Talk:Marian apparitions

Status in non-Roman-Catholic denominations?

The section about the invesitgative process that refers to "the local bishop" made me wonder -- because in any locality in the U.S., at least, there may be several local bishops: Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Orthodox of various flavors, Methodist, A.M.E. Zion, etc. -- do any denominations other than the Roman Catholic Church investigate or recognize Marian apparitions? Do any groups of Muslims?

In any case, should perhaps this section make it clear that it is (usually? exclusively?) the Roman Catholic hierarchy, among religious groups, that investigates such claims? (Obviously, as the article already makes clear, some secular/skeptic groups also do so.) Bruce M. Tindall 23:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

'...do any denominations other than the Roman Catholic Church investigate or recognize Marian apparitions?' Short answer is 'yes', but we're talking rare. The Anglican Church has orders and societies devotional to Mary, but the idea of Marian apparition is treated very, very cautiously. I can only think of one and I wouldn't bet the house on its status, so I won't say. Aleta Curry 04:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As written in the article the Coptic Pope recognized and verified the Egyptian apparition. Marian apparitions tend to be a Catholic phenomena but other faiths do recognize Marian apparitions.Mary Ash 04:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My suspicion is that Islam does not recognize apparitions and would consider them heresy, under the doctrine of La ilaha illa Allah, and Mohammed is his (only) prophet. Howard C. Berkowitz 10:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal Comments

• 1. I am not Roman Catholic so I can not address any theological issues. I've done my best to report what I could find.
• 2. I was a skeptic of this phenomena until I went to Our Lady of the Rock where I was blessed with several unique photos including one that people claim to see the face of Jesus. This was also seen by the Marian priests who agreed. That photo will not be seen online.
• 3. While I was at Our Lady of the Rock, I also smelled roses. I am very allergic to roses and they make me sneeze. This did not. The best description I can give is the roses smelled like the old Avon perfume Roses, Roses. BTW there were no roses present when I smelled this. I later found out the scent of roses symbolizes the saints, according to the Roman Catholic faith.
• 4. As a working reporter, I went back to the site with our newspaper photographer. We were unable to get much for interesting photos but the photographer and I both witnessed some unusual sun/sky phenomena.
• 5. I can not state what this means except there is something happening. I don't know what it is though.Mary Ash 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've known some Jewish scholars that were very knowledgeable about Catholic theology. What about Martin Luther?

You should review the CZ Topic Informant and Original Research policies. Even if you were there and the apparition handed you a (car) driver's license for Mary of Bethlehem, and you validated the license, you may not, under current policy, use that as a reference. At best, someone like Hayford could interview you and create a Topic Informant article.

In other words, 1 through 5 may be true or not, but they can't be used, at the present time, as CZ sources. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I requested this to be used as facts. It is a public disclaimer so people could not accuse me of showing bias based on my faith. To be honest, I was baptized Southern Baptist which is about as far as you can get from this topic. Currently, I consider myself as a non-denominational Christian.Mary Ash 23:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I must say I'm puzzled by the photo, and not just that I see no saints. The sun, against a dark sky? Were you in orbit at the time? Ro Thorpe 02:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the right side of the photo, imagine it's a clock, you'll see between 3 and 6 p.m. two figures to the lower right of the sun. As I am sure you are not being flippant about "being in orbit" I was not. I was standing firmly on the ground with the Polaroid camera pointed directly at the sun. Since I am not Catholic, and I am not out to convert, I'm not sure how those images showed up.Mary Ash 02:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are adding photos to an encyclopedia that you claim contain ghosts. Are you being serious? David Finn 05:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

{{Image|The Saints Cropped.png|right|250px|Personal Polaroid photo taken of the sun at Our Lady of the Rock, California City, California. The "saints" were originally seen upside down in the photo but were reversed for ease of viewing.}}

I have moved the disputed image here until we get some expert verification on whether or not this photo contains ghosts, also noting that the caption needs rewriting. David Finn 05:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Returned photo as there is no dispute except for one contributor named David Finn. Also, I do not think the photo can NOT be arbitrarily removed by a single author. As to the authenticity of the photo, it makes no difference whether any "ghosts" are present. It was submitted as a photo taken at an apparition site by me. I will leave it up to the reader to determine, if anything is present. The photo was submitted as a sample and states the photo was taken at an apparition site. As to the cutline, I've written many through the years and this one fills the bill. I will contact a Constable for review if this photo is removed by Finn.Mary Ash 14:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No need, I shall contact one for you. David Finn 15:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother as I already have. I figured you would dispute this...Mary Ash 15:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

David is not the only person objecting to the inclusion of this indecipherable photo with its unsupportable caption. Count me in, too. Bruce M. Tindall 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A picture of Juan Diego's cloak on display in the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico might be a nice touch. The image on the cloak is directly related to the Marian apparition he witnessed. --Joe Quick 02:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Procedural things

I put the article in the Religion, Psychology, and Anthropology Workgroups.

