Talk:Our Lady of Zeitoun

Article issues

Moved to "Zeitoun", about twice as many Google hits as "Zeitun".
Tualha 02:42, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Details of Tualha's 16 Nov edit:
Was basically an ad for OP's website and severely POV. NPOV, "alleged", shortened, cut encomium and official statements, added pic.

Issues:

• Original version refers to an investigating committee, and a committee headed by Anba Gregorios. I have assumed these committees were one and the same, and rewritten accordingly. Please fix if in error.
• It would be nice if someone could find some NPOV discussion of this on the web, especially attempts at scientific explanation. I haven't, as yet, but I didn't look very hard either.

Tualha 04:13, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Postscript: I realize the article is rather apparition-heavy and Zeitoun-light, but I haven't been able to find anything on the web about the town except apparition pages. I think this is the best way to handle it - start out saying it's a town and why it's worth putting in the wiki, then focus on its claim to fame.
Tualha 04:40, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Daylight photographs

What interested me the most is that seemingly we don't have any photos taken in plain light of the day! Curious, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.61.113 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading about the apparitions at Zeitoun for about five years. I've never thought about that. However, that also assumes that the apparition would have to happen during the day also to be authentically supernatural. Apparitions to individuals did happen during the day albeit not above the the St. Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church in Zeitoun. I think the book, When Millions Saw Mary, by Pearl Zaki explains several instances of individuals who were contacted by a divine being in their homes, including a Muslim man who had been whipping stones at Coptic Pilgrims. Mary, according to the story, instructed him to paint white crosses throughout Zeitoun as reparation. Also, scietifically there has been put forward an explanation for the phenomena, which is that of "tectonic strain". It's a somewhat unknown theory that holds that during times of increased seismic activity, people report seeing luminiscent beings and spiritual experiences. Some people have criticized this as going out on a limb, particularly because in 2000 in Jordan, white lights were recorded above an Orthodox Church during daylight while there was not a jump in seismicity. Either way, it makes for an interesting story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.3.8.253 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no picture? I would like to see a picture that is not an obvious fake, I have found none... 192.36.117.138 08:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed ?

I added two references. They are very thin brochures, and probably nowhere to get, except in their (complete?) form on the 'Zeitoun Web Gallery. It's a bit double, because this website is already in the External Links section, but I thought it makes sense, also because the two texts are not readily found there. Main question: Is this enough to cover the 'citation needed' request in the article? I have assumed that it is and removed the request.Geke 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Source

I work for an evangelical & reformed seminary library and have an original copy of Pearl Zaki's "Our Lord's Mother visits Egypt in 1968." I discovered it in a box of book sale donations. It is a book (115 pages), not a thin brochure. The information on the website is only an excerpt of the text. Also included in the book is an image of "the Egyptian Gazette" article from April 11, 1969. I've entered the citations needed from pages 27 and 25 respectively. --Wmmars 06:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

This article seems to lack neutrality. It only cites information from theistic sources.

I also have problems with the contribution on 'polarisation' of one of the photographs. No information about the process is provided. Furthermore I suspect that the contributor of this text is the person who is named, Vincent Ruello, and that this constitutes self-promotion. He seems to sell religious paintings and refers to the wikipedia article on his web page here: http://www.conexarte.com/Vincent-Ruello-Painting.html

There would seem to be an issue with the credibility of the source, at the very least.

Is it okay if I write a "Criticisms" section for this article? Danmav (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I welcome this page being nominated for a neutrality check by an editor.

To the contributor who deleted my extensive changes without discussion, I would only say that this is not in the spirit of wikipedia. Please discuss why you think your 'photo polarisation' paragraph should be included. I found the paragraph and video unscientific and unscholarly. There is no information on the process used and on what original photographs/negatives it was applied to. Please link to some information that describes the process and identify the source material. The person who made the video is described as an Australian filmmaker but there is no information on what films he may have made. Danmav (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok here we go I am not promoting my painting on conex and never mentioned it. I take offense Danvam at you saying it is not scholarly. I am the first person to use Polarisation to reveal detail in the 2 authentic pictures of Our lady Of Zeitoun taken by Ali Ibrahim. Before I explain polarisation yes I am film maker a video maker of music clips am also a musician. The polarisation technique I used involved altering the angles of light hitting the photographs and then using a microscopic film programme on the images and then re filming it. Look at the 3 clips on youtube that is my evidence of what I have done. Look at the polarisation of the hand and the clarity. In the photos you can see no hand at all. This was taken from the photo above the roof. Look at the other 2 clips posted on youtube and the great detail of the new images of parts of marys face holding baby Jesus. I have developed this technique and am horrified that you have deleted the paragraph without my consent. If this is the way you treat people who discover things I want no part of wikipedia. My discovery is as ground breaking as the revealing of images on the Shroud of Turin and my name Vincent Ruello had to go in the paragraph because I have revealed the fine detail in those 2 photographs which were previously just undetailed images of light. If the consesus here is to remove my scientific work and major discovery in Our Lady Of Light so be it but my work has now been published and will gain ground and be respected for what I have done. Sincerely Vincent Ruello Australia and lastly my appologies, my 3 clips of the work I did for the benefit of other wikipedia members can be seen at youtube, user name vinnypop search Mary Zeitoun and my 3 clips will appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.141.219 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you have confirmed that you are Vincent Ruello. Your edit is therefore self-promoting. I'm sure you must acknowledge that this is not acceptable no matter how wonderful you think your technique is. Your videos have very few hits. (How did you get the this photo from Ali Ibrahim in Egypt? This all sounds highly suspect). You sell religious paintings of the Virgin Mary, right? That makes you less than impartial. Please discuss or I'll have to take this up with the wiki admins. Danmav (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain why I think your polarisation technique is unscientific. The reflected light from the phenomenon at Zeitoun may have been polarised. A polarisation filter between the source and the film negative may have been able to influence the image produced. However, once the image was captured on the negative any polarisation information the light may have contained is forever lost. Those photons are gone. You haven't said if you worked on the original negative or the photograph. It sounds like maybe the latter. Any technique you are using now is only pertains to the light reflected off the photograph. This is the issue. (It may give information about the texture of the photographic paper but it will say nothing about the original light). It seems to me that you are chasing phantoms. Danmav (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I used a scientific process and have revealed hidden images so how is it unscientic, science reveals hidden facts I have revealed the face of Mary the face of baby Jesus a close up of Marys hand the fine detail on her clothing, hidden shades and textures and all totally true and un doctored are you accusing me of being a liar. I have explained the process of Polarisation in the technique I used. Please leave the following information here so other wikipedians can see my work do not delete this title let others see my work Danmav Youtube search Mary Zeitoun Polarisation: There are 3 clips 1. The Roof Side Angle Photo Polarisation 2. The floating apparition Photo Face Of Mary Baby Jesus Revealed and 3. Close Up Polarisation of Hand. Thankyou Danman and no hard feelings I understand your intensity in only writing the truth so its ok. Ps yes I am an artist and did paint Our Lady from the images my technique revealed. I ask other wikipedians and admin to reload my paragraph of my MAJOR discovery I have revealed the face of Mary and baby Jesus, this is major and spiritually immense you have no right to stifle this fantastic news from the world Danman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.141.219 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Vincent, thank you for being reasonable. I'm sure you will appreciate that wikipedia is not our personal advertising medium. I have no intention of deleting your comments here - that would be objectionable. Can I make the following suggestion in the spirit of co-operation. Please add an entry (new section?) to the article on Polarisation describing your technique in detail. If you are accepted there then after one month you are more than welcome to re-insert your paragraph here linking back to the polarisation article. However, I have viewed your three youtube videos and I find them entirely unhelpful and unconvincing. Sorry. If you edit back here, you will need to provide the following:

• Fully identify the source material on which you worked. Who took the photograph, when, and explain how you have access to it. (You see, I have a suspicion that the photograph in question is actually a painting or has been doctored in some way).
• Provide evidence that the source material has been authenticated by experts on photo manipulation. Please dispel any doubts.
• Provide expert third party testimony that your method is scientific. (You may need to reproduce your results in front of a relevant scientific authority).
• Add some audio or subtitles to your videos explaining what is happening and what process you have used. As a professional filmmaker I am surprised that you chose not to provide an audio track.

Is that all acceptable and agreed? Danmav (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Danmav that sounds very reasonable and expected and I must comply if it is to be accepted here which would be a great honor for me. To begin with, the pictures I used were not the paintings which there are many. Before I undertook the experiment I chose the only 2 photographs taken by Ali Ibrahim, the image floating in front of the roof and the image taken from below looking up where Our Lady Of Light is sideways on what looks like the balcony. I went to the official site of the actual Church and verified that these were infact actual photographs before I applied the technique. I can reproduce the results before anyone. Ok I will add a section in article on Polarisation in as much detail as I can without compromising my intellectual copyright to the process which has great benefit in being used as a photo identification and authentication system so I need to be careful how I reveal things. Will also look into finding an expert in this field who could spare time to see what and how I did it and will get back here with more answers. Sincerely Vince. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.141.46 (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Vincent, I thought you understood but it appears that you don't. Your recent contribution is in the wrong section (under "Criticisms") and it includes discussion (which is not acceptable). Articles must be written from a factual, neutral point of view. You have done neither. You are not neutral (you sell religious paintings, showing a clear bias to religious beliefs) and you have a strong conflict of interest (you are advertising yourself on youtube). I implore you to check the wikipedia position on such matters. Look at the style in which other articles are written. What you are advocating here is pure speculation. Your videos demonstrate nothing in particular. It would be like me linking to a Star Wars video on youtube to prove the existence of Darth Vader!

I have removed your inappropriate contribution from the main article (yet again). It does not belong. You haven't verified the genuineness of the photos you are talking about and you haven't linked to anything authoritative about your so-called 'polarisation' technique. You have no links at all. We just have your say-so. This is an unacceptable misuse of wikipedia.

I'm copying your contribution with comments/objections below for the record:

Polarisation Of Photographs 2 photographs^{(originals? from what source?)} taken^(when?) by Ali Ibrahim^{(who is he?)} and verified^{(by who?)} as actual photos from The Church website were used in March 2009 by a film maker in Australia experimenting with altering light waves on images and photos. Unseen details were revealed, the face, hand in close up and clothing of the lady in the image as well as her holding a dark haired baby (currently under scrutiny and investigation^{(by who?)}). This is currently being discussed in the discussion section. The technique used is simple. The image of the photograph is placed at an angle where less light hits it^{(where does polarisation come into it?)}. It is refilmed and then placed in a programme which zooms into the new image and refilmed again. A second angular filming with less light is done and a final refilming. It now appears as a fact^{(speculation)} which can be verified before any scientific body^{(but hasn't been done!)} that using less light on certain objects that are as per say exploding in light^{(speculation)} such as the photographs taken by Ali Ibrahim will reveal hidden detail not seen by the naked eye^{(opinion, not fact)}. The 3 clips can be seen on youtube search Mary Zeitoun Polarisation^{(COI blatant advertising!)}, with a scientific report to follow with results and outcomes published here asap^{(must be done first!)}. (This section on Polarisation was added with permission of a senior wikipedia archivist^(who?).) Danmav (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You Danmav arent you a senior wiki person ? hmmmmmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.141.136 (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Vincent, what does who I am have to do with anything? I asked you to write something about your technique in the Polarisation article (separate to this), wait for acceptance and then come back here. You didn't do it. Now, if you look at the main article, I have provided evidence that what you have been calling a photo is actually a drawing! So much for your polarisation technique. It vindicates everything I have been saying about your unsuitability as a reliable, unbiased contributor here. You weren't working off original negatives or photographs because there is no such thing! How do you expect to be taken seriously? Danmav (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Danmav you havent proven its a drawing whatsoever it is just your saying that and furthermore my polarisation technique proves it is not a drawing because the hidden images that are revealed are real and not drawings, the neuatrality required here should be against you as you are assuming everything. I repeat again the 2 photos taken by Ali Ibrahim have been stated to be photographgs by the actual church website, they also do have a section of drawings but my work centred on their section of ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS so this is all we have to go on not what you assume, what have you stated in the main article nothing you just say these are drawings but your wrong. I dont have to prove anything anymore. The photos have been credited to Ali Ibrahim...he exists he is real, they did not credit drawings to him but if you do not believe the actual church website its all a waste of time argueing with you as I find you totally biased towards the left on this issue and you lack evidence. Ali Ibrahim is the evidence what do you have to prove otherwise NOTHING goodday to you sir. Vincent Ruello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.141.248 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Article

