed a repeat of the miracle of the sun the following day at the same place(in Criticism section), he is described as a Catholic Lawyer. Describing McClure's background helps to give insight into his findings and I feel only enhances the article.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:345D:E969:2A82:6D0D (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, what you are suggesting be added is substantially more than a one-word description. If you feel the article should imply the author has some bias one way or another, you need more than your own original research to justify it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the length of description, note the following from the Believers' explanations section, “Fr Andrew Pinsent, research director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion at Oxford University." I should have listed my websites for reference, one listing McClure as editor is, "Common Ground ." Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. . Retrieved April 15, 2021 from Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/common-ground (the reference is at the very bottom of the webpage). Also I just found this on the ASSAP website (http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/htmlfiles/History%20part%203.html) under the section titled "ASSAP hits the bookshelves" it states, "ASSAP has also ventured into the world of publishing real books. 1983 saw the launch of the first in a series of ASSAP books entitled 'The Evidence for...' under Thorson’s Aquarian imprint. Hilary Evans, who edited the series, was the author of The Evidence for UFOs, and Kevin McClure The Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary..." Since ASSAP actually published the book and Hilary Evans co-founder of the ASSAP (you can see his wikipedia page) edited McClure's book, I feel it is relevant to include that information with McClure's contributions; whether or not this biased McClure's findings I think is for the reader to determine, I do feel they should be given the relevant facts however. As you said, if the reference is to long, what about "ASSAP researcher" or "ASSAP investigator" or "Fortean phenomenon researcher for the ASSAP" and link ASSAP to their wikipedia page and use the second reference to the ASSAP website were they state they published the book?2601:8C0:4280:30F0:D51B:FB5:75FD:F97F (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've added a brief author description, adapted from the one contained in the book being cited. There is no need to add further detailed biographical info of this author's career or a side-track discussion of Hilary Evans, Lisa Schwebel, etc. to the article text. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thank you for your help with the addition, well worded; have a good one.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:B1D1:70E7:D485:E3DB (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

text: * I concur with this phrasing. –Zfish118⋉talk 01:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: is a contradiction of terms. If you determine the result from the start, it's not science. This is definitely not a reliable source. And what is an "ex-publication"? I changed the indenting to make it clearer who responded to what. Structured text is easier to read. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "ex-publication" I meant a publication that is no longer in print, I didn't know how else to phrase it. I didn't want to delete McClure's quote however, because as I found out(by following Schwebel foot note), Lisa J. Schwebel another author used in the criticism section references McClure's book, Evidence for Visions of the Virgin Mary, a number of times.2601:8C0:4280:30F0:E1BD:FEF7:5A61:EF64 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism concerns

message: Under the Criticism section, fourth paragraph there is the statement, “Supernatural explanations, such as those by Father Pio Scatizzi, who argues that observers in Fátima could not be collectively deceived, or that the effect was not seen by observatories in distant places because of divine intervention[49] have been dismissed by critics who say those taking part in the event could certainly be deceived by their senses, or they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.[8]” The bold highlighted section of the statement is a paraphrase of Benjamin Radford’s explanation of the Miracle of the Sun. However, we should include a direct quote about how Radford explains the peoples’ senses could have been deceived. The quote I propose adding is this, “It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” We can add it directly after the end of the sentence, “…they could have experienced a localized, natural phenomenon.” It is a quote from the same article under footnote [8]: Benjamin Radford (2 May 2013). "The Lady of Fátima & the Miracle of the Sun". LiveScience.com. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 20 October 20152601:8C0:4281:5280:25DD:86A3:F184:BC04 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, you didn't use quotation marks around the quote and attribute it to Radford. See MOS:QUOTATIONS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, it didn't make sense how I added it. Perhaps we can add, "Radford explains, "It is of course dangerous to stare directly at the sun, and to avoid permanently damaging their eyesight, those at Fátima that day were looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire.” Thank you, 2601:8C0:4280:2430:C9AB:3882:4E71:330F (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did it for you, and nested it within the bounds of the existing citation. I'll take your word that it's an exact, unmodified quote. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing it. "..looking up in the sky around the sun, which, if you do it long enough, can give the illusion of the sun moving as the eye muscles tire." is NOT a wide cientific explanation for the illusion. Vanthorn msg ← 19:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a specific opinion from a specific source with specific context, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Radford and Skeptical Inquirer are WP:RS. No claim is being made that it is a "wide scientific explanation". - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Realy? So you have to find realiable sources explaining that if you look up in the sky around the sun long enough you will see the sun moving... Vanthorn msg ← 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you misunderstand. Radford’s opinion is not being given as a scientific law that applies to all situations, and certainly not in Wikipedia’s voice. It’s simply his opinion, which we make clear, e.g. “According to Benjamin Radford…”. If you feel his quote is somehow WP:UNDUE, then you can explain why you feel that way. Otherwise it sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you give so much WP:WEIGHT to Benjamin Radford (only) opinion regarding the situation? Seems very like you WP:ILIKEIT.Vanthorn msg ← 21:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article features plenty of other extended quotes from believers and skeptics alike without any detriment. I'm not married to having this quote in there, I was only trying to help the IP make their first edit an appropriate and successful one, but I do want to understand your objection to it. - 21:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, but that alegation by Benjamin Radford saying that looking to the sun long enough will start moving to thousands of observers is hilarious. Vanthorn msg ← 21:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a perfectly valid explanation and pretty obviously what actually happened in this and in other "sun miracles". Any person that looks at the sun will start seeing spots and blotches, and tiny movements of the eye make it seem like these blotches are moving around in the horizon. People expecting to see a "miracle" will think those blotches are the sun that changed in shape in color. Radford isn't the first to give this explanation. VdSV9•♫ 23:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Realy? It happened also people that were not expecting to see anything at that time and far away from the place of the miracle saw the same behaviour of the sun. Benjamin Radford allegation is not a valid explanation. Vanthorn msg ← 03:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Whether or not an editor agrees with a RS is irrelevant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is why Benjamin Radfords's allegation is reliable? Is he a doctor? No. Did he make experiences with people looking directly to the sun and colected data explaining this result? No again. Is just a explanation quote based on nothing real as hundreds of others of the same kind. Vanthorn msg ← 19:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  He doesn’t have to do research and collect data. His explanation is consistent with those of medical experts , . - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

text:  It's a reliable writer publishing on a trusted magazine. Also, the explanation is as obviously true as the daytime sky is blue. It is what happened. Plain and simple. BTW, Meessen is (and has been for a long time) quoted on the page making the very same point "Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of Sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly, Meessen concluded that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[7]" VdSV9•♫ 23:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!! So the miracle is finaly explained by these guys, those conclusions should go to the lead sentence! Vanthorn msg ← 19:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Vanthorn: I don't understand that response, and frankly the previous ones were equally incoherent. You haven't articulated any editorial policy and guideline-based reasons for why the quote shouldn't be included where it was originally intended. Conversely, the IP has made a good case for how the quote helps to clarify the preceding sentence, and upon closer review, I agree that adding it would improve the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

text:  It already is in the lead section. "Proposed alternative explanations include witnesses being deceived by their senses due to prolonged staring at the Sun and then seeing something unusual as expected." It's fine as is. VdSV9•♫ 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I must be honest my beliefs are more in line with Vanthorn. My intention for including Radford's quote was to bring balance to the argument. On the one hand the effects of staring at the sun can cause illusions and after images, yet on the other as Radford a respected skeptic and debunker explains it is quite dangerous to stare directly at the sun. Even Meessen sites an ophthalmologist article that describes visual deficits in religious pilgrims who attempted to see sun dancing by gazing at the sun. Three case studies show visual damage that lasted for weeks and up to 16 months. My hope was to help us all find the truth, not to cause distress, I appreciate all the hard work you guys do for this sight, thank you. 2601:8C0:4280:1F10:95BA:39FF:F423:3596 (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, but just a reminder: Wikipedia aims to cite verifiable facts when appropriate, and summarize significant opinions about a topic, represented in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. Our mission is not to help people find "the truth", e.g. WP:NOTTRUTH. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of Criticism Section