Mary, it's acceptable for an author to put in a personal photo of something straightforward, such as a bread machine. Before you conclude a photograph is evidentiary, however, do look at the policy on Original Research. --Howard C. Berkowitz 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, it is a copyrighted image where the author has withdrawn all rights, with the note attached that it can be used for CZ and nothing else, which, as far as I know, is a violation of copyright policy. David Finn 15:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I have licensed use at Citizendium and have requested advance written permission for other use per Citizendium policy. See:

 Licensing/Copyright status [edit]

This media, The Saints Cropped.png, is copyright © Mary Ash, all rights reserved.

Use of this image for any purpose requires the express written permission of the copyright holder, Mary Ash. Mary Ash has granted permission for use of this image on the Citizendium.

Notice of CC-by-sa incompatibility

Text on the Citizendium is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. This media may not be used under those or closely similar terms without separate permission of the copyright holder.

Please review photo use policy. Thanks!Mary Ash 17:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard I am not claiming the photo is evidence of anything except that it was taken at Our Lady of the Rock and shows an example of what people are getting for photos at that site. There are many others doing the same thing but Citizendium was fortunate enough to have someone who could offer a photo from that site. I am trying to make CZ a better place and unique from Wikipedia which has nothing like this. Be thankful that I am a resourceful reporter, even if I took this photo when I was not a working reporter, and that I am willing to bring home the bacon so-to-speak. Thanks for moving this to the right work group. I look forward to working with the religion editor.Mary Ash 17:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

From the cutline, "The photo is evidence something unusual may be occurring".

"An example of what people are getting" really doesn't add anything. As I mentioned in the UFO article and elsewhere, photographs claiming unusual characteristics need to have scientific validation: photogrammetry, checks for artifacts, ideally spectrometry. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed offending statement although it was prefaced with maybe which means what it says. Left in weather conditions and time to reflect that information.Mary Ash 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, this is not a newspaper where "alleged" lets one speculate. It's not clear to me what the photograph adds if it's not evidentiary. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)The photo is not evidence. It's just something showing what a photograph looked like from a Marian apparition site. One that I freely offered to jazz up the article. One that I rarely share with anyone and for the first time offered with copyright protection as I was trying to make Citizendium look good. If you like, I can find a public domain painting of the Virgin Mary and insert it instead. Of course the a photo from an apparition site would be more appropriate, timely and informative.Mary Ash 18:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in jazzing up articles with things that don't add information.

How does a painting add evidence? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard you know eye candy sells things. I was trying to upload a photostat public domain image from a Portuguese news article but have had no luck. Oh well...no image for this article.Mary Ash 19:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources for the Our Lady of the Rock

The Marian site was featured by both the Los Angeles Times and National Geographic. Here are links to the web site to verify this site does exist:

• http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/american-festivals/our-lady-rock-photos/ National Geographic
• http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-virgin13-2008may13,0,3541178.story Los Angeles Times
• http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs/prism/oct97/P1.lifestyle.html SFSU Journalism article
• http://www.califcity.com/virginmary.html California City COC
• http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/226666/our_lady_of_the_rock_california_citys.html Personal article
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeetzjones/sets/72157594535070184/ Photos
• http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-virgin13-2008may13-pg,0,286295.photogallery Photo from the LA Times showing a similar photo taken by a visitor in 2008.

Mary Ash 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I did not include Our Lady of the Rock in the article

The reason why I did not include the Our Lady of the Rock in the article is because it is not approved Marian apparition by the Catholic church. If we were to include unapproved Marian apparitions, the list could on for a very long time. I tried to include some of the "biggies" which are Fatima, Lourdes and Zeution. Medjugorjie, which I always misspell, is another "biggie" but it is not an approved site. Mary Ash 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should that make a difference? If the article is about "Marian apparitions," it should include the verfiable facts that there are various places where a number of people claim to have seen apparitions, along with the verifiable facts that the Catholic church, or skeptic groups, have pronounced them to be authentic or nonsense. What I (and, I think, others) object to is the claim, made by a non-expert CZ author on her own authority, that something may or may not be evidence for the truth of those claims (either of authenticity or of inauthenticity of the apparitions).

Certainly, in such an article, there should be some mention of which apparitions have been accepted or rejected by the church. But the fact that the church has rejected the authenticity of the apparition does not alter the historical and sociological facts that there are people who believe in them; that's what CZ should be interested in reporting on if there's to be such an article at all.

And apropos of the list, above, of newspaper and magazine articles "covering" one of the apparition sites: The fact that a newspaper has reported verifiable facts (e.g., that somebody believes in the apparition, that the believers say it happens at location X, etc.) is not the same as a newspaper reporting that the apparition really is what the believers claim it is. The fact that a newspaper reports that a belief exists has no bearing on the truth of the belief itself. Bruce M. Tindall 23:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I do believe I provided sources, especially for the Egyptian sighting, where people were interviewed who claimed they believed in what they saw. As to adding the unapproved apparitions that's peachy with me. The one thing I learned from my very first college research paper was to limit your topic. I presented an article that included church verified and approved apparitions. As this is a wiki, anyone can add to an article perhaps you. I look forward to working with a new group of editors so I can get to know some new folks at Citizendium. Mary Ash 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Anthropological perspective

Good work so far, Mary. You have a lot of information here already. I realize this article is only a few days old and I don't want to step on any toes, but I noticed that it is listed in the Anthropology Workgroup and I thought I'd mention a little bit about how anthropology engages topics like this one.

The field of anthropology is very expansive and anthropological inquiry has ventured into just about every corner of the human experience. More than one anthropologist has said that working in the field is like having an "intellectual poaching license". Nevertheless, when anthropology branches into fields of knowledge like religion, it usually engages those topics within a broader context. To give a list of examples from a syllabus my adviser here at Madison used a few years ago, the anthropology of religion involves studies like: "religion and holy war, religion and peacemaking, cultural revivalisms, mystic and visionary religion, ancestor worship; shamanism, sorcery, and healing; scripturalism and "world religions"; secular religion, fundamentalism, relativism, and the place of religion among other 'ways of knowing.'" Basically, it connects religion to other areas of culture and society.

So for this topic in particular, it would be nice to see more about how Marian apparitions fit in those broader contexts. Are the sites where the apparitions occurred or the people who witnessed the apparitions significant in other ways? What do people think about the apparitions? What do they do about them? Do people react differently in different places? What kinds of values and practices are associated with the apparitions or the sites where they have occurred?

Like I said, I don't mean to step on any toes. I certainly don't mean to tell you what to do. The questions above might not even be the right ones to ask. But those sorts of connections are really important to anthropological accounts of this sort of topic. --Joe Quick 01:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the words of encouragement. As to the anthropological aspects you'll have to find someone to address that issue. I do not feel comfortable taking on that task. The wonderful thing about wikis is the ability to share our talent and resources to make the articles the best they can be.Mary Ash 02:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you could do it. I imagine there must be pilgrimages and processions focused around Marian apparitions. You could get started with a description of one or more of those events. --Joe Quick 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Returned this section which was removed from the article without comment or discussion

Removed this section that was removed from the article without comment or discussion. The sentence should be recast but the whole section should not have been removed.Mary Ash 04:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The text I removed is duplicated in the text which was left behind; restoring it serves only to waste space and readers' time. Anthony Argyriou 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1. Anthony is absolutely right. Just look at what the paragraph says:

During the twentieth century most Marian apparitions were not approved. The approved apparitions are Fatima, Portugal; Beauraing, Belgium; Banneux, Belgium; Akita, Japan; Syracuse, Italy; Zeitoun, Egypt; Manila, Phillipines (according to some but not all sources); and Betania, Venezuela.

followed by

Out of the 386 apparitions, the Church has decided that "yes" there is a supernatural character only in eight cases: Fatima (Portugal), Beauraing (Belgium), Banneux (Belgium), Akita (Japan), Syracuse (Italy), Zeitoun (Egypt), Manila (Philippines) (according to some sources), and Betania (Venezuela).