Was removed,written from a POV perspective,it has to be non-biased from a neutral perspective.On another note a photo of the apparition needs to be added.Sheodred (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheodred, please do not delete an entire section from an article without proper discussion first, giving full and specific reasons for its removal. Such unilateral decisions are not acceptable. If you feel that the section is written in a biased or non-neutral perspective, please point out the specific tracts that you are referring to and state your reasons why you find them biased. Thank you. (Could I suggest that a more appropriate course than deleting a section you don't like is to strengthen the case in the first section which is a little light in my opinion). Danmav (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant to its authenticity?"There is no record that Pope Kyrillos, head of the Coptic Church in Alexandria, ever visited the Church of Saint Mary in Zeitoun up to his death in 1971, to personally view the phenomenon."

This is not neutral and the manner in which it is written supports a personal POV."“Since then the church has become the object of nightly vigil by thousands of Cairenes, with the standard accompaniment of popcorn and chick-pea vendors, and there have been repeated but somewhat contradictory report[sic] of appearances."

A case,but where is the medical proof?Sociologists Robert Bartholomew and Erich Goode offer the Zeitoun apparitions as a prominent case of mass delusion.“It appears that the Marian observers were predisposed by religious background and social expectation to interpreting the light displays as related to the Virgin Mary.”[11]

So the majority of these people were fanatics?"The reports of often fanatical religious witnesses who see their favourite saints in vague and ambiguous light patterns are examples of pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon."

Has no place in an article on criticism relation to the apparition.It is on a different subject altogether,and the proof is almost non-existent.This is further reinforced that there is no scientific explanation for "Earthquake Lights".Canadian neuro-psychologist Michael Persinger of Laurentian University and his American colleague John Derr (1989)[9] analyzed seismic activity in the region from 1958 to 1979, and found an unprecedented peak in earthquakes during 1969. They state that:Temporal analyses were completed between the occurrence of intense displays of exotic luminous phenomena over a church in Zeitoun (Egypt) during the years 1968 through 1969 and regional seismicity. These phenomena, viewed by thousands of onlookers, began one year before an unprecedented increase (factor of 10) in seismic activity about 400 km to the southeast. Monthly analyses also demonstrated a moderate (0.56) correlation between increases in seismicity and the occurrence of luminous phenomena during the same or previous month. These results were interpreted as further support for the hypothesis that most anomalous (terrain-related) luminous phenomena are generated by factors associated with tectonic strain.Earthquake lights, although as yet without a rigorous scientific explanation, have been observed in other parts of the world

Until an administrator believes these sections are suitable to the criticism article,these areas will remain absent to the article.Sheodred (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheodred, it's rather poor form to come on as a new member of wikipedia and immediately trash a whole section of other people's painstaking research. You seem to have realised that. Now, however, instead of discussing first (as I asked) you have once again taken unilateral action and summarily deleted several paragraphs out of the section. That's not how we do things here. You don't carve up an article and then justify your actions. I'm sure that you think you have valid reasons, but the idea is to discuss those reasons before taking any irrevocable action.

Of course, I disagree with you about the paragraphs you have taken out, and here are my reasons:

"There is no record that Pope Kyrillos, head of the Coptic Church in Alexandria, ever visited the Church of Saint Mary in Zeitoun up to his death in 1971, to personally view the phenomenon." This is entirely relevant as the head of the Coptic Church in Alexandria could not bring himself to see this alleged miracle with his own eyes. Think about it. A Biblical figure is supposedly appearing nightly at one of his churches and he is not at all interested in seeing it for himself. How many such opportunities present themselves in a lifetime? This is a highly significant item as it brings into question the authenticity of the apparition.

"Since then the church has become the object of nightly vigil by thousands of Cairenes, with the standard accompaniment of popcorn and chick-pea vendors, and there have been repeated but somewhat contradictory report[sic] of appearances." This is a direct quote from a respected journalist (an eye-witness) published in a prestigious US newspaper. It's on the record. Are you saying that wikipedia can never include quotes from newspaper articles? I don't understand your POV concern. He was reporting the facts as he experienced them. That's what journalists do.

"Sociologists Robert Bartholomew and Erich Goode offer the Zeitoun apparitions as a prominent case of mass delusion.“It appears that the Marian observers were predisposed by religious background and social expectation to interpreting the light displays as related to the Virgin Mary." It is entirely appropriate to provide quotes from eminent sociologists who have researched this phenomenon. Again, I don't know what your problem is. If you are a sociologist yourself, want to review their paper and criticise it, you are most welcome. Otherwise, can I respectfully suggest that an unqualified layman cannot be an arbiter on whether a paper published in a respectable journal has validity or not.

"The reports of often fanatical religious witnesses who see their favourite saints in vague and ambiguous light patterns are examples of pareidolia, a psychological phenomenon." The sentence simply gives a definition of pareidolia which is a real condition (it has a wikipedia entry). Obviously, the question of whether the audiences at Zeitoun saw anything other than light patterns is an open one. However, in a criticisms section the possibility has to be explored in light of all the other data. A criticisms section is specifically for providing alternative explanations and viewpoints.

"Canadian neuro-psychologist Michael Persinger of Laurentian University and his American colleague John Derr (1989)[9] analyzed seismic activity in the region from 1958 to 1979, and found an unprecedented peak in earthquakes during 1969. ... Earthquake lights, although as yet without a rigorous scientific explanation, have been observed in other parts of the world". Again, we are talking about experts in their field who researched this phenomenon. You are almost certainly not qualified to evaluate their work. They were specifically discussing Zeitoun in the paper from which the quote is excerpted. Earthquake lights exist. Did you watch the video? The fact that there is no rigorous explanation yet is neither here nor there. Scientists don't fully understand gravity yet either. However, it is observed to cause effects in the real world.

As you can see, I have returned the article to the state it was in before you came along. It represents the status quo. We could play this game where you keep deleting and I keep re-instating. However, this would be very childish as I'm sure you must realise. Can we please leave the article at the status quo and discuss (really discuss) any changes prior to making them? It would be much appreciated. Thank you. Danmav (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Danmav I don't understand why you feel you have to justify these sections,as I said before,if you have a problem with these edits go to an administrator until then these sections will continue to be absent.I do not desire an edit war,whereas it appears you do.Speak to an administrator if you feel what I am doing is unneccessary.The criticism does not represent the status quo,only you,as you are the one who wrote this without interference.

As regards to this youtube video.It is not reliable,I can find a video where an individual claims that the moon is made of cheese.Just out of curiosity,are you an atheist? Thank you. Sheodred (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheodred, the article had been relatively stable for months before you showed up. That should be the status quo by any reasonable standard, not what you feel it should be from your perspective as a newcomer. As I pointed out to you, the Criticisms section is for providing alternative explanations and viewpoints. You may not like them, but someone researching this topic may find these items extremely valuable. This is our task as contributors: to provide as much information as possible with as much detail as possible. Readers can then make up their own minds on the evidence. Instead you want to limit (dare I say censor) the counter-arguments to satisfy your own apparent bias. I'm wondering who died and made you king?

Let's have a look at your track record. You came here and without as much as a by-your-leave proceeded to bin several days of other people's work on the basis that you found it biased (had a POV). When push came to shove and you were asked to identify this bias all you could come up with was a single sentence written, not by me, but a quote from a newspaper journalist! So much for bias. The rest of your concerns (unrelated to bias) I have addressed. I have explained in detail to you why the paragraphs you are deleting belong in this section. You haven't even bothered to refute my explanations. Instead your stance seems to be "I am right, and you are wrong". This is simply childish. If you can't formulate counter-arguments, then you have no case.

The youtube video you refer to is also linked within the wikipedia article on Earthquake lights (along with many others). No-one on the video is claiming anything. Instead it records an actual event. This is a real, observed phenomenon. Or have the authors of that article got it wrong too?

Instead of asking me what my belief system is (an ad hominem) can we please concentrate on the pros and cons of the writing and the material itself? It would be appreciated.

Since you refuse to further discuss your edits and insist on applying those edits unilaterally before discussion has concluded, I have no choice but to ask for this dispute to arbitrated by an administrator. Danmav (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I gve my reasons and you know yourself and as others can see that I did not just use the newspaper quotation as an example,yes it was inappropiate of me to ask your beliefs,however along with the Earthquake Lights don't you find it absurd and inappropiate of contradicting a phenomenon with another phenomenon.I will have to revert the criticism again,seeming as you have not trimmed the deleted sections so it does not come across as POV.Regards.78.16.11.81 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Sheodred (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheodred, I really can't believe your attitude. You came to a very stable article (over many months) and yet you insist that the deletes you made only a few days ago must represent the status quo. No argument, no discussion. I don't see the logic and it is unbelievably arrogant of you. Yes, you gave your reasons for deleting significant pieces of information and I immediately responded with counter-reasons why they should stay. The only response from you now is silence. More of "I'm right and you are wrong". The mission statement of wikipedia is to provide information. You seem to be setting yourself up as judge and jury about what information people are allowed to see. This is an incredible attitude on your part.

I have no idea of what you mean by "contradicting a phenomenon with another phenomenon". We are talking about possible explanations for the same phenomenon - the observation of luminous 'objects' above the church. It is absolutely valid to point out the work of experts who have arrived at the conclusion that what was observed can be explained by natural events. This has to be pointed out in a criticisms section. What is your problem?

You keep talking about POV but I have seen no real argument other than this is your personal opinion. When I asked you to elaborate, all you could find was one quotation not written by me but by a journalist! You have no case unless you can be more specific. I need you to present some actual arguments rather than a fuzzy "this is POV". Have you read the POV guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view ? Again, I ask you to identify the pieces of text that violate the POV policy of wikipedia and specify the violation in detail.

As to your threat that you will make further 'edits' to remove POV, I find such a comment absurd. When did you give me notice that I had to make changes? You have yet to identify any actual POV! I'm not sure that you know what it means. What I see is someone who doesn't like contrary evidence and wants to eliminate it. Furthermore you cannot lucidly explain the reasons for your actions. What you are doing is against the spirit of wikipedia. You are not discussing, you are simply insisting on having your way. Danmav (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have elaborated on the POV material here,one example I have mentioned previously,which I will use again,is that you used a quotation from a journalist to try and reinforce a perspective,it would be like using a quote from Mein Kampf to back up a point,for example,how all the Jews are evil,which I am sure we all know is racist and an example of Hitler's xenophobia,but that is not what is being discussed here.Just because it was a quotation from a journalist,does not mean he is correct,we all know that journalists like to put their own opinions across (by the way I am sure you know it against wikipedian rules,to use your own quotations).Regarding your defense of using "Earthquake Lights",an inexplicable phenomenon,as I have mentioned before, to debunk another phenomenon is a bit absurd.Also I am not "simply insisting on having my way",if that was so I wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.What I am doing is enforcing the neutraility of wikipedia,which does not go against the spirit of wikipedia.The credible and non POV points remain in the criticism section.If the problem was with me an administrator would have rectified this already.Thank youSheodred (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheodred, I asked you to list your POV problems and relate them back with specificity to the wikipedia policy on POV that I helpfully provided. You have failed to do so. Your credibility is now zero. You are sounding more irrational with each post you make. I won't comment on your Godwin's law faux pas except to say, please don't insult my intelligence with such nonsense.

The quotation from Thomas Brady that you have a bee in your bonnet about is quite innocuous. I really don't understand your problem. The newspaper article itself is posted in its entirety on www.zeitun-eg.org, a site that is dedicated to the apparition. They obviously don't have any issue with it. Let me try one more time to make you understand. The journalist was on the scene and faithfully recorded what he encountered, ie. repeated but somewhat contradictory reports of appearances. There is nothing that is POV about such a statement. It is entirely factual. No opinion is expressed. We are talking about a trained journalist after all, who has to pass copy with his editor. (I have no idea what you mean about using my quotations. Are you under the impression that I am Thomas Brady?).

Since you still refuse to understand my position on Earthquake lights, I will have to ask a few questions. Did you check the wiki article on the lights? Do you believe all the evidence (including the many videos) is fake? If so, then you should take up this issue with the authors of that article. If not, and you accept the undeniable evidence that earthquake lights are a real phenomenon, then I fail to see why they can't be put forward as a possible explanation for what was observed at Zeitoun. Experts have reached this conclusion. You are not an expert. Either way, you have a problem. All I see is someone who wants to censor information from public view. What exactly are you afraid of? Wikipedia is about providing information, not deleting it, which seems to be your only contribution to this article so far.

Your talk of "enforcing the neutrality of Wikipedia" is nonsense. Your real mission is to remove any hint of a natural explanation for the phenomenon. Let me put it to you that the latter should be the default position on an encyclopedia. You seem to want a supernatural explanation to reign supreme despite the lack of any concrete evidence.

The most laughable thing you have written so far is your comment about wikipedia 'administrators'. There is no such thing as far as I know. Work is done on a voluntary basis and there are obviously more experienced (and privileged) editors around. Do you really think that there is someone monitoring the millions of articles in the wiki? Please. Vandalism such as your deletion of an entire section can often be detected by bots. However, usually a problem has to be brought to the attention of a senior editor. I have asked for a third opinion since you are obviously not amenable to reason. At the moment, I am waiting patiently for that to happen. Danmav (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have explained already,you seem to be the one with the problem,or "bee in the bonnet",not me sir.Now you have resorted to personal insults and ranting.That is unacceptable.There are administrators here for your information,I suggest you check.Sheodred (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sheodred, we got our third opinion. What say you? An apology would be nice. Danmav (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently this article suffers from the lack of reliable sources. Also there are some original research issues. I'd say major clean-up/rewrite is required to bring it up to the standards. Guys, please also keep in mind Comment on content, not on the contributor policy. M0RD00R (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The criticism article is much better thank you Mordoor.It lacks POV and neutrality issues.Which is what I had a problem with,in the first place.Well written.By the way Danmav,you are seeking an apology?For what exactly?You violated procedures,and made personal attacks on me,without any substance.If anyone was to to apologise it would be you sir,not me.Some advice,stop trolling.It will only earn you a suspension or ban.My regards.Sheodred (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Photos

What about the photos you can find on Google? Could those be fake? If not, then the aspect that only a few light shapes were visible, mentioned in the criticism section, is actually untenable from my view.--77.180.221.153 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If these photos are real, they would be sort of a proof that God does exist, wouldn't they?--77.180.210.141 (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed!!--77.180.187.63 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

One could add those to the article if they're not copyrighted.--Der Spion (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of these so-called photos are obvious fakes. The most common one of the 'apparition' hovering in front of the church is an acknowledged drawing. In fact, there are only a handful of actual photographs in existence and they were taken by a single person. (Surprising when millions are supposed to have witnessed the apparition). These photos show nothing more than vague blobs of light. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you know all real photos were taken by only one person?--Der Spion (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the material provided in the links. The only photographer I know of who had photos published in newspapers at the time was Mr. Wagih Rizk. His collection of photos are archived here: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/mrwagihr.htm

Oh, here is the link for the 'true photo' that is actually a drawing: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitun2002/cwdata/zeitun200212.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.156.51 (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you include it?--Der Spion (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The drawing? It is not appropriate for many reasons, copyright being the main one. Also a drawing/painting isn't relevant as evidence for the apparition. Finally, there is already a link to the zeitun-eg.org web-site on the main page for anyone to follow and see this (and other) images. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

How come there were taken so few photographs? That can't be true... There mst be others somewhere!--Der Spion (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with most of the photos, they mostly appear to be possibly unedited, however the one labeled "photo for facial features depicting the apparition" appears rather doctored in my opinion, and stands out from the others as fake-looking; it looks like a drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbeSeverinsen (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism of Tectonic strain

I think your reversion of the edit is a mistake. Any criticism of Persinger's work belongs under his article, not on an article that refers to him and deals with only one aspect of his research, the tectonic strain theory (TST). In fact the bulk of the criticism in question isn't in the article on Persinger at all. It is fairly general in nature and makes reference to a 'God helmet' which has nothing to do with the Zeitoun apparition. The paragraph simply doesn't belong. More specifically:

1. The citation for Persinger's 'claims' (note the evocative language) "being widely dismissed" is not to a scholarly work but to a book written by a barrister! Hardly a refutation to a serious researcher.
2. "Not been independently replicated" cites to a research on building a haunted house - no relation to tectonic strain research (as stated in the abstract of the paper). How can you independently replicate tectonic strain?
3. The reference to the 'God helmet' is irrelevant as far as I can determine - again no relation to tectonic strain theory.

In summary, the place to argue any failings in Persinger's research is in the article on Persinger. To the contrary, under the "Tectonic Strain Theory" section of his article, I see qualified support from other researchers such as Devereaux and Rutowski. No real criticism apart from a similar edit made by the same person who edited the Zeitoun article. There is certainly no case made there that Persinger's theory is "widely disputed". 60.242.156.51 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Wired for God is a recent, popular science book. The author is a writer, theologian and (yes) barrister. He references Rutowski's arguments as an example of the "icy reception" that TST has received. "Widely dismissed" perhaps oversteps the mark, simply because Persinger's theories are not "widely known".

2) The haunted house project aimed to use Persinger's theories to create a haunted space. It is as close as you can get to an attempt to replicate the unreplicable.

3) The failure of other groups to replicate Persinger's findings regarding his other (closely-related) theories is highly significant. Famousdog (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.

1) A popular science book (if that is what it is) is not a scholarly reference. It is far below the peer-reviewed published paper standard that an encyclopedia should be aiming for. We can always find a published book that supports or opposes a particular position. It doesn't make it suitable for citation on its own, especially as the author is a non-scientist.

2) The tectonic strain theory was supported by a statistical study. In terms of research, it stands on its own. Persinger then looked for possible explanations such as piezo-electric and electro-magnetic effects. The failure of one experiment to test the latter has nothing to do with the former. A case has been made for a correlation of light phenomena with tectonic strain although the mechanism has not been identified yet. The Zeitoun article only talks about the tectonic strain theory itself. That statistical study is good science and has not been refuted.

3) You are incorrect. A researcher being possibly wrong in one area (negative experiments are not conclusive) does not automatically cast aspersions on his other work. Even if it did, the article on the Zeitoun apparition is not the place to discuss it.

I repeat: Any criticism of Persinger's TST belongs in that section of his own article. Talk of a 'God helmet' is totally inappropriate under Zeitoun. It just hangs there out of context.
Since it appears that we can't agree, can we please get a third opinion? 60.242.156.51 (talk) 00:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to read Wikipedia's guidelines on what is an acceptable source. You also place too much credence in Persinger's research. I think he is misguided and a poor scientist. If you have a problem with the edits I made, then change them. That is how WP works. Stop trying to convince me here. Edit the article as you see fit. I will edit it as I see fit. Also, please get a user account and stop editing anonymously. Famousdog (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user 60.242.156.51, I'm amazed that you've argued so ferociously about my including peer-reviewed criticisms of Persinger's work and a recently published popular science book that dismisses his theories, while you seem to think its okay to replace all that with a UFO magazine article from 1986. This is a joke, right? Famousdog (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No joke. Unlike the book, the article is accessible online and quite easy to read. I perused it very carefully and it provides a balanced summary of the debate on TST with good references to the literature. It was more than enough to balance the ledger in this section of the article and that was the only aim.

So, after inviting me to make a sensible change to the article, you go ahead and hack it again, putting back the same irrelevant asides about Persinger. That's about par for the course with WP and why I don't make many edits here. Reasoned arguments don't matter; anarchy rules, or more correctly force of will rules. I don't much care any more but I've copied this conversation to the talk page of the article itself for posterity.

As regards your comment "Persinger's theories are all interrelated and if one fails, they all do", it is simply too ludicrous for words. I guess when Einstein got it wrong with the cosmological constant, then all his theories on relativity failed. Absurd. I would also point out the hypocrisy of the comment you made here:

"As far as I can tell, he makes a living selling books (books are not peer-reviewed scientific sources) ..."

and then re-instating the reference to a book of 'popular science' by a non-scientist. So it goes ... 60.242.156.51 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anon, an article's being "easy to read" is absolutely no reason to prefer it over any other source. You might think that article "balanced", but it is also quarter of a century out of date. Persinger's theories (which, I respectfully disagree, are all basically the same theory) have recently come under fire in the peer-reviewed scientific press. This is significant information and definitely does belong here. I removed the reference to the "God helmet" from the article text, in deference to your comments, but many of the criticisms in the Granqvist "God helmet" paper (and the "haunt" project paper) apply to TST theory as well. Although it is prefereable if sources are available online, there is no requirement for them to be online. The comments are sourced. Finally, please format your comments correctly, and if you object to the "anarchy" of WP, perhaps you could try getting a WP account, so we can identify you better. Famousdog (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Famousdog (whoever you are), as I said I don't much care any more. You have missed the point entirely. This article on the Zeitoun apparition is basically a historical piece. It is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of Persinger's theory. The place to discuss that would be under Persinger's entry also here Michael Persinger on WP. If Persinger's TST is referenced twenty times in other WP articles, just from an efficiency point of view, it would make sense to document the efficacy of his theory in one place - the correct place - his entry. This is what you can't seem to grasp.

