text:
Talk:Marian apparition

Does someone have references for this section?
Hi there. This article was a bit of a mess (for one thing, Kibeho was in four different sections as Church-approved, local-approved, not approved, and in some section where somebody was claiming the bishop's prosecution was a complication somehow with no source support) and I have been trying to clean it up and add sources.

I know you all went over the specific question of "bishop's role vs. Holy See role" a few sections below, and it may be that the original posters are not reading this page any more (I see one showing in red), but I thought I would ask, does anyone have any actual source support for this section?

 * A Roman Catholic approved Marian apparition is one that has been examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either based on the criteria listed above (or internal procedures in place before that) and has been granted approval either through the local Bishop based on the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or received a direct approval from the Holy See.

 * Although a local bishop may provide a preliminary assessment (and allow the devotion to proceed forward), formal approval can only be provided after detailed analysis by the Holy See. For instance, although the apparitions at Our Lady of Laus were recognized by the local diocese in 1665, they received approval from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith centuries later, in 2008.

Specifically the part about the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith needing to step in and confirm the bishop's approval for it to be fully "approved". I am not finding this in the sources so far and there are no citations in the section as it exists. Furthermore, it seems like in the case of Kibeho, the bishop made a local approval, the Vatican then published his approval, and now Pope Francis is speaking like he's in agreement that Mary appeared in Rwanda. I didn't see any place where the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was explicitly involved in all that (of course, I may have missed it in the weighty documents).

There have been a couple other local approvals by bishops (Our Lady of Good Help, and Our Lady of the Rosary of San Nicolas in Argentina which has been reported in Catholic and secular media as being a big deal) where I am not seeing the Congregation involvement in the published sources, yet the approval appears to be accepted by the Church. I am wondering if this confusion all stemmed from the fact that in some cases Bishops have not given the formal approval to the apparition although they've authorized or permitted devotion (e.g. Pellevoisin, other places where churches were built and the bishop is not objecting but not promoting it either) and that somehow got confused with the bishop declaring the apparition supernatural after the investigation, per the Fr Perrella sources. And of course there are the weird cases like the one where the Church booted Claudio Gatti, or Our Lady of All Nations where Bishop no. 1 didn't approve it and the Congregation agreed with him multiple times and then Bishop no. 2 decided years later to approve it and the Congregation is questioning that.

Anybody have actual source support for the above paragraph? If not I will have to look for some, or rewrite it. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Borġ in-Nadur as notable
The Borġ in-Nadur apparitions are to be considered notable because:
 * Pilgrims are locating to the site on a weekly basis, since 2006.
 * Event was discussed many times in the local media: TV, newspapers.
 * Official Web-page: http://www.borgin-nadur.org/en/links.php
 * Further external linkds: http://www.frhayden.blogspot.com/ (Blog ta' Fr Hayden, http://www.borgin-nadur.blogspot.com/ (Theotokos Blog), http://www.youtube.com/user/ourladyera (Il-Ġrajja sħiħa u l-Messaġġi), http://www.youtube.com/user/lawgen123 (Videos tal-messaġġi fuq Borġ in-Nadur)
 * A permanent strucutre (The cross) has been erected on the site of the Apparitions, marking the apparitions. Alan347 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the WP:Reliable guidelines. Blogs do not normally meet reliability guidelines.  Youtube links are not allowed for references.  You must find some third party links to use as valid references and to meet notability guidelines. Marauder40 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marauder and have to invoke WP:BRD for Alan. I am sorry to start with Alan on a warning note, but these comments do not help constructive editing. I hope Alan will read policies and act constructively. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * YouTube videos can certainly be considered reliable sources, depending on the reliability of the account responsible for publishing them. Consider this video about 9/11 survivors from ABC News. It is just as reliable as ABC News' website or television show. However, there are many reasons to reject YouTube videos as reliable sources. This includes the case of copyright violation. In this particular case of the YouTube links cited above, I do not see any particular reliability of the sources behind them. They appear to be independent people with no particular editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking. Therefore the sources would be considered questionable, and the links would not be usable for establishing notability or backing up any contentious claims made. Elizium23 (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Our Lady of Good Help apparitions
Hello, the New York Times had an article about Marian apparitions at a Wisconsin chapel, apparitions that were approved by the local bishop after years of investigation. I think this is notable enough to mention in the article but I don't know how to make it fit into the article--it is too recent to have had the cultural impact of better-known apparitions. Any suggestions? Thanks. Loves Macs  (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarity needed regarding role of local bishop and of Holy See (CDF)
The article seems to suggest (under "Local diocese approval") that approval by a local bishop is not authoritative by itself, but needs further approval by the Holy See. The article gives the sample of "Our Lady of Laus".

That would be an incorrect impression. While CDF sometimes assists bishops, and may even intervene on its own initiative, according to the procedures described in Normae Congregationis, any final judgment of approval is given by the local bishop in his own name, as the example of Laus illustrates. --Chonak (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I am pretty sure there are two levels of approval, one at the local Bishop the other in Rome. There are a whole pile of refs that say that beyond the CNA article, I will have to look for them again. And there is even a detailed document on that somewhere. But I am pretty sure it is a structured ladder, where the local Bishop approval is lower level than the Rome approval. I will look in a day or two, but as Father Parella said in the Laus article there are ONLY 12 approved by Rome while there are many more by local Bishops. History2007 (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, this is funny. I found Normae Congregationis after a little while and it looks like you already know about it, for you have edited it. And EWNTN also has it. So I think that answers it. And the article already mentions Catalina Rivas who continues to have the full support of the local Bishop (I wonder how... or who she paid off... who knows?) but it is certain that her writings/messages were lifted/copied/stolen from previously published handbooks for training seminarians. Rivas has no hope of getting approval in Rome, but the local Bishop is still smiling. History2007 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the additions, History2007. As a tip: please be careful about the reference URLs.  One was a broken "avantgo" link, and two others pointed to the same CNA article on different web sites.  I've cleaned this up in the Laus article, but I left it here so that you can compare the two, and tidy the links up here too if you wish.

 * You can't really rely on the press, even the Catholic press, to get the procedural bits right. Many people have the impression that approval by the Holy See is a necessary step in reviewing apparition claims.  I can't blame them for thinking so, because the point is not very important overall and it's rarely addressed.  An overview of the history of Marian apparitions shows, however, that a declaration from the Holy See is not common or necessary.  It's surprising: in a book excerpt which I translated, Prof. Manfred Hauke (chairman of the German Society for Mariology) indicates that many renowned apparitions have never been the subject of a declaration by the Holy See, and some never even received formal local recognition: ) (see pp. 8ff):  Guadalupe (local approval only, until 1999), Miraculous Medal (no formal recogition of supernatural origin, only approval of the devotion), Knock (local approval only).

 * In general, I think the pattern is this: if some aspect of an apparition violates Catholic teaching, CDF sometimes gives warnings; but CDF leaves the approval, the official recognition of "supernatural origin", up to the bishop. There is even a Catholic theological reason for this deference to the local bishop, but I won't take up space on this Talk page about it.  (Feel free to e-mail me @yahoo.com).

 * Thanks for mentioning Catalina Rivas; I hadn't heard of her before. What a story! --Chonak (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, thanks for correcting the links. And Rivas is one story Claudio Gatti (also mentioned) is another. There is an industry for claiming apparitions, so caution is advised. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed "papal Marian apparitions"
This section consisted of speculation, so I removed it. The passage did contain some references, but none of them specifically confirmed the particular supposed apparition events described. -- Chonak (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Probably a good move, although some may go back if sources are for sure. I have not looked into this much, but by and large they are folk tales. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Weeping statues
I moved this here:

Weeping statues are one of the rare instances where the Church authorities and the skeptics simultaneously pursue hoaxes. The upper levels of the Vatican have been very careful in their approach and treatment of weeping statues, and generally set very high barriers for their acceptance. For instance when a statue of the popular Saint Padre Pio in Messina, Sicily was found to have tears of blood one day in 2002, Church officials quickly ordered tests that showed the blood to belong to a woman and then dismissed the case as a hoax. Even at the local level, Catholic priests have expelled people who claim weeping statues with apparitions from their local Church.

In 1995, the owner of a Madonna statue that appeared to weep blood in the town of in Italy refused to take a DNA test and the case was dismissed as a hoax. In 2008 church custodian Vincenzo Di Costanzo went on trial in northern Italy for faking blood on a statue of the Virgin Mary when his own DNA was matched to the blood.