That is repeating the same thing twice and the first part is obviously completely wrong because the brackets are all missing, so I am going to remove the duplicated text.

• 2. Mary, reverting other people without first discussing it is not reccomended. Anthony tried to make the article better, you should first discuss his opinion and then decide what to do. I will fix it for you this time, but in future please look closer at the text before undoing others work. David Finn 07:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have rewritten that section, removing only the duplicate information. All the original information is there as well as the references. David Finn 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, deletions should be discussed here first, but sometimes essentially style/grammar changes are not. Still, if there is a dispute, it's wise not to revert without discussion. The old text is always available via the change log.. Howard C. Berkowitz 09:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, and I don't blame Mary for what is a CZ wide issue. At some point you are supposed to stop and discuss before reverting, but where does that start... The original author has as much right to feel "reverted" as the one making changes to the article.

I think we have to trust that citizens want to help, and realize that everyone can make changes, and then discuss any changes we don't like the looks of. In this case a quick discussion could have arrived at a compromise, since everyone recognized that there was duplicate text in there. I hope my rewording at least is uncontroversial as far as retaining the meaning of the text is concerned.

I know the text is there in the history, but perhaps Anthony could have copied the text of that subsection here to let others work on it if necessary - that is often a good way to diffuse objection by encouraging participation. David Finn 10:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. Moving to the talk page has, at least to me, a very different quality than complete deletion. At the most basic, it can be a considerable effort, especially for someone new to the mechanism, to get back the text. If it's on the talk page, there's no question where to find it. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

David, the use of commas instead of parentheses to separate the elements of a place name (e.g., "Fatima, Portugal") is by no means "obviously completely wrong"; in fact, it is standard usage in American English, which, according to the metadata, is the language variant of this article. See, e.g.,Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., section 6.47. Please revert list of place names so that they use commas internally and are separated by semicolons. Bruce M. Tindall 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My point was that the systems were mixed. You had commas, then brackets, as shown above. In fact, I see now it was commas, then brackets, then back to commas again for a third repitition of the same information in the following subsection. Take your pick, commas or brackets, I don't care which.

Which is the more egregious for the encyclopedia - repeating the same information three times or using brackets instead of commas? When you have decided which bothers you more, you are welcome to fix it. David Finn 16:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For Anthony one of my newbie errors was to innocently remove text in the belief you could edit an article this way. When I was performing New Article Boost (NAB) at wikiHow, I used to do this all the time. NAB was not an admin position, more of an editorial one, and thanks to wikiHow software I could edit, perform redirects and write new titles. wikiHow had good software which made this easy. I thought I could do the same here. I was wrong. I think you can remove 50 words without asking the Citizendium author but it is good form to ask before doing this no matter what. I now do not remove anything from an article but I might add to it. David you need to follow the chosen format. If the article is written in American English then you should try to follow that guideline. I have never used the Chicago Manual of Style and learned to today not to spell out the word degree as in 100 degrees F. The Associated Press Stylebook is what I am accustomed to using, but I will have to learn all over again. It is best to the follow the the chosen stylebook so all the articles are cohesive and follow the chosen format.Mary Ash 01:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

David I was not wrong in reverting text that I originally wrote and was reverted or removd. I was trying to be gracious and not comment as I know how it feels to be a newbie. For a review of Citziendium policy see: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians OR

" Acting like a pro [edit]

The concept of professionalism richly captures the culture to which the Citizendium strives. Our professionalism policy is our cornerstone behavior policy and is about much more than just our low tolerance for uncivil and disruptive behavior that can quickly result in permanent banning. It is about our decided intent to create — and enforce — a respectful, pleasant, and productive working environment. This is so even when contributors may be working out disagreements and critiquing others' work.

Examples of unprofessional behaviors at Citizendium include:

• Reverting others' work. We have a no-unexplained-revert rule. You must justify any reversion on the talk page and try to give others a chance to revert their own work.
• Deletion of others' work without explanation. Deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban. Vandalism is excluded.
• Attacks on another's moral character, or personal or professional credibility. This applies whether done with Citizendium or other resources.
• Threats of any kind. You'll not only be banned by us but your local authorities will be contacted in serious cases.
• Disrespectful characterization of another's work. We critique it respectfully instead, even if it maybe really is bunk.
• Retaliation when wronged. We call a constable instead and refuse to let any offenses we see go unreported.

Simply put, professional conduct is mandatory here. Professionalism is what differentiates our culture from that of many other Web 2.0 communities. And no one has to be a professional occupationally to act professionally."

I did leave a talk page comment explaining why I reverted the edits with an explanation of how the sentence could have been recast.Mary Ash 01:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You left out some bits.

Some of us are frustrated by the concept of group editing. We arrive, develop an article in the sandbox, thinking it is equivalent to a rough draft of a paper. Then we move the draft from the userspace to the main article location and suddenly, people from all over start changing it left and right, often "without even consulting the primary author!" We say, "They didn't even consult me on the talk page before making changes!"

If this is your reaction, prepare to have your world rocked.

Looks like your world just got rocked. David Finn 05:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

David until the following official Citizendium policy is changed it must be followed:

The concept of professionalism richly captures the culture to which the Citizendium strives. Our professionalism policy is our cornerstone behavior policy and is about much more than just our low tolerance for uncivil and disruptive behavior that can quickly result in permanent banning. It is about our decided intent to create — and enforce — a respectful, pleasant, and productive working environment. This is so even when contributors may be working out disagreements and critiquing others' work.

Examples of unprofessional behaviors at Citizendium include:

• Reverting others' work. We have a no-unexplained-revert rule. You must justify any reversion on the talk page and try to give others a chance to revert their own work.
• Deletion of others' work without explanation. Deletion of more than 50 words can result in a warning, followed by a ban. Vandalism is excluded.
• Attacks on another's moral character, or personal or professional credibility. This applies whether done with Citizendium or other resources.
• Threats of any kind. You'll not only be banned by us but your local authorities will be contacted in serious cases.
• Disrespectful characterization of another's work. We critique it respectfully instead, even if it maybe really is bunk.
• Retaliation when wronged. We call a constable instead and refuse to let any offenses we see go unreported.

Simply put, professional conduct is mandatory here. Professionalism is what differentiates our culture from that of many other Web 2.0 communities. And no one has to be a professional occupationally to act professionally."

Once the page is moved from a user's sandbox, and into main space, edits are allowed and encouraged; but you can not remove 50 words or more without consulting the contributor involved. You can add to an article but you can not remove 50 words or more without consultation. The policy is very clear and it was not followed. I will say it was probably a newbie error, like mine, and a lesson I have remembered. Mary Ash 18:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You left out some bits.

Some of us are frustrated by the concept of group editing. We arrive, develop an article in the sandbox, thinking it is equivalent to a rough draft of a paper. Then we move the draft from the userspace to the main article location and suddenly, people from all over start changing it left and right, often "without even consulting the primary author!" We say, "They didn't even consult me on the talk page before making changes!"

If this is your reaction, prepare to have your world rocked. David Finn 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The policy does not require consultation before removing 50 words or more, it requires explanation. My edit summary is all the explanation which was necessary. Anthony Argyriou 04:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You did not leave an explanation after you removed sections of the article. You can remove anything you like but you should leave an explanation on the talk page. I don't think you did that. See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians I was gracious and wrote it off as an innocent mistake. If you need further assistance, I'd suggest contacting a Constable for further guidance. BTW I am married to an ME. I'd love to know more about what you do as I have never heard of your type of engineering.Mary Ash 04:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh, looks like we are drifting back into the Twilight Zone again. Thanks Constables! David Finn 07:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Without comment on the merits of this particular action, I don't recommend relying on the edit summary rather than the talk page. Until, Dave, you showed me a preferences option for the Watchlist, using default Watchlist options, I was only seeing the edit summary for the last change. Yes, the edit summaries are in the log, but it's much easier to see them on the talk page. Remember that there's no immediate way to respond to an edit summary. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Other professionals

This is going to be very interesting when I finally write an article on assassination]. Was the Old Man of the Mountain a professional? Did he violate CZ: Professionalism? In movies, I think my favorite professional assassin -- relationship to reality being coincidental -- is Charles Bronson in "The Mechanic". Howard C. Berkowitz 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

If both of you copy and paste your same material onto the page another two or three times, maybe we Citizens will eventually get the idea of what you're trying to tell us.... Hayford Peirce 19:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Phew, thanks Hayford! Thought I was back in the Twilight Zone there. David Finn 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like that around here! Hayford Peirce 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I repeateth the company line (meaning Citizendium policy) with a new explanation since the old one seemingly wasn't understood. It is the policy of Citzendium to edit articles. You can not remove 50 words or more without consulting with the other author involved, according to current Citizendium rules.Mary Ash 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And I repeateth that it isn't your job to interpret the rules to people. If you have a problem with interpretation of the rules by other Citizzens, email your complaint to the Constabulary -- that, of course, is the rule. Howard C. Berkowitz

03:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Howard! I was trying to state the rules as they were taught to me and hopefully sounding professional and courteous. The one thing I have learned from teaching (and I have taught school) and writing is to sometimes repeat the message in a slightly different way in hopes of reinforcing what was so clearly pointed out to me by others at Citizendium. I didn't contact a Constable over it, when I was so clearly corrected on another article page, I just moved along and learned from the experience.Mary Ash 03:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(Constable observations) Anthony (a member since 2007) was within his rights to CZ:Be Bold, Mary was within her rights to revert. Anthony responded by defending his deletion. David agreed with Anthony. David attempted an improvement. Everyone is within their rights. The next step is for Mary to comment on the new content, if she wants. If not, everyone can assume that Mary is fine with the new content. D. Matt Innis 12:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be too general an overview to address what is a specific question. Please don't confuse being bold with group editing. There is a place to log bold moves, where this episode would be out of place.

Take a look at what was removed, only including the subsection Statistics.

Removed During the twentieth century 386 Marian apparition cases were reported. leaving During the twentieth century, there have been 386 cases of Marian apparitions.

Removed Of those "no decision" was made for 299 of the reported apparitions leaving The Church has made "no decision" about the supernatural character regarding 299 of the 386 cases.

Removed 79 of the reports received a "negative decision. leaving The Church has made a "negative decision" about the supernatural character in seventy-nine of the 386 cases.

Removed The remaining reported apparitions were determined to be "supernatural in character" by the Roman Catholic Church. leaving Out of the 386 apparitions, the Church has decided that "yes" there is a supernatural character only in eight cases

Removed Among them are those in Fatima, Portugal; Beauraing, Belgium; Banneux, Belgium; Akita, Japan; Syracuse, Italy; Zeitoun, Egypt; Manila, Phillipines (according to some but not all sources); and Betania, Venezuela. leaving Fatima (Portugal), Beauraing (Belgium), Banneux (Belgium), Akita (Japan), Syracuse (Italy), Zeitoun (Egypt), Manila (Philippines) (according to some sources), and Betania (Venezuela).

Removed Of the reported apparitions 11 received approval by the local Roman Catholic bishop as a prayer and devotion site. leaving Besides the eight approved apparitions, there have been eleven (out of the 386 apparitions) which have not been approved with a "supernatural character," but which have received a "yes" to indicate the local bishop's "approval of faith expression (prayer and devotion) at the site."

No content was removed, at all, so the decision to revert the original deletion of superfluous words does not seem to be supported by CZ rules. Please don't confuse the concept of "content" with words on a page. In addition, I doubt there are many here who are waiting for the approval of one author, which seems to violate the basic ideas of not owning articles. David Finn 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Prayer and devotion sites info returned

I returned this:

Of the reported apparitions, 11 received approval by the local Roman Catholic bishop as a prayer and devotion site.

Apparition sites are usually disproved by the local bishop, and other investigative authorities, some do receive the "blessing" of the Catholic church as a prayer and devotions site. These are not "official" sites. They may later receive official church approval once its documented that miracles or a conversion to the faith have been reported. Ask questions if this doesn't make sense. I am not Catholic but I will do my best to answerMary Ash 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok... so the Statistics section now says:

Of the reported apparitions, 11 received approval by the local Roman Catholic bishop as a prayer and devotion site.

Besides the eight approved apparitions, there have been eleven (out of the 299 apparitions that received no official decision) which have not been approved with a "supernatural character," but which have received a "yes" to indicate the local bishop's "approval of faith expression (prayer and devotion) at the site."

Simple question - why do you have to say it twice within four lines? David Finn 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Because my old eyes missed the number 11 which should have been expressed numerically. Anything 10 and up is written as a number while anything 10 or less is spelled out. The number 11 was written as eleven and I just kept missing that number. I have now corrected the sentence and removed the repeated sentence. Problem solved. Thank you for catching that as my old eyes missed it. That's the good thing about wiki collaboration: helping each other produce the best articles we can.Mary Ash 15:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)