My point here is that Persinger's TST is one natural explanation which has been put forward for the Zeitoun phenomenon. It doesn't matter if the TST is completely debunked now or in the future. The fact that the TST was put forward as an explanation should remain in the record. It is history. If someone reading the article is interested, they can follow up by clicking on the Persinger link and researching further. As it should be.

What we have now is a short text and quotation for Persinger's TST with a single reference (No. 8). As a counterpoint, there are now five, count them, five references (Nos. 9,10,11,12 & 13) offered in rebuttal. That's six references out of thirteen total for the whole piece. This article, which is supposed to be about the Zeitoun apparition, has been turned into a circus all about Persinger. The article is now cluttered with irrelevant references and lacks focus and balance. I'm not sure why you can't see this. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You care enough to respond. Famousdog (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no counter to the arguments made, focus has been restored to the article as discussed. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have stated my position above and my refusal to argue further with you is no reason to revert my edits. You have stated above that you "don't much care any more". Well, you care enough to argue against me here and revert my edits to the article (be warned that you will soon be in breach of WP:3RR). Basically you are demonstrating unreasonable ownership issues. This is not YOUR article. YOU think it is "basically a historical piece." YOU think "it is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of Persinger's theory." YOU think that "the place to discuss that would be under Persinger's entry." I disagree. If you want to mention TST in this article, you must include at least a small disclaimer (and within the context of the text of the article, my edits are VERY small) that shows that TST has been (rightly) criticised, and Persinger's other (I again beg to differ, closely related) experimental work regarding apparitions, "presences", alien abductions and the like HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY REPLICATED. You say that "it doesn't matter if TST is completely debunked now or in the future." Are you NUTS? It "doesn't matter" if a theory is debunked? We shouldn't bother mentioning that fact in articles that refer to it as a potential explanation for unusual events? Your argument that the number of citations on the TST aspect turns the article into a "circus" is ridiculous, but if it disturbs you, how about you add some more references regarding the apparition itself? Famousdog (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of your shouting and threats I have asked for a third opinion on the question of debating the validity of Persinger's theory on TST within this article rather than the entry on Persinger himself. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouting? You mean the way that I use capitals or italics to emphasise what I believe are important points? Threats? You mean pointing out that you are almost in breach of WP's policies? Please. I think that a third opinion will be useful here. Famousdog (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

3O

Hi, I saw this on the third opinion page. I must confess that I was rather surprised to find TST on a page about a Marian apparition! There is what appears to be a WP:RS in terms of Persinger's article, but it strikes me as being much more about TST than Zeitoun. So while I think there is a case to include it in some way, I would think that a simple sentence would suffice - something along the lines of "The Zeitoun apparition has been investigated as being a possible example of the tectonic strain theory." I don't think that it would be appropriate to include anything beyond such a brief mention, and certainly not getting into the theory behind TST - that's what the links are for, if a reader is interested they'll follow it up further. As the article stands I think the TST and Persinger material are given undue WP:WEIGHT - nearly 30% of the article is about something barely relevant to the actual article. I would include a link to Persinger's page in the See Also section, however. MissionNPOVible (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. This sounds eminently reasonable. I will make that change. 60.242.156.51 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. I simply objected to the fact that Persinger's theory was outlined in some detail, while there was no critical material to balance it out. Famousdog (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Official Approval of this Apparitions

"The appariton has appeared during different nights and is still appearing in varying forms: Sometimes in complete body and others in half, always surrounded by a white glittering halo appearing either from the dome openings or from the space between the domes on which She used to move and march and bow before the cross on the church roof, giving it a magnificent light. She used also to face multitudes of people in front of the church, and bless them with Her hands and with nods from Her blessed head.

...

"The Papal Residence, by issuing this statement, declares with complete faith and great rejoice and with gratitude submitted through self-humiliation to Almighty God that the Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared several times in clear and steady forms during many different nights for varying periods, that reached in some of them to more than two hours continually, since the second of April 1968 up to now in the Coptic Orthodox Church in Zeitun, Cairo, that is in Mataria Road through which the Holy Family had passed during their settlement in Egypt as well-known historically.

From THE PAPAL STATEMENT.

Bishop Grigorius. ST. MARY’S TRANSFIGURATIONS (The Coptic Orthodox Church of Zeitun). — Cairo: Dar Memphis Press, 1968. pp.16-18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlix (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo Added To Article Is Probably A Fake

The www.stmaryztn.org web site, the official web site, says that the picture was taken by a Mr. Fawzi Mansour (an architectural engineer who lived in Heliopolis, Egypt) on April 9, 1968. However, Pearl Zaki's book of 1977 states that the first pictures were not taken until April 13 by someone else, so there is a major disagreement there. It is widely accepted that the first photos which appeared in newspapers came from Mr Wagih Rizk (referred to as Wagih Risk Matta in the book). Most of his dozen or so photos are just blobs of light. What are the chances that someone else took one photo which is so distinct?