In 1985 the Moving statues phenomenon at Ballinspittle, County Cork, Ireland, attracted thousands of devotees, some of whom saw a plaster statue of the Virgin Mary move. In 2002 Police Sergeant John Murray told the BBC that "suddenly, without warning, there was a gasp from the crowd as the statue, which is embedded in concrete, appeared to be airborne for half a minute. I was so convinced it was a fraud that I climbed up into the grotto the next morning and tried to shake the statue, but it wouldn't budge. I checked the back, the sides of it for any trip wires, but I couldn't find anything."

It ought to go in an article specifically about weeping or moving statues. This is a different issue from apparitions of Mary herself. --Bluejay Young (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, probably so, although given that the Akita item is mentioned, there is probably need for a small mention here, given that many readers already associate statues with supernatural events. And given that there are so many hoaxes, it will be good to mention this. I will shorten it and add a small version in, then add the rest to the weeping page. By the way, for fun, I should tell you the attorney for the Civitavecchia fellow said that "The Virgin had to get the blood from somewhere, so she just got it from my client, so it has his DNA"... That was funny. History2007 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah hah hah hah... that's a good one. Thanks. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bayside issue
Links were added to the article body and text was altered for Bayside Apparitions. It seems out of place to add them for one unapproved apparition, and adds nothing to the article. I am going to pull them, but wanted to add notice to other editors. Dominick (TALK) 16:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

 * There are those who will add Bayside back later... I suggest saying that Bayside was a "no go" and removing the external link to it at the end. If you recall, this page was a total mess with that table 2 years ago, so these are remnants of that. Fortunately, there has been some calm for a while. History2007 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Our Lady of Good Success
Sorry its my first time editing wikipedia, I hope my edits and references as regards Our Lady of Good Success on the page Marian Apparitions are alright now? Levi19910 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * No, I am sorry they are not based on WP:RS sources - not reliable. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. They are self-published, "who knows if it is true" web sites. Please find a few Zenit News Agency, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Service NY Times Los Angeles Times type articles, then can add if you have those types of sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I have found three books, published by different publishers, with different authors, and a journal article? I hope this will suffice, if not why? They are the same sources used on the ppage of Our Lady of Good Success Levi19910 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * No, sorry, some of those books are published by the same local organization and are not WP:RS. The "journal" is a personal website. Look, if this had been approved it would have been mentioned here as Fatima, Lourdes, etc. do and would not have been restricted to an unknown publisher and would have shown up on the EWTN website. It does not. The fact that you could not find "one single" reference in Zenit News Agency, National Catholic Register, Catholic News Service NY Times Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe The Guardian etc. already tells you it is not approved. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The journal is not a personal website, the Michael journal does however have a website. The books are authority and I have followed the Wikipedia guidelines. The fact it is not on the ewtn website does not prove it isn't approved it proves it isn't well known there is a difference. I do not see anywhere saying I have to link to those sources, I see guidelines for reputable sources which I have provided, particularly considering one of the books is written by a mgsr. I have provided 4 different books at least 3 of which are published by different companies. If you really want I will email the diocese and get an official reply. Levi19910 (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these sources can be considered reliable for Catholic doctrine. I have researched the Foundation for a Christian Civilization (otherwise known as the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property) and found that they are an extreme right-wing fringe group who have been denounced by the episcopal conference in their founding country. (Source: Tradi%C3%A7%C3%A3o,_Fam%C3%ADlia_e_Propriedade - Portuguese language). This statement says that they misuse the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Publications by this organization cannot be seen to accurately reflect official Catholic doctrine. As for Tradition in Action, this is again a fringe group, reviewed here by Catholic Culture, who assert that TIA's members are guilty of 'ridiculing the Roman clergy, the Pope, and many prominent Catholic leaders and religious. Their manner of presenting pictures and commentary completely aside from any context is both a misrepresentation of facts and disgraceful to the Church and Her hierarchy.' and that the website 'ridicules the living Tradition of the Church’s Magisterium and therefore, it cannot validly claim a right to defense of Holy Mother Church. We recommend avoiding it altogether.'. Again, this organization cannot be seen as upholding the doctrine of the Catholic Church and its publications are suspect for this reason. Elizium23 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * However, after doing some research on the particular apparition in question, I have determined that it is approved by the Catholic Church and worthy of inclusion here. There is an article about it on Fisheaters which I cannot share, thanks to Wikipedia's idiotic blacklist; Fisheaters can tend to the Traditionalist side but their articles are generally reliable reflections of Catholic doctrine. I'd still advise finding sources as History2007 suggests that are more mainstream and reputable to back up the information in that section. Elizium23 (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to toss in WP:Third. So lets talk about the sources. As stated before, the books, "A Spanish Mystic in Quito: Sor Mariana de Jesus Torres" published by Foundation for a Christian Civilization"La sonrisa de la Señora: Historia de la Virgen del Buen Suceso", "Stories and miracles of Our Lady of Good Success" Tradition in Action are all essentially vanity publishers. These groups publish books in support of something they want to sway opinion about. While they may show someone has an opinion on the topic, it does not reveal verifiable facts. One danger on wikipedia is many sources that purport to publish Catholic Doctrine do not have have an imprimatur from a competent Catholic authority, and in these modern times, many texts on Catholic theology that are published by major houses never even seek an imprimatur. You may also uses books from a major publisher, that is not a vanity publisher. Alternatively, if you go to a periodical, like a city Paper, or even even a Diocecean newspaper you would have more success is p[roving your case. "Our Lady of Good Success, in Quito, Ecuador" is a online article, and that doesn't work on wikipedia due to WP:V. Dominick (TALK) 11:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I did actually reference two reputable blogs written by clergy in good standing with Rome but apparently they had to be deleted. The apparitions are also on the official tourist information site of the city of Quito and listed as a patron saint of the archdiocese of quito, would any of this be any help? Levi19910 (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/08/our-lady-of-good-success.html

So its a blog I know, but the author is a priest and theology professor for the diocese of southwark in the UK, surely that counts for something? If just to show its not just extremists that believe in the apparition Levi19910 (talk) 12:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have it what about this? http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Levi19910 (talk • contribs).

 * Read below what I wrote. We know what we know, but we have to write here from reliable sources. Dominick (TALK) 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Valid sources for "Our Lady of Success"
I have found this source from a EWTN service mentioning OLOS http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7tgz25hUEEoJ:www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/+diocese+quito+%22our+lady+of+good+success%22&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us and I found this source which is a tourist site http://www.quito-colonial.com/Quito_Colonial_Chatter_Mitad_del_Mes-QuitoColonialChatter006.html and here is a site dedicated to WYD 2011 mentioning it in a blog that is normally useless for our purposes, but had some information to lead us right: http://www.madrid11.com/en/blog/entry/our-lady-of-good-success and I found evidence that this is a approved apparition. http://www.panoramio.com/photo/3777213 in the "la Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Buen Suceso" whish is of course OLGS. We now can prove this is an approved apparition to anyone coming onto the site without relying on activist sites like fisheaters, TIA or the myriad of "wheels upon wheels" Dominick (TALK) 12:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is what we have in dispute: If I can ask you, maybe you and I can clean up the main article Our Lady of Good Success as well. Dominick (TALK) 12:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success are said to have appeared to Mother Mariana, A conceptionist nun in Quito, Ecuador, from 1599 until Mother Mariana's death in 1635.
 * Easily show from the sources above, the best source would be a reference to the Bishop's approbation, and the 1991 request for coronation in Quito.
 * The apparitions are reported by Mother Mariana as concerning a crisis the Catholic Church would face in the 20th century as well as a series of prophecies relating events from the 17th to the 20th centuries.
 * This is unproven at all from all the sources I have, in fact the claim is unknown before the 20th century.
 * The apparitions were approved and given formal recognition by the local Bishop, Salvador de Ribera in 1611.
 * Again easily proven, but I found no evidence on the website.

