Talk:Our Lady of La Salette

message: This article is much too long, and its style is more appropriate to a Roman Catholic devotional work than an encyclopaedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.115.5 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't.  Because there is so much 'confusion' about the apparition, a detailed account of every information available (referenced) is necessary to pre-empt other critiques (not sufficently motivated, referenced, ...).  Especially concerning the historical fact and the text of the message, a full account is necessary in order to be objective and complete. --Stijn Calle (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it IS. What was described is no more credible than say, a group of Hindus claiming they had received a visitation from Ganesha, or Mormons claiming that they had received a visitation from Moroni, or Scientologists claiming that they had received one from Xenu. You would disbelieve their claims and likely object to the very same sort of bloated articles about their alleged experiences, as we see here. But double-standards are part and parcel of zealotry. Bricology (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Much too long and credulous

message: The only reference to the third stage, that I could find, is a picture. What happened?24.125.102.206 (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the third stage?

message: Please do not create a link to a Wikipedia article whose name is a dictionary word, unless the article is relevant to this article. I have just de-linked "resistance", but I note that there are a great manyu other problem links of this nature. -Arch dude (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far too many links to dictionary words. 

message: Is there any information about the bronze statues that are shown in the article? Mainly, the identity of the artist and their (approximate) date? Would be greatly appreciated!
Twangoosen (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze statues 

message: I read the text of the secret(s), and saw at one point that Enoch and Elijhah were mentioned, as though they were still alive. I would like it if some specialist of this eschatological affair would take time to explain the meaning of the terms Enoch and Elijah in the La Salette prophecy. ADM (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: see Two Witnesses article. Many people believed or said at various times that these would be Enoch and Elijah. Both these people are described in the Bible as not dying but being "taken away" by God. So there is this view that they will come back to earth still alive as witnesses and die (get killed) subsequently. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Enoch and Elijah

message: Thank You for putting in the full account of Our Lady of La Salette, and for the full and unabridged accounts of Our Lady's messages. 
MacOfJesus (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You

message: I think it's unfortunate that the article, while being very long, ignores the major issue of the 1879 "secret" publication by Calvat, as discussed here http://exlaodicea.blogspot.com/2007/01/secret-of-la-salette-and-conversion-of.html . 76.24.104.52 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvat's fake secret in 1870s? 

message: I wonder what has been drunk by the one who rated the article as  "B Class"... it is instead a disaster full of format errors, typos, WP:NPOV:POV, unsourced citations, endless list of miracles with "..." instead of names, etc. "C Class" is a big favour for it. --Attilios (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more... I think the article needs a fresh rewrite really. The presentation is even more convoluted than the history of the controversies regarding the topic. And statements such as "together with Our Lady of Lourdes (1858) and Our Lady of Fátima (1917) La Salette remains one of the most famous Marian apparitions of the modern age" are just not true, given the published number of pilgrims. Places such as Guadalupe, etc. just dwarf La Salette these days. My advice to readers: take two aspirins before even trying to read this, if at all. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Any attempt to edit it gets reverted by one of the folks who wrote it; he thinks this and Malachi Martin should be A-class, by the way.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B Class?!?!

message: I rewrote the article. Oct13 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you copy and pasted it from somewhere else, you need to delete it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

text: In my view, this new shorter version is preferred to the previous one. I removed the problem tags as well. History2007 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the article has been gutted.  Now it's just a stub, with all the detail removed.  Why?  The other version was better.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree. What was the reason for the gutting? I propose restoring that version unless someone presents a reason why it should not be restored. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrote the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Our Lady of La Salette. 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/20121019234252/http://www.york.ac.uk/res/aiseb/bic2010/prog.htm to http://www.york.ac.uk/res/aiseb/bic2010/prog.htm
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) 20:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified