Talk:Garabandal apparitions

Bias in favor of truth claims

This article assumes the veracity of the alleged apparitions at Garabandal, and ignores proper scholarship in reporting it. There is no objectivity in this article and this is evidenced by, for example, the lack of reference to the official statement of Jose Vilaplana, the Bishop of Santander, which characterised the claims of a supernatural event at Garabandal to be "non constat de supernaturalitate" ("it is not established as supernatural"). To this day, the alleged apparitions of Garabandal are not officially recognised by the Roman Catholic Church and this fact should be properly reported in the articel, along with proper citations for the information given. The final paragraph in the article--which purports to state the official Catholic position--is ambiguous and misleading and suggests, incorrectly, that there has been no official statements forthcoming on the alleged apparitions and instead insinuates, without any supporting evidence, that the "seer" Conchita has been Papally endorsed. 86.5.98.95 20:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is strongly biased toward the presumption that these events actually occurred as described. A more detailed treatment of skeptical concerns would benefit the article - --Gargletheape 15:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do anti-Catholic prejudices have anything to do with your problem with this article? Tartimarty 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC) 22:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment of 86.5.98.95 expresses the problem with the article correctly - it simply ignores all alternate opinions regarding this story. Hardly NPOV. One person here keeps posting the same rambling text, completely oblivious to all other ideas. Gargletheape 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just as soon keep the so-called skeptics out of this article and make it really NPOV using properly neutral language. I've tried to do that, don't know how well I've succeeded, but I hope I've improved the article somewhat. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The was a scandal in the 1990 over the day of chastisement LIES

In the past few years we have been to the Vatican and to San Giovanni Rotondo. It is claimed that the children went to Rome and received the Holy Fathers blessing on the miracles. It is also claimed that Padre Pio gave his approval to the messages of Garabandal. We can tell you [from our own visit to San Giovanni Rotondo and to Rome and from the above letter by Cardinal Seper] that these are both lies. To say "lie" is a strong word, but you can see that there was no foundation to the statement whatsoever. The Holy Father blessed the children without knowing who they were. Padre Pio did not approve of anything at Garabandal. This has been verified by Conchita.

Conchita and the rest of the children signed a document with the bishop agreeing with the findings of the Church and promised to never ever promote the apparitions again. These mystics have lived up to this signed document but the promoters have not. All the children retracted all belief in the miracles.

THE WARNING FLIGHT

The 101 Foundation - Queen Peace Flight to Moscow" was brought about by "alleged" messages from certain mystics. These messages claimed that by bringing the Official Fatima Statue and the mystics (six) to Moscow, the great conversion would take place. It was besides the fact, that Lucia of Fatima said the Consecration was completed in 1984 and Mary would keep Her promise. The flight was a fiasco in many ways, even causing $20,000 damage to the greatest sacramental in the modern world. [We have a report on this flight that everyone should read and never forget.]

Apparently, they did not learn. Before this flight [101] was even off the ground, these same mystics were saying that the "Great Warning" of Garabandal would take place on Holy Thursday, April 13, 1995.

They packed many many airplanes at over $2000.00 per seat. In Garabandal there were between 15,000 and 20,000 people packed on the little mountain against the orders of the bishop. Over one hundred Spanish policeman were needed.

Fourteen days later, they published an apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.44.240 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of truth to claims

When did anyone last hear of a 36-year-old Jesuit dying of joy? Have a good read of ALL of the original testimonies, especially those associated with the mysterious involvement of Fr. Luis-Maria Andreu S.J., keep an open mind and, let's just watch and wait to see if Conchita and her friends were misleading us. My own investigations in Cantabria in the early 1990s led me to a private unofficial interview with Bishop Vilaplana's late predecessor, Bishop Del Val Gallo. Off the record he certainly believed in the supernatural origin of the events in the village and beyond. So much so he confided the "approximate year" of the all-important future events to his closest friends. 20:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of talk page

patsw (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to address neutrality and cleanup

I was surprised to see what a useless article this is, and not at all surprised to see cleanup and neutrality tags on it. I'd like to propose a rewrite of the article along chronological lines:

1. The background of the event
2. The content of the alleged messages
3. The initial investigation and its conclusion
4. The aftermath presenting relevant information from reliable sources in context:

• Affirming the declaration of "definitive negative judgment"
• Supporting that the truthfulness and supernatural origin of the original claims.

In order for this article to be useful (and I hope, even good), it must contain a summary of the messages, and both sides of the controversy. patsw (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm passing through, doing NPOV cleanup. In this case I will agree completely with Patsw. The article is completely biased, only half written and is in overall poor condition. I will definately leave the tag, and I'd suggest a complete rewrite - I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself. Jjdon (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a cleanup, in which I split out the town-related material to San Sebastian de Garabandal, moved the rest to "Garabandal apparitions", deleted the source text (which should go to "wikisource" if it's in the public domain), and re-wrote the intro. Per the wise comments above, the article still needs more background, a summary of the visions (not the original text), more info about the investigation and also the views of skeptics, if any. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I’m posting this in the correct section…

The following citation provided in this article has been mistakenly attributed to Bishop Vicente Zamora of the Diocese of Santander. In actual fact, this was merely an observation and editorial comment made by a member of the executive staff at GARABANDAL International Magazine:

“There are some clear signs that Our Lady is preparing the way for the prophesied events. The roads leading to Garabandal are being widened. The road from Cosio to Garabandal, in particular, is being surveyed and pegged for widening and upgrading.”

See: www.garabandal.com/magazines/garabandal20080709.pdf (page 20)

The provided hyperlink for Mother Teresa’s endorsement seems to have changed since it was initially cited. If you’re interested, here is a replacement: www.ourlady.ca/info/MotherTeresa.htm

Finally, here is an additional article to further support the assertion that St. (Padre) Pio personally endorsed the apparitions of Garabandal: www.ourlady.ca/info/jBouflet.htm

(Sorry, I couldn't seem to properly work the referencing function.)

Substantive (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no proper explanation of what was supposed to have happened.

And who were the "Seers" Joey Lomangino was relying on?

Six years later...

... it appears that nothing has been done to address the neutrality issues of this article. It is still full of garbage based of the content issued by pro-authenticity websites and association and tries to make the reader believe that the Roman Catholic Church could review its position in the future. I will soon remove non neutral part which are not properly sourced in order to try to bring a little bit more neutrality inot this article. --Lebob (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Garabandal apparitions. 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/20121003191016/http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003191016/http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/garabandal_letters.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Nickell section

I think there's a problem with this section, it appears to be engaging in some sort of fallacy I'm not smart enough to figure out. Perhaps 'appeal to authority' a little bit. This section claims that Nickell has stated that the events were not able to be reproduced or performed in front of experts in deception, such as magicians. But the problem is that there is film and photographic evidence documenting some of the later parts of the original events and it doesn't appear that the girls were ever asked to repeat what they had saw and gone through, as that wasn't the point. These were simple village people not well versed in performing magic nor was there any impetus to hoax or to elevate the name of Garabandal, for tourism or political reasons, despite any claims to the contrary. They don't seem to be attempting to perform a 'trick' in the first place, as conventionally defined in the world of magic and magicians, and that this section appears to be trying to build an argument for, based on that erroneous assumption. Additionally, it appears that the original citing of Nickell's claims are from books he has written exploring supernatural religious activity from a rational perspective, as opposed to being a direct quote on Garabandal itself. It's written down in a book Nickell wrote, but there's no context explaining that, or even if this is being reported here correctly. This seems like an odd section in general and feels very tacked on, so as to invite the reader to draw conclusions that are not germane to the article itself. It feels like an appeal to expertise or to broad stroke capital S science, of which Nickell is not one. It feels very dishonest somehow, as if the section is trying to suggest otherwise, that Nickell speaks on behalf of scientists or religious experts, when he clearly doesn't. I would propose deletion or at the very least, merge into analysis section, as that is all Nickell's 'quote' refers to, personal analysis. Thanks for reading. First time. 2601:500:8785:8750:C4B1:D2E7:327B:63B7 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Also the retraction statement feels dishonest too. As far as I can tell, the original story behind this is that the girls were made to sign a document by the Bishop to never speak of such things again. They were still very young when this happened, so it perhaps is not surprising they might retract things in young adulthood. This statement doesn't make mention of the fact that all four girls still believed in what happened the entirety of their lives, including the three still living today. This seems like an odd and spurious claim to cite here, as if that's the definitive statement of those involved. 2601:500:8785:8750:C4B1:D2E7:327B:63B7 (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)