Thanks so much, I really am greatful! :) Levi19910 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * So lets resolve the issues. First and third statements are OK, if we have a source. I would say you come up with a source, and post it here so don't make the other guys feel bad, then we can restore the content. I would say number two is out until a source we agree on says this was the case. We can both agree, this is not the first time people have attributed statements to a apparition. Dominick (TALK) 12:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable, did you say you'd found a source approving the apparition in 1611? If not we could just state its approved and link to the request for coronation? Levi19910 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Not directly, just things that show it must have been approved. Nothing in Spanish either. Look at my starter sources above. (BTW a colin : as the first character indents once, two indents more) Dominick (TALK) 12:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This would do for claims 2 and 3 I think http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/marian-messenger/ Levi19910 (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No that is a blog, I used it to get to a photo of the Church, showing that a Church named for OLGS exists in a licit Catholic Diocese, and that means that somewhere there is approval. We have to be careful because we have restrictions on original research, but I am certain there is evidence that lets us post facts 1 and 3 easily enough. Dominick (TALK) 13:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Alrighty well I'm gonna be busy for a few hours so I'll update it then along with you if that's alright? Levi19910 (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * No problem. I will look again, I have a little time waiting for an edit on another writing project. Dominick (TALK) 13:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But let us once and for all establish that "the worth" of Micheal's journal in Wikipedia is zero. A flat zero. It is not WP:RS by any measure. And this apparition even if a Bishop's letter is found does not belong to the class of Lourdes which has been approved in Rome. In any case, Levi19910 material has to move out of that section, and a small mention may be made somewhere else if WP:RS sources are found. I posted about this on the Proj Catholicism page and it was suggested that an FAQ be added that establishes that Micheal's journal is not a journal, etc. This is just taking up time again and again explaining items that are already in the WP:RS page. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * No problem Histoy2007, may I mention respectfully, lets not smack Levi19910! I agree Michael's journal is a zero as is most of Tradition in Action's claims. I have one thing from a Quito newspaper. With my faulty Spanish, http://www.elcomercio.com/quito/Virgen-Buen-Suceso-tesoro-Centro_0_544745640.html showing there is a statue and reported vision. So far I have nothing saying anything about specifics of the prophecy, but Mariana de Jesús was mentioned without the prophecy. The Church may talk about private revelation but we all know the Church does not approve Prophecy after the death of the last Apostle, not even Fatima. I think we can publish facts 1 and 3, but we still need independent verification of anything else. I don't think the listing hurts, but the 20th century stuff is not verified. Dominick (TALK) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * OK, but I think the FAQ suggestion was good, and it should include the statement that already appears in teh article:

 * According to Father Salvatore M. Perrella of the Marianum Pontifical Institute in Rome, of the 295 reported apparitions studied by the Holy See through the centuries only 12 have been approved, the latest being the May 2008 approval of Our Lady of Laus.

 * That and blogs not being usable etc. I can not even remember how many times those have been repeated now in the past 2-3 years. It is getting tiresome and a FAQ page is needed here. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I see the issue here. I just said there was an apparition, of Our Lady of Good Success, not that there was anything else. I did state there was no Vatican mention, but there is a Saint Mariana de Jesus aka the Lily of Quito, and she was the reported visionary in this case. I will go look at the FAQ. Dominick (TALK) 14:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed so what are we doing in the end? As far as I can see we have sources that state the apparition is approved, apparitions do not need Vatican approval something the Vatican has made clear on repeated occassions and I see no reason why apparitions that are verified by the vatican should be ranked higher than those that aren't. Some apparitions such as Our Lady of Guadalupe amongst others didn't receive papal approval for some significant period of time and yet that did not make the apparition any less important or unapproved.Levi19910 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I added it with the two facts established by the only valid source, in the "Approved by local ordinary" section. Dominick (TALK) 17:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Is this the source ? If so, where does it say it was approved by Salvador de Ribera? Or shall I go and blame my optician? History2007 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * It says it was there, they also have a parish in that diocese of the same name. Since the approval was in Quito, in the 17th century, I think that is sufficient. I saw the seers canonization, and a mention of OLGS. I did not pursue the Spanish or Phillipine documentation. I figures its the Apparition of a noted Saint I can source, and I have a source that mentions it the cooberates that the devotion exists, that's enough for what is written IMHO. Dominick (TALK) 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Levi19910 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This newspaper article http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2583&Itemid=29 clearly states that the apparition was approved by Bishop Salvador de Riber and gives the date of the approval as 2 feb 1611 it also gives several other details such as the length of the visions. Levi19910 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * This online magazine, journal likewise goes into some significant detail though I'm not entirely sure it would be a valid source http://www.catolicismo.com.br/materia/materia.cfm?IDmat=3D2D1156-3048-560B-1C531E71F3F0BCA0&mes=Fevereiro1998&pag=1 Levi19910 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I know the date. I just don't have record in a verifiable place. I think we have a problem I am getting to the bottom of now, this is about the Apparition of OLGS of Quito, not the original OLGS. Dominick (TALK) 18:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes I was going to say that sorry, the newspaper article does state that date though, isn't that enough? Also I am a little confused the NCRegister source is in the 'daily news' not blog section and written as an article not a blog, am I missing something? Levi19910 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I didnt use the NCRegister, the Record's citation looked like it was copied off the internet. I am going to let this sit, for this minor vision, with unverified prophecy, this has taken a lot of time. We have ten other citations that need actual Vatican documentation or they get moved or removed. Dominick (TALK) 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Levi, I will not even bother to respond to your statements. Not worth my time. As you have been told again and again here, your edits have been absolutely, I mean absolutely running against WP:Policies, the statements have been baseless, inconsistent and incorrect. Hint: Michael's Journal is not a journal. Think about that one a little. Well done. Well done. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Dominick, I am sorry, the source was not sufficient for the statements made. This is what it says:

 * In a high altar of the church choir of the Order of the Immaculate Conception an image of Our Lady of Good Success is venerated. It was carved by the Spanish Francisco del Castillo. The church is located at the corner of Chile and Garcia Moreno, in the Historic Center. According to the sisters of the Monastery of the Immaculate Conception, in 1610 the Virgin appeared to the mother Marianita de Jesus Torres, a founder of the Order. She asked him to carve an image of the same height. To fulfill this mandate, the mother says the measured Marianita with lace on her dress. In the choir meet the 20 nuns in the convent to pray.

 * It is not a shrine to her, but an altar within a separate church. And the nuns just said she appeared. That source said nothing else, any inferences beyond that will be WP:SYN, as you know (pun intended). History2007 (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I am removing "The Record", it was copied from a internet source that is in error. I think History2007 is correct in advising caution. I am going to have access to another text source soon. Dominick (TALK) 19:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * How do you know this? It doesn't mention its sources and its a perfectly reliable newspaper, frankly I think you're being overzealous

Are you still going on about michaels journal? Despite the fact I accepted it was wrong? I cannot see what is wrong with using 'The Record'newspaper you were after all the one who suggest I use EWTN etc.. and I have supplied something similar, and the michael journal and the National Catholic register are not comparable for well obvious reason. So frankly I don't see what your problems are, either show why its wrong to use the Papers or put up

90.216.50.226 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we all accept the Catholic Encyclopedia as valid as a source. If we are going to be emotional then this is going to be much more difficult to do this topic justice. Dominick (TALK) 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I just don't see any evidence that either The Record or The National Catholic Register arent acceptable sources, the encyclopedia doesn't mention the apparition, at least I looked and couldnt find anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levi19910 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Blogs are not sources the NCR link was a blog I used to get into to dig. The Record is a newspaper, that was esenailly written from other artcles, including a section that looks like it was pasted from Miricle Hunter, which is also a blog or journal. The Encyclopedia lists all it can list. I moved the section to unapproved, unless you have a text or another source at your fingertips right now, it did not verify any claims of approval. I noticed a lot of date discrepancies, some give her birth date as before her appearance in Quito. No apparition according to long standing canon law may be approved as worthy of belief until the apparitions cease. Like I said if you want to be patient, lets see what I develop from verifiable sources. Dominick (TALK) 19:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Then why is it under the daily news section? And the record clearly states that it relies on the miracle hunter but has verified everything independently, at the bottom of the page. I don't think it has anything to do with patience, as no source appears to be good enough to meet the self-imposed standards on this page

Levi19910 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Look, just look at Talk:Marian_apparition. There the editor had a solid source. He mentioned it as a couretsey to others. Then he added it, no one complained. It was a good edit and complied with WP:RS. There was no waste of time like in this discussion. This is an example of a good source. Take a hint. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont see how either the record or the national catholic register arent solid sources, but whatever, I'm not wasting my time on this anymore

Levi19910 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I also was able to easily find the Bishop's mention that it was "Worthy of Belief" in his own words. There is no hidden agenda or self-imposed standard. Read Verifiability if you don't believe me. I think we are applying that standard. Dominick (TALK) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * As I said this is an example of sources that make Wikipedia look good, and the others are examples of unacceptable items per WP:V. We must use "good sources" to achieve quality. History2007 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

and the National Catholic Register and The Record are not reliable, because?...

Levi19910 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC) This is ridicalous, you both criticise me for using 'unreliable sources' and then use an article about the shrine that says nothing about the apparitions except that they happened in 1610 to support them occuring from 1599-1635 and an article about the Lily of Quito who is an entirely different person in reference to the visionary and cite that to say they were approved by the bishop. I have added in both the Record and the National Catholic Register because they are more reliable than either of the sources you have posted being reliable newspapers and are the only sources we in fact possess to back up the article. Please DO NOT remove them until you either find something better or delete the article altogether.

For that matter the National Catholic Register article is a newspaper article NOT a blog, it ends as an article, is written throughout as an article, is in the daily news section and has an article title not a blog title. Your dismissal of the Record is equally based on an assumption something clearly condemned by wikipedia guidelines, The Record constitues a verifiable sources whether you agree with it or not or believe it or not is besides the point. It meets the wikipedia standards.

After then dismissing verifiable sources you have put the apparition in the wrong section 'unapproved' when two verifiable and reliable sources clearly state its approved. Why is this? I would have no objection to it being under the 'approved by local ordinary section' but to claim its not approved at all is patently false. Levi19910 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Levi19910 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * The National Catholic Register article is a good source. The only good source about that apparition. The Record is a direct cut&paste from the web and is not WP:RS on this issue. The small mention in the article now is probably justified now, but would do better without the Record. As for ridiculous yes, this whole discussion has been. Before adding this item a second time, once you were pointed to the WP:RS page you should have found the NCR reference, added it just with that without the other junk sources. It would have been simpler that way and not been ridiculous with blogs and all. History2007 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Well I'm sorry for that, I think the record is fine but I'll have a look to see if i can see anything later. Of course the NCR does clearly state its approved so its a little odd shoving it into the unapproved section...

Levi19910 (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is not the right place either. But how about asking Dominick do this if he wants because he is detached from it, knows teh topic and he created the new section and Kibeho is too large there anyway. So this, Kibeho etc. all need small mentions in that new section I think. History2007 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * So seeing as no one has put it in the right section, I'll edit the article and source it to both the National Catholic Register and The Record, both meet wikipedia standards. If anyone has a problem with this then they can talk about it on here, but I am going to put the paragraph in now Levi19910 (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Totally disagree with the Record as a source. It was definatly cut and pasted from another article, and doesnt prove that this was approved. Get a different source. Dominick (TALK) 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 * You do realise I used both the record AND the national catholic register? Besides which the Record explicitly states that it has independently checked everything, aside from that your opinion is irrelvant its whether the source is verifiable or not that matters, that is whether it meets wikipedia standards it does. Aside from that your the last person to be talking about sources, you used two that didnt back up the claims made in the article and one that was completely irrelevant. If you want to continue playing this game of delete and undelete feel free. Levi19910 (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 * You should calm down. The record was an article made from internet scrapings. If you want a product nobody is going take seriously, continue messing around. Dominick (TALK) 18:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm perfectly calm, just pointing out the obvious. And I'm not messing around, I'm following the wikipedia guidelines whereas you are using whether you believe something or not as the standard of whether we should use a source despite wikipedia clearly condemning this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levi19910 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why are you hung on including such a low quality source. Periodicals can be used but are not a source. History2007 and I formed a consensus and you didn't care to talk about it. If you have a agenda then you are going to have a rough time. I don't care if this is true or false, I only care that you have a source that meets the criteria for Wikipedia. If you don't like my opinion ask History2007. The Record, a paper thats only been around since 2005, composed of scraping the information on the internet that isn't sources, it originates in Australia not even anywhere near the apparition site, and MOST IMPORTANTLY it is not pointing to a Quito record, it repeats hearsay. Dominick (TALK) 00:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I wasnt aware that being near the apparition site was a requirement, we both know it isnt seeing as EWTN isn't near Lourdes or Fatima and yet could validly be cited for either apparition. What you are giving is your opinion neither I nor anyone who reads the article wants your opinion, they want the facts, both sources I have cited meet wikipedia standards. I don't see a consensus to be honest, besides which again you have not shown that either of those sources don't meet wikipedia standards, as the discussion went on people seemed to be inventing new excuses for why this source wasnt good enough. First people said the NCR was alright, then it wasn't because it was a blog and then it was because it was a reliable source. You've contradicted yourself multiple times in this discussion and used completely inappropriate sources which I corrected and then you decided to delete the article altogether. Levi19910 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I think this "Our Lady of Success" discussion is a clear failure. Look, The Record is beside teh point. It is way out in Australia, and has not claimed access to the local parish, or say that they sent an editor there to check things, it has just copied things from the web. It is not WP:RS. So Levi's opinion of the Record is a clear minority view in this discussion. I am sorry Levi but you are now squarely in the WP:Tendentious editing zone.

 * The Quito website says nothing about the Bishop. Right? So why use that as a basis? The NCR item is thus the only deciding factor now. The question: Is it a blog, or is it a researched article. I am not actually sure. Let us just settle that and move on.

 * And per WP:DUE, this "one of many" apparition can NOT occupy a major place in teh article and can be a small and minor mention at most, if NCR is confirmed. History2007 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Its hardly occupying a major part of the article, its in the correct section and its hardly prominent. You can claim the record isnt a valid source all you want you havent actually shown any evidence that it isnt, regardless I have now cited two ecuadorian periodicals which DO claim access to Quito and the convent where the statue of Our Lady of Good Success is and verify virtually all The Record states. I believe thats more than enough evidence.

 * As for being in the tendentious editing zone, no I'm following the wikipedia guidelines whereas you appear to be following whether you believe a source or not which is clearly stated to be against the wikipedia guidelines. Levi19910 (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * No, not at all so. Why is there a section with Kibeho and Success as the only two players? There are 5o apparitions like that and to list the two of them only is clearly against WP:DUE. It is not a question of opinion here, it is a clear question of math. Why pick these 2 out of the may out there? You do not need to discuss opinion here, but need to discuss numbers - which are factual. History2007 (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * You do realise I didnt have anything to do with creating that section? I put it their because we had all decided that that was the right section. As far as I'm concerned the division into roman catholic approved i.e approved by The Holy See and approved by the local ordinary is fundamentally unsound as Catholic theology and canon law leave the decision up to the local ordinary and it only goes to Rome if it is requested.

If you want I am more than happy to research the other 50 that would fit in the section if someone can give me a pointer in the right direction. Levi19910 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually who created which section is beside the point. We just need to clan things up and move on. But what does remain is that as stated elsewhere on this page, according to Salvatore M. Perrella (and he should know better than us) there are only 12 approved in Rome. So there is need for the separate section. Now, But it can not have 50 subsections, and those listed there need to be given less real estate in the article as major apparitions such as Fatima (which gets 1 million visitors on a single day each May) or Guadalupe (which set a record with over 6 million pilgrims over a single weekend in December 2009). That is where WP:DUE comes in. Another issue about how much real estate they get is if they have a feast worldwide, outside the local village where they are celebrated, etc. I had a list of most of them somewhere, but I have not been planning to work on this article - have other things to do. Good help is in teh wrong place b teh way, I will move it. But if you want to look for the others please do, with suitable sources. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

By other ones I'm guessing you mean other aparitions only approved by the local ordinary and not the Holy See? If so I'll get startd on that tonight. If you want to divide the article properly, one section should say 'apparitions approved by the holy see' and the other 'apparitions approved by the local ordinary' As at the moment its misleading having approved and approved by a local ordinary, as it almost implies that those approved by a local ordinary are less valid which is not true. Levi19910 (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is what I meant and I fixed the sections, as suggested. A good source for all of these is Ann Ball's book Encyclopedia of Catholic devotions. It is a standard reference. Another source is Michael Freze, 1993, Voices, Visions, and Apparitions, OSV Publishing ISBN 0-87973-454-X. Those are solid sources. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I would agree with the sources. Next I think we need a shorter summary of each, and if they are interesting a redirect to an article. This shouldn't be a book. Dominick (TALK) 16:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Ok, that is progress. Let us agree to use Ball and Freze as the baseline sources. The point is that a lot of work went into Ball's book and she knows the field pretty well - wrote many other books. And Freze is an OSV book, and a pretty solid Catholic publisher. And yes, no need for a long dissertation on each of these. I should point that Catholic religious order is in terrible shape and we could be fixing that instead of dragging this discussion out for ever. History2007 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Let me look at it then! I agree we should let this pot simmer for a bit. Dominick (TALK) 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Salvatore M. Perrella claims only 12 apparitions approved
I can't find his list anywhere. Can it be provided? Dominick (TALK) 15:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * This is the article. He clearly says there are only 11+1=12, but does not list them. If I had his list I would have added it directly. Else, his address is Viale 30 Aprile- 6, 00153, Rome and we can write him, or on your next vacation just show up, buy him a coffee and ask him. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually I have been told many times, no original research. Writing him or interviewing him is a job that would belong to someone else. :-) I assumed that was Roman hyperbole, I have heard things like that many times. Dominick (TALK) 15:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * But of course - my guess is that the interview would require buying a nice lunch.... I do wish the reporter had asked him, however. Yet, if you do go see him, let me know on my talk page, and that would be no WP:OR. Now jokes aside, the fact that there are only 12 should help cut back on the debate that any time a Bishop writes a letter (and there are well over 50 letters) that amounts to "Vatican approval". History2007 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * By the way, that should be said to the Kibeho edit just now. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I have which shows Vatican knowledge, but does not state Vatican approval and nothing else was stated from 2005. It is correct to say it is not Vatican approved. Lets go through each of these and source a Vatican Approbation. Dominick (TALK) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about Kibeho. I researched that before for its own page and you are right. And yes, it would be good to verify each of the ones we have, and then get the FAQ together so we don't have to dance this dance again with someone new in 9 months. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

lower level approval
I think there should be less space for lower level approvals, given that they have their own pages. So Kibeho needs to get less real estate, as many others. There are just too many of them to have the same amount of space as Laus, etc. And source should not just be a Vatican source for the Rome approval, if Zenit or CNS say that it is good enough. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Have at it please! I like being edited. Dominick (TALK) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks but will have to be later. Other things to do right now. History2007 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Towards a better classification
i thought about this last night. We can agree on so many things but we are hung up on one apparition that is minor at best and has been obfuscated by unreliable self published sources. We need a way forward so let me put this out there. We classify everything according to approval status verified from sources we can agree on BY NAME.
 * Approved by the Vatican (sources listed, and must be a major publication or the Vatican tiself)
 * Approved by a local Ordinary (same thing, listed by a major source)
 * Approved by another Church (orthodox etc)
 * Unapproved or approval is uncertain (we don't have a source or it's a tenuous link to a source)
 * Condemned by the Chuch (with a listed source of condemnation)

History2007 is 100% right about not being caught in circular arguments. OLGS in Quito is one part of the life of a Saint, but is a minor apparition when compared to ones like Pontmain. I have heard about Pontmain since I was a boy, but looking for the original Vatican source online is hard. I plan to do what I said I would do and go to sources. Dominick (TALK) 13:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Good classification. I would, however, just say "not approved" for the 4th item. If we do not have a source and is not condemned then not approved should be ok. It should also be mentioned somewhere more prominently (it says it now but not too clearly) that just because the Pope prays in Manila does not mean Manila is approved. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hearing nothing else, I guess we have consensus. I will move things around starting tonight or in the morning. I think that clears up the problems with the unapproved part. Dominick (TALK) 19:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the paragraphs will move by themselves overnight, like the moving statues..... History2007 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Boom they moved. I would love to hear your opinion. Dominick (TALK) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall, pretty good. I think this article is generally well above the average quality of Project Christianity articles now.

Minor suggestions are as follows:
 * 1. I do not even remember where the Positive Criteria vs Negative Criteria came from, but I recall seeing it on EWTN. If you have a reference for it at hand, please add, else we will have to look for one. It seems lonely there with no ref.

 * 2. Kibeho is getting way too much mileage here now. It is in 4 separate places if you do a search. We just need to trim it back.

 * 3. The section "Roman Catholic approved by a local ordinary" is now somewhat strange, given that it just has two entries while there are many more in that category. I see that section as the weakest element now. Per WP:DUE we should give them all proportional representation. As is Kibeho and Success are getting royal treatment with respect to the others.

There are minor typos etc. but they can wait. So the main remaining problem is item 3. How do we handle that? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * My editing is sparse, sorry I have a cold. I did a reorder and some editing. WP:BOLD I agree, we need to cut each on a case by case basis. We can all agree Fatima is 100% approved. We have a load of documentation of the condemnation of Bayside. Everything else is a shade of gray. Dominick (TALK) 14:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FAQ
I've added a FAQ to the top of the page, as a sort of placeholder so you can see how it works. Please feel free to improve it to cover whatever points seem to need regular repetition on this page. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Thank you, will try to add to it later. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Akita is either Vatican approved or it isn't
The article, perhaps because it is simply too long, has redundancies, and at least one major conflict. The Lady of Akita is not included in a list of Vatican-approved apparitions, but it is individually described so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.91.55 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Angela Volpini
I just found out about Angela. There are a lot of film clips of the apparitions on Youtube, including a documentary made in the late 1940s, plus interviews with her today. I got newspaper reports from the region for citations, but I'd like to know if I could link to her videos or mention the many books she's written. --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 * It does not even have Bishop approval, so is way, way too early. And in terms of WP:Note is not notable at all just with the Provincia item. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary
The article was assessed C-class, for lack of sufficient in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

South Ossetia
Please do not speed undo South Ossetia 2008 apparitions before examining Russian sources. The blog source is the only English source I could find so far but Russian sources are reliable and apparitions have numerous witnesses. --ssr (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I left the text, but zapped the blog, per WP:RS. The Russian sources are not WP:RS, you need the Pravda English edition etc. to do it right. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Russian sources are widely used on Wikipedia concerning Russian topics. The Russian sources are information agencies. One of them, utro.ru, is widely used in English Wikipedia despite it's Russian, do a search. In problem cases, mediation on Wikiproject Russia is seeked and automated translation may be used, but not total undo. I am searching for reliable English sources (not sure I can find any, not very wide coverage, but the fact is definitely notable), and for persuasive examples of confirmed legitimate usage of Russian sources on English Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So, let'see the page Alexander Misharin it legitimately uses numerous Russian language sources. During conflicts over this article, mediation was involved and non-Russian mediator did refer to automated translation as there were, and are, little English sources. Later, the mediator asked people on WikiProject Russia. But he was not trying to completely remove the facts per WP:RS not allowing Russian sources, only he was questioning information reliability. I'm still trying to seek English sources, but it's not easy, not sure there are some beside blogs. --ssr (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got one, great, adding (attributed 2009, but actually 2008). --ssr (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, Dayton lists it, but lists many, many claimed apparition, as you see. 2008 is just too close and these things usually take decades and decades to be taken seriously. If this is to be serious, it will show up in mainstream European newspapers, again Pravda, Le Monde, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are problems with English sources as it may be viewed "too local", but there are reliable Russian sources, and usage of them is legitimate and recognized on English Wikipedia concerning Russian events as I proved earlier. So far, I can't find other reliable English ones other than Dayton. This source says the first recognized U.S. one is dated only 2010, so that Ossetia one may be also kind of precedent, but according to Russian sources it's definitely notable as it was viewed by so many people, and priests, and was involved in armed conflict, seen by both sides. This very reliable Russian source, Interfax, says apparitions influenced army moves and were mentioned in army's radio talks. This is very notable despite the sources are Russian. --ssr (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If Interfax says that then please remove the fact tag from that. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Got English Interfax! http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=5090 Adding! =) Thank you for support! --ssr (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 * For all I can guess, this may get to be approved in a few years... Time will tell. History2007 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The word "comdemn"
The word "condemned" or one of its variations appears four times in the article, once in a section heading. As far as I am aware, neither the Catholic Church nor any other church condemns apparitions. In fact, it is not possible to condemn an apparition. A person who claimed to have seen one, or a group that publicised one, might theoretically be condemned, but I'm pretty sure such a thing hasn't happened since the middle ages. According to the Normae Congregationis article, only three judgements can be given by a diocesan bishop, all of which use the word confirm, not condemn, i.e. confirmed to be supernatural, not confirmed to be supernatural or confirmed to be non-supernatural. Can anybody suggest a neutral word or words to replace "condemn" in the article? Scolaire (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Sounds like you're associating the word "condemn" with the phrase "condemned to death", which is only one use of the word, though I admit fairly common. Have you never heard a world leader say that he "condemns the terrorist attack" or something similar? It just means to be declared guilty or wrong (judicial vs. non-judicial use). See Webster's definition. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

