Talk:Weeping statue

NPOV

"If this were the case, however, it wouldn't have been captured on video on so many instances" This sounds like POV, removed.190.11.3.201 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims

Some points made in this article sound false. I have tried to make it a little more NPOV. Alan Liefting 08:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find authoritative, peer reviewed papers on the weeping statue phenomenon. Alan Liefting 09:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed a few sentences from the paragraph about scientific study--it looked to be largely original research. Also, I removed a comment that the studies don't explain why condensation doesn't form elsewhere on the statues. It doesn't need explaining! Have you ever heard of a story about a statue of Mary sweating from her armpits? People only notice when it comes from the statues' eyes! ~MDD4696 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed 'While science has proven how it can happen, it has also verified the appearance of actual human blood.' Requires citation from scientific work, surely. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Big edit

I just completed a major reorganization of the article. I stumbled across it and couldn't leave it in the awful state it was in. Poorly organized, rather POV, and probably written by a non-native English speaker. I tried to keep what valid information the original article had. Still, references are needed in many places. I added a details where I felt I could to clarify the meaning. In short, I think it's better than it was, but still seriously lacking. I don't mean to adopt it so best of luck to those who take it on. Sadangel 08:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly scientific analysis of blood from a painting

The article includes a description of supposedly scientific analysis of blood from a painting. The source of this information is from the following link: http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping596.htm. This webpage does not give a scan of the original document from the "Genetics Forensic Laboratory of the University of Bologna", and it presents information that may have come from this place as though it were inerrant and not open to further analysis. It states "This laboratory has Scientific Authority, therefore a verdict released by this laboratory is of indisputable [unquestionable] value." This sets off alarm bells in my opinion, and it makes me wonder whether we should include such a source in this article. Scientific evidence should be open to debate, not taken on the authority of those who may present it. Gary 17:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That whole section should be deleted in my opinion, it is highly misleading and poorly referenced. It reads like original research. Nuke it and then start over as I am pressed to find one single sentence that is not POV or OR. I might take a crack at it if I can get some time. Mr Christopher 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing Zzzsd (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

a little balance

I was looking over the paranormal categories and wondered why this article is not a member. I studied weeping statues/Mary's a few years ago and recall every single modern case has been proven to be a hoax, the only exception(s) is the case where investigators have not been allowed to examine the evidence. The Skeptical Inquirer has run a number of experiments and articles on the subject. Mr Christopher 19:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And this link has instructions on how to make a weeping statue. This type of hoax is quite easy to achieve. Mr Christopher 19:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Table quality

The quality of the entires is really low. E.g. a statute seen in Romania by two unnamed workmen. Hello? Is this an encyclopedia? I am going to delete the unreferenced items, unless reliable references are added in a few days by whoever added those entries to the table. The Our Lady of Akita statue has clear photos and is approved by teh vatican. Many others are just without references, except their own websites. History2007 (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Table of unverified items

Is there a real need to list a whole pile of unverified items? I think the unverified ones with no support at all are best deleted. History2007 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Since June no refs have been added, so those have to go. History2007 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Weeping statue. 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/20100815034245/http://www.borgin-nadur.org/en/bidu.php to http://www.borgin-nadur.org/en/bidu.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Some cases not in the table

Why are some cases of weeping statue not in the table of the wiki page of weeping statue? For example, I could not find Akita in the table. I also cannot find the case occurred in Cochabamba in Bolivia reported in Reason to Believe. Would the editors add back these cases in the table? Acdc250 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)