 * No, I mean "condemn" in the same sense as you. But you can only condemn something that exists, or something that has happened. The church could only condemn an apparition which it believed to have taken place. Obviously, that is the opposite of what is meant when the word is used in this article. What we should be saying, I think, is that the church does not acknowledge the apparition, or does not approve of its being publicised. That is a very far cry from "condemning". Scolaire (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Ah, so you're saying that use of the word "condemn" is circular: you can condemn it if it's there, but if it's there then you can't condemn it.... something like that? I would say that the wording could be more accurate, like the Church condemns reports of a Marian apparition, or the Church condemns purported or alleged Marian apparitions. That's how I understand it. Do you have something more accurate in mind? Boneyard90 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 * What are the sources for this "condemnation"? I admit that I opened this thread so that people who regularly edit the article could check the sources, rather than having to do it myself. But, to the very best of my knowledge, no bishop has ever said "I condemn this report of an apparition." At most, the bishop would have said "I don't want people to come to this site because I don't believe the apparition to be genuine." I think "does not acknowledge" or "does not approve" is the more accurate statement.
 * The "Apparitions condemned by church authorities" section begins, "Not all reports of visions and apparitions are taken seriously by church authorities." It later says, "However the [Garabandal] apparitions were not declared a hoax and the possibility of future approval was left open", and later again, "the latter parts of the reported messages from Gianna Talone were disapproved by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore...To date, the Holy See has let the Talone matter rest at the local level of the archdiocese." Where's the condemnation? The section should be renamed "Apparitions not acknowledged by church authorities". Scolaire (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds clunky, but I don't think I have anything better. I'd say "denied", but they don't, as you point out. Go with it. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with "approved", since that is the word most often used in a positive sense in the article. Scolaire (talk) 08:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, in revising the article I noted I did not find any sources using the word "condemn". The words used tend to be "disapproved" or in rare cases "rejected". I agree the word "condemn" has overtones and if it's not in the sources I don't see any support for it being in the section heading, so I replaced it with "disapproved", as that is the most frequently used in the sources. Cheers, TheBlinkster (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Pellevoisin
I have just created pages for Estelle Faguette and Our Lady of Pellevoisin. The Church has never specifically pronounced on whether the apparition was supernatural, but has approved the scapular which comes from it and has recognised the miraculous character of the healing received by Estelle. To my mind, this gives Pellevoisin the same status as Rue du Bac - the devotion is approved which is tantamount to church recognition of the apparition. Perhaps those more familiar with the rules for this page can decide where Pellevoisin links should go, and whether they qualify for associated Templates, etc? Revd Dr Gareth Leyshon - User Gleyshon (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Our Lady of Tinos
Given that it's the patron of Greece, should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page. — Llywelyn II   14:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
From the talk page archive it appears that earlier versions weren't quite as pov. As an exmaple of the problem with this version, Marian apparition states in Wikipedia's voice that " The sick and blind have been cured". Although it's possible that most of these alleged events haven't been challenged in reliable sources, it seems unlikely. Doug Weller talk 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So fix it so it says "Believers have claimed miraculous cures" and give some citations. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality problems: Unattributed opinions
The article contains several passages in which opinions about Marian apparitions and Marian devotions are presented with vague introductions such as "this has been interpreted to be..." Opinions that cannot be attributed to specific people or organizations, with references to published statements, are not encyclopedic, are contrary to WP:NPOV, and should be removed if they can't be attributed.

Moreover, these critical views, if they represent particular schools of thought, should be brought together to form a distinct section of the article under a header such as "Critical views", to present views from atheists, from Protestants (of this or that school), and so on. That would provide the reader with an informative context. --Bistropha (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Marian apparition. 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/20100613025421/http://carmelnet.org/biographies/SimonStock.pdf to http://carmelnet.org/biographies/SimonStock.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214093001/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100513_fatima_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20100513_fatima_en.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529140148/http://campus.udayton.edu:80/mary/questions/yq2/yq324.htm to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/questions/yq2/yq324.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Marian apparition. 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/20081008051051/http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/ds02ital2.htm to http://www.domcentral.org/study/ashley/ds02ital2.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.ocarm.org/pls/ocarm/consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=648
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090504164642/http://www.zenit.org/article-23225?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-23225?l=english
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212214242/http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/avantgo/new.php?n=12546 to http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/avantgo/new.php?n=12546
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315104228/http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/buby/mfl1.htm to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/buby/mfl1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210145541/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005014.htm to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1005014.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213223836/http://www.gbdioc.org/newsevents/news/857-worthy-of-belief.html to http://www.gbdioc.org/newsevents/news/857-worthy-of-belief.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819233806/http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/Akita.htm to http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/Akita.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004220207/http://www.kuravilangadpally.com/contentpage.aspx?pid=History to http://www.kuravilangadpally.com/contentpage.aspx?pid=History
 * Added tag to http://www.ourladyofsiluva.com/our_lady
 * Added tag to http://www.de-vrouwe.net/english/index.html?d__May_31__2002__Approbation_of_the_Apparitions258.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121209052653/http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html to http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/aprtable.html

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) 13:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marian apparition. 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/20110527014513/http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=419853&language=en to http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=419853&language=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229120525/http://www.walsingham.org.uk/romancatholic/history.html to http://www.walsingham.org.uk/romancatholic/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201135940/http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/concepcionistas-cumplen-500-anos-500997.html to http://www.hoy.com.ec/noticias-ecuador/concepcionistas-cumplen-500-anos-500997.html

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) 08:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marian apparition. 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/20110606061329/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36550&wf=rsscol to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=36550&wf=rsscol
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220192010/http://www.walsingham-church.org/site/Welcome.html to http://www.walsingham-church.org/site/Welcome.html

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) 07:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marian apparition. 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/20160912050150/http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/welcome/index.htm to http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/welcome/index.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.therecord.com.au/site/index.php?option=csom_content&task=view&id=2583&Itemid=29

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) 08:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Marian apparition


text:
Postage stamps and postal history of China

The history of the postage stamps and postal history of China is complicated by the gradual decay of Imperial China and the years of civil war and Japanese occupation in the 1930s and 1940s. In modern times, postal delivery is handled by China Post.

Early history
Regular government postal service is known from the Zhou dynasty in the 1st millennium BC. During the Yuan dynasty under Kublai Khan in the 12th century, China was integrated into the much larger Mongolian Örtöö system. Marco Polo reported that there were 10,000 post stages during that time. In addition, private letters were carried by the Min Hsin Chu, a system of letter guilds (hongs). Later the 1727 Treaty of Kyakhta with Russia provided for the first regular exchange of mail.

Qing dynasty
Although postal service in China goes back some 2,500 years, modern postal services were not established until 1877 by the Qing government.

A policy of isolation was forcibly ended in the 19th century by the Opium War and the subsequent opening of treaty ports; several nations opened foreign post offices from 1844 on. This expanded to involve dozens of cities, mostly on the coast, along the Yangtze River, and in the far south. Shanghai organized its own Shanghai local post in 1865.

In the same year, the Irishman Robert Hart developed a mail service for the Imperial Maritime Customs, initially to carry consular mail to and from treaty ports. This service was opened to the public on 1 May 1878, and China's first postage stamps, the "Large Dragons", were issued to handle payment. The stamps were inscribed "CHINA" in both Latin and Chinese characters, and denominated in candareens.

Initially, all mail to foreign destinations went through Shanghai, but by 1882 there were twelve post offices. On 20 March 1896, an edict directed that the Customs Post become the Imperial Postal Service effective 1 January 1897; the Min Hsin Chu was shut down, as well as the Shanghai local post, and postal system adopted cents and dollars as the units of currency.

Through the first half of 1897, new stamps were unavailable, and so the existing stock was surcharged in cents, with several variants distinguished by philatelists. Revenue stamps were surcharged as well.

The first new stamps, inscribed IMPERIAL CHINESE POST went on sale 16 August 1897. The twelve values, ranging from 1/2c to $5, were lithographed in Japan. The low values depicted a dragon, the middle values a carp, and the dollar values a wild goose. The paper used for these stamps had a watermark in the form of a yin-yang symbol.

In 1898, these were superseded by similar designs produced by engraving in London, and inscribed CHINESE IMPERIAL POST on a Chinese supplied watermarked paper of varying thickness. The watermark can be difficult to detect on the thicker paper. New printings of the stamp, beginning in 1899 were on unwatermarked paper, but there are no recorded usages of this variety until 1901. These stamps continued in use until the end of the empire. During that time some colors were changed to comply with Universal Postal Union regulations, and three new values were added.

The first commemorative stamps of China were issued in 1909 to mark the 1st year of the reign of the Xuantong Emperor. The set of three (2c, 3c, 7c), all depicted the Temple of Heaven in Beijing.

Beiyang government
The revolution of 1911 resulted in overprints on the imperial stamps in 1912; at Fuzhou to indicate that the post office was effectively a neutral area available to both sides, and at Nanjing and Shanghai reading "Republic of China" (from top to bottom: ). An additional set of overprints was produced by Waterlow and Sons in London, and postmasters throughout the country made their own unofficial overprints using the same characters.

The first new designs of the Republic were two commemorative sets of 12 each, the first set depicting Sun Yat-sen and second Yuan Shikai, both issued on 14 December 1912.

The definitives of the "Junk issue" went on sale 5 May 1913, and continued in use into the 1930s. The low values featured a junk, while values from 15c to 50c showed a farmer reaping rice, while the dollar values depicted the three-part gateway to the Hall of Classics in Beijing. The series was first printed in London, then in Beijing from 1915; they can be distinguished by close examination. The designs were re-engraved in 1923, and a number of design features were changed; for instance, the whitecaps in the water underneath the junk were removed, and the water darkened.

China produced five new commemorative issues, of four stamps each, during the 1920s. The first, issued on 10 October 1921 to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Chinese Post Office, featured then president Xu Shichang in the center, flanked by Premier Jing Yongbeng and Minister of Communication Ye Gongzuo. On 17 October 1923 a set showing the Temple of Heaven commemorated the new constitution. On 1 March 1928 a set depicting Marshal of the Army and Navy Zhang Zuolin marked his assumption of that role.

Nationalist government
On 18 April 1929 Chiang Kai-shek makes a first appearance, commemorating the unification of China. Finally on 30 May 1929, two days before the event, four stamps showing Sun Yat Sen's mausoleum were issued to commemorate his state funeral. New definitives of the so-called Sun Yat-sen stamps were issued in 1931. These stamps, along with the Martyrs issue of 1932 honoring six martyrs of the Kuomintang, would see much overprinting in the next several years.

Japanese occupation and wartime
During the occupation of several Chinese regions by the Japanese (1937–1945), Chinese stamps were originally in use in the occupied territories. Since 1941, Chinese stamps were overprinted separately for Inner Mongolia, Guangdong, North China, Shanghai and Nanjing. And for some areas, locally designed stamps were issued.

Communist posts
Communist authorities issued stamps in areas over which they had control from 1930 onwards. These were usually in more remote areas, often on the mountainous borders of two provinces – hence they are often referred to as 'Border Areas'. For example, the earliest communist issues (the so-called 'Red Posts') were in mountainous areas of Jiangxi, the Hunan-Hubei border area and west Fujian, bordering Jiangxi.

Post–World War II
The end of the conflict brought little respite to the Nationalist government, which continued to struggle with Communist forces. But they were able to issue commemoratives to remember President Lin Sen, who had died in 1943, to mark the October inauguration of Chiang, and to celebrate the Allied victory.

Inflation had been creating a need for ever-higher values throughout 1945, but in 1946 things went out of control; stocks of stamps, some dating back to 1931, were surcharged with values up to $2000, and a new design (still featuring a portrait of Sun Yat-sen) went up to $5000.

1947 saw a number of commemorative issues, and further inflation, a Sun Yat-sen with plum blossoms issue reaching $50,000 that year, then surpassed in 1948 with reissues topping out with a $5,000,000 stamp.

In 1948, a gold yuan standard was adopted, and an assortment of existing stamps were surcharged with values from 1/2c and up. This was a short-lived stopgap, and by early 1949 it became necessary to stamps and overprints with a range of values, again going up to $5,000,000.

On 1 May 1949, the government took a desperate step, which was to print undenominated stamps, sold at the daily rate of the yuan. They then adopted a silver yuan standard, and overprinted still more stamps as well as reissuing the Sun Yat-sen design valued in 1–500 cents. By August, the deteriorating political situation had caught up with the postal system, and the Nationalists' last issues on the mainland were two of a planned series of pictorial designs denominated in silver yuan.

Following the loss of mainland China, stamps are restricted to Taiwan and surrounding islands. Since 2008, stamps are inscribed "Republic of China (Taiwan)".

Manchukuo
Japan created a puppet state called Manchukuo out of north-east China in 1932. Although the state ceased to exist after the Second World War, it managed during its lifetime to create many interesting cultural chimeras, including stamps. The designs of Manchukuo stamps show the influence of both countries. In fact, the 1944 Friendship Set was printed in both Chinese and Japanese.

People's Republic of China
The postal system of the People's Republic of China was established as the General Postal Administration in Beijing in 1949, growing out of the posts that had been operating for several years in the communist controlled areas. Development was slow; by 1949 there was only 1 post office for every 370 square kilometers. Several of the communist controlled areas continued to operate their own postal systems; most were ordered to stop selling regional stamp issues by 30 June 1950, while the Northeast Liberation Area and the Port Arthur and Dairen Post and Telegraph Administration continued to use their own stamps (due to the different currencies) until the end of 1950.

Postage stamps
The unified administration issued its first postage stamps on 8 October 1949, consisting of a set of four depicting a lantern and the Gate of Heavenly Peace, commemorating the 1st session of the Chinese People's Consultative Political Conference. This issue also inaugurated the innovative practice of numbering each type of stamp issued, usually in the lower left corner. For instance, the $800 value in the Dove of Peace issue of 1950 is numbered "5.3-2", indicating that it is the second stamp of three in the fifth stamp issue of China. The practice is only followed for commemorative and special stamps, regular definitive stamps having no special markings.

The first definitive series came in February 1950, and featured the Gate of Heavenly Peace against a background of clouds. The nine values ranged from $200 to $10,000. The design was modified several times over the next year, and again in 1954, resulting in what philatelists call the "second" through "sixth" issues, each varying in minor ways, such as the layout of the clouds.

The postal system found it necessary to surcharge stamps of the previous government, with issues in March and August 1950, and May 1951. In addition, leftover stamps of the Northeastern Provinces were pressed into service in July 1950, and those of East China in December 1950.

In the meantime, various commemoratives marked conferences and other events of the young republic. In June 1952 a set of forty stamps depicting physical exercises was issued in conjunction with a radio program; ten exercises were illustrated, each with a block of four, where each stamp shows a different position of arms and legs for the exercise.

Cultural Revolution
Reduced stamp sales and withdrawals from issue of several stamps during the Cultural Revolution resulted in a few stamps that are quite scarce, especially used. The typical pattern resulting in rarity was unauthorized sales before the official date of issue by isolated post offices of stamps which were then withdrawn from issue before the official date of issue. One rarity, an unissued 8f stamp from 1967 commemorating the 40th Anniversary of Establishment of Jing Gangshan Revolutionary Base, popularly known as "Big Blue Sky", which pictured Chairman Mao and Lin Biao on the podium overlooking Tienanmen Square exists only as scraps salvaged from the destruction process. Only scraps from one stamp in the withdrawn set are known to exist.

During the Cultural Revolution era, between the year of 1967 and 1971, there were 19 sets total 80 stamps issued by the China Postal Service, with its distinct design and strong political overtone, these stamps became highly collectable after the end of Cultural Revolution.

Postal service
The postal service was established rapidly in the 1950s and 1960s. By 1952 the principal postal networks centered on the capital, Beijing, and links to all large cities had been established. Great progress was made in improving the postal service under the First Five-Year Plan. Postal service was also developed in the rural areas. Besides extending rural postal routes, the problem of delivering mail to places below the county level was solved by enlisting the aid of the population. From 1954 onward a system of mail delivery by rural postal workers was tried in agricultural cooperatives, and in 1956 this system was extended throughout the country. By 1959 the national postal network was complete.

Postal service was administered by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (now the Ministry of Information Industry), which was established in 1949 and reestablished in 1973 after a two-year period during which the postal and telecommunications functions had been separated and the ministry downgraded to a subministerial level.

In 1984 China had 53,000 post and telecommunications offices and 5 million kilometers of postal routes, including 240,000 kilometers of railroad postal routes, 624,000 kilometers of highway postal routes, and 230,000 kilometers of airmail routes. By 1985 post offices were handling 4.7 billion first-class letters and 25 billion newspapers and periodicals. In 1987, after a six-year hiatus, six-digit postal codes were ordered to be put into use.

For many years, China was not a member of the Universal Postal Union, and while using Arabic numerals for the denominations, did not include the country's name in Latin letters as required of UPU nations. The addition of "CHINA" to stamps' inscriptions began in 1992. Western collectors typically differentiate earlier stamps both by the serial numbers in the lower corner, and by the first character of the country name 中, the "square box with a vertical bar" being visually distinct from the inscription used by any other Asian country.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Susah

Susah may refer to:

 * Susa, Libya
 * Sousse, Tunisia
 * Al-Susah, Syria

title: Susah


text:
Giovanni Battista Velluti

Giovanni Battista Velluti, colloquially "Giambattista" (28 January 1780 – 22 January 1861), was an Italian castrato. Considered "the last great castrato", he had a reputation of being something of a diva, with some singers refusing to appear with him.

Biography
Born in Pausula (near Macerata), Italy, a local doctor castrated him at the age of eight as treatment for a cough and high fever. Velluti's father, who had planned on a military career for his son, enrolled him in musical training. He became close friends with Luigi Cardinal Chiaramonte, the man who would become Pope Pius VII, after singing a cantata sometime in his teenage years. In 1800, he made his debut at Forlì.

The last great castrato roles were composed specifically for him: Arsace in Rossini's Aureliano in Palmira (1813) and Armando in Meyerbeer's Il crociato in Egitto (1824). He made his London debut in 1825 in Il crociato in Egitto. The crowds reacted poorly to his initial performances as he was the first castrato to appear in London in 25 years, but he drew crowds until the end of his career. In 1826 he took over management of The King's Theatre in London and appeared there in Aureliano in Palmira and Morlacchi's Tebaldo ed Isolina. However, his career as a theatre manager ended following financial quarrels over extra pay for the chorus. He returned to London in 1829, but appeared only in concerts. Upon his retirement from the stage, he became an agriculturist and died in 1861.

title: Giovanni Battista Velluti


text:
Talk:West Rail line

Untitled
Moved the following here:

 * Currently the West Rail provides local service on its own. No inter-city service is offered, making it effectively more like a metro instead of a commuter railway, although it was built in commuter railway standard, and was expected to accomodate other trains in future.

The distinction is not entirely clear (and useful), and at least some viewed that the metro should be primarily underground. Furthermore West rail is intended to join East rail as an integral system which is regarded as a sub-urban system crossing non-urban areas. The statement (commentary in nature) is therefore not desirable. -Hlaw 09:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Please discuss before moving, deleting or reverting.
 * The statement was descriptive rather than commentary. --14:12, December 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this section is not clear. Does 'local service' mean 'stopping service' (ie. in which trains stop at every station) and 'inter-city service' mean not stopping at every station? What are the 'other trains' mentioned? The above comment was over two years ago, so is anyone else looking at this?! Earthlyreason 09:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary for a metro to operate underground. For example the Kwun Tong Line which is part overground part underground. The West rail stops as every station. The west rail was over designed so it appears to be a commuter rail, but the areas it connects are densely populated new developed areas. Someonewhoisgood (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No. of Trains
The number of trains for West Rail (Hong Kong) should be 22 instead of 23.

TfD nomination of Template:West Rail infobox
Template:West Rail infobox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Slambo (Speak) 17:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/west_rail/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Disneyland Resort Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

West rail is a rapid transit.
The areas that the west rail line connect are high density NDAs, not "suburbs" except for Kam Sheung Road station. The frequency on the west rail is quite high. In fact, the West rail ticks a lot of the boxes of a rapid transit. It really isnt fit to be a commuter rail. Someonewhoisgood (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The Route Section
I believe, that since the West Rail Line is part of The Tuen Ma Line, there should also be a modified route section that includes the Wu Kai Sha-Hung Hom section for The Tuen Ma line as well.

title: Talk:West Rail line


text:
Honnō-ji

Honnō-ji (本能寺) is a temple of the Nichiren branch of Buddhism located in Kyoto, Japan.

Honnō-ji incident
Honnō-ji is most famous for the Honnō-ji incident – the assassination of Oda Nobunaga – that occurred there on 21 June 1582. Nobunaga lodged at the temple with little protection before his invasion of the west, but was betrayed by his general Akechi Mitsuhide, whose forces surrounded the temple and set it on fire. Knowing there was no way out for him, Nobunaga committed seppuku along with his attendant Mori Ranmaru. Ranmaru's brothers also perished at Honnō-ji.

In 1591, Nobunaga's successor Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered the reconstruction of Honnō-ji, but on a different site due to the tragic circumstances. Honnō-ji was rebuilt on its current location in present-day Nakagyō Ward near Kyoto Shiyakusho-mae Station.

title: Honnō-ji


text:
Édouard Bovet

Édouard Bovet (14 September 1797 – 25 October 1849) was a Swiss watchmaker and founder of the Bovet Fleurier watch company.

Early life
Édouard Bovet was born in Fleurier in Neuchâtel, the son of Jean Frédéric Bovet, in 1797. Although the "Genève" tag is virtually compulsory for Swiss watches in the highest price bracket, it is the lesser-known name "Fleurier" name that marks Bovet watches. Bovet originated from this village in the Val-de-Travers, to the west of Neuchâtel. Watchmaking was introduced there between 1730 and 1740 by David Vaucher, probably a pupil of Daniel JeanRichard. The number of watchmakers in the Val-de-Travers grew rapidly in the first half of the 19th century. The lace making that had provided work for one-third of the people living in the valley had been replaced by the much lower cost production on Jacquard machines in France and Flanders.

Four more sons and a daughter were born in the following years. After completing his apprenticeship as a watchmaker, Edouard Bovet and two of his brothers moved to London, then the center of watch assembly and the watch trade in 1814.

1818–1830
He found a job with the Magniac company who sent him to Canton in 1818 as a watch repairer; this was the sole Chinese port that tolerated European merchants and businessmen — the so-called “red-haired barbarians”. In Canton in 1818, he formed a partnership with his brothers in 1822. The enterprise, which made luxury watches in Switzerland for export to China, was a resounding success. The flourishing watch trade with China prompted Bovet to set up his own company in 1822: he founded a general partnership with his two brothers in London and one brother who had remained in Fleurier; the fourth and youngest brother also entered the business. Soon every first class watch in China with a high practical value and elegant exterior was simply called "Bovet". Pearl ornamentation and enamel miniature painting carried out in Geneva on Bovet watches ensured first class aesthetics at prices that, in contrast to the exaggerated luxury watches of the time, were affordable, at least for the upper class. For years a Bovet watch was considered an asset in China and was accepted in payment everywhere. The movement was frequently finely engraved and chased and could be observed through a glass cover on the back. The central second hand that jumped every second, like modern quartz watches, was a Bovet specialty. Bovet adapted its production to the Chinese tradition of making gifts of valuable objects (statues, vases, horses even concubines) in pairs. So he could often sell two identical watches at the same time: if one failed, a replacement was at hand. But Bovet’s enamel painters found it very difficult to paint two identical but mirror-image miniatures.

Return to Fleurier
Edouard Bovet returned to Fleurier in 1830 as a made man, accompanied by his four-year-old half-Chinese son Edouard-Georges. At that time it was customary for the European merchants in China to take a "temporary" wife for the duration of their stay. If children were born of this liaison, the father accepted responsibility. As a fervent republican, Bovet exposed himself in the abortive Neuchâtel revolution against Prussian rule in 1831. The house that his brothers had built for him in Fleurier according to his written instructions from China remained empty. Bovet had to move to Besançon where he continued watchmaking with the help of other exiled watchmakers.

Legacy
Edouard Bovet’s brothers and nephews — all of them company shareholders — made sure that the cornerstones of the Bovet empire in Fleurier, London and Canton continued to flourish. Once the political situation was back to normal, in 1840, the firm was reregistered as Bovet Frères et Cie.; the share capital amounted to one million francs. Edouard Bovet died in 1849; he lived long enough to witness the triumph of the republic and the withdrawal of the Prussians in the previous year. The succession was settled and the production for China continued; in 1855 Bovet was awarded a gold medal at the world exhibition in Paris for an absolutely identical pair of watches ordered by the Chinese emperor.

Two generations later the Bovets were running a flourishing Swiss-Chinese commercial enterprise and were no longer interested in watchmaking. The name was sold several times and relaunched in 1994. The current Bovet watches are modeled on their luxury precursors from the 19th century and look like pocket watches for the wrist.

title: Édouard Bovet