The web provides no information about the chronology of the alleged photo by Mansour. It looks suspicious given the light and shadow discrepancies evident on the top of the church. The shining apparition seems to be standing in front of the cross and yet the cross is as dark as the building below. Are there any photographic experts who might be able to comment on the veracity of this 'photo'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.156.51 (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that very useful information. I have edited the photo caption to reflect the fact that this is almost certainly faked, but it's still useful to have an illustration of what witnesses claim to have seen! Famousdog (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The official website http://www.stmaryztn.org/saintmary/en/apparition/apparition-photos/real-photos states that Ali Ibrahim took the famous photo declared as real of the Virgin hovering over the church in good exposure. Why has this photograph not been added with mention to Ali Ibrahim as this is the official church site. Secondly the title Photo Added To Article Is Pobably A Fake is POV and should be removed. Are POV titles allowed in TALK. And lastly you have distorted in talk the actual declared real photo by Ali Ibrahim in the official site by some unoffoficial blog site which shows A poor quality fake copy of Ali Ibrahims photograph stating it is a drawing by an unsourced unreliable website stating a doctor drew it from memory when you can clearly see whoever added that stole the image from the official site and infringed on the copyright of Ali Ibrahim. The Ali Ibrahim official website photograph declared as real is most important to the article and I ask for the consesus here to include a photo of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.165 (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The church web-site is not a reliable source as mentioned above. The alleged "photo" in question has not been declared real. Things aren't just "declared real". It's an unsubstantiated assertion which is contradicted elsewhere (eg. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Zeitun?ref=Guzels.TV). There is no evidence of a photograph from Ali Ibrahim or, for that matter, any evidence that someone of this name even existed . Unless such evidence can be provided this fairly obvious painting has no business in a factual article. (Also, POV does not apply to the Talk page of an article). 60.225.194.142 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the official church site they are the closest source to the visions and would never include or declare pictures or photos to be real if fake. This article and your logic here is totally unreasonable and biased and you have actually slandered the church with your own POV by claiming Ali Ibrahims photo is a fake. I ask you to retract your comments concerning Ali Ibrahim and what you have stated about the church site or further action will be taken see you soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.255.251 (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the best laugh I've had all year. Thank you and I look forward to your "action" with much anticipation. 60.225.194.142 (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Great discussions here

I love the exchanges and edits from years ago herein. A juicy quote from the previous version: "(...) photographs(originals? from what source?) taken(when?) by Ali Ibrahim(who is he?) and verified(by who?) as actual photos from The Church website were used in March 2009 by a film maker in Australia experimenting with altering light waves on images and photos. Unseen details were revealed, the face, hand in close up and clothing of the lady in the image as well as her holding a dark haired baby (currently under scrutiny and investigation(by who?) (...)" This is the WP spirit! Zezen (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Islamic viewpoint on Mary

The idea that Nasser both was a purportedly convinced viewer of this apparition and yet indisputably engaged at times in persecution of Christians seems to be presented as a complete contradiction. If the article goes there, it should go – very lightly – into the various Islamic viewpoints on Mary (it would be presumptuous to claim to present the viewpoint on Mary) since she is venerated by Muslims as well as many Christians. This certainly doesn't need to be the main focus on the article, which is neither primarily about Nasser or Islam, but since this is mentioned, it needs to be addressed very briefly with a NPOV focus by someone both more knowledgeable and defter than myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B159:F6CB:946F:8EED:2EC9:224B (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This unsourced statement caught my eye "Moreover, persecution of Christian minorities in Egypt defies the concept that both Muslims and Christians could share the same view of Mary". As noted above, Muslims venerate Mary as do many Christians. The fundamental disagreement with Christians is not about Mary per se, but as to whether Jesus was God, and whether Mohammed was the Prophet of God. So there is no contradiction as the statement suggests. PatConolly (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous and clearly violates NPOV

Most of these Marian apparitions pages have some criticism or skeptics on it. This one used to but it has been deleted for some reason. One of the sources is literally just a christian blog, and the others are mainly christian books, with no independent sources from media outlets or other such things. I also doubt the authenticity of the photograph shown prominently, as previous have. The article should note that one o the prominent "photos" of the apparition were drawings, and that all the actual photos were taken by one person. Overall, this article is desperately in need of a "skeptical response" section and some better sources.

Jasper0333 (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jasper0333 Why aren't all photos on Wikipedia "alleged"? It's a photo like all others. I think Wikipedia has an overly skeptical bias. That's not science (which is curious, open-minded and only theoretical.) 2607:FEA8:1D5F:9EF0:602F:313E:BF82:58F5 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Wtf happened?

I'm looking through this article's history and it used to be much better. There used to be an actual section for some skeptical views of the incident and the report of a sociologist who said she saw an ambiguous glow that could kinda be seen as a nunlike shape, but if you stopped trying to see it like that it just looked like a vague glow. Secondly she saw some flashing lights which was somehow interpreted as Mary by the crowd. Also, the photo being used here is extremely suspect, as mentioned earlier. There was only a set of very blurry photographs released at the time, and one painting that looked like a photo. The idea that someone had extreme high-quality photos they released tens of years later is... spurious. No one can seem to find who exactly this mysterious Ibrahim is either. Plus the photos look very fake, and their source is a christian blog. I recommend we change the photo to one of the worse, but better sourced ones that was originally released to the papers, as it more accurately summarizes the incident. Is anyone still watching this awful article? If not, I'll make these changes myself.

Jasper0333 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I'll remove the photo. Here are the reasons why

The photo used by this wikipedia page is unfit for purpose and we should use a different one. Here's why.

1. Contradictory sourcing. As mentioned previously, this photo has been sourced to two separate people on two different dates. This obviously undermines reliability.

2. The photos themselves are extremely suspect. The cross is dark, while the rest of the building glows. The entire roof glowing was not reported by any other source. The apparition has a halo, which only appears in one other source, a drawing. The halo is extremely consistent with pieces of christian art at the time, which were developed due to greek influences, not any communication with the divine. If you look at the apparition, it also appears very suspect. Almost all pictures had it being blindingly white, with only an admitted drawing and this having this sort of extreme level of detail and also lack of brightness.

3. The leading image shouldn't be disputed in any major way, except perhaps if you include qualifiers underneath the image. Even then, many won't read it, and this discussion is too long and complex to write it down. I propose that we should find one of those indisputable but lower quality images that was placed in many newspapers. I'll be finding one and adding it to the article shortly. Any comments? Is anyone here?

Jasper0333 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit is done.

Added back the old skeptical response section and put in a new source that I found. The image has been removed for reasons previously stated, however I cannot find any other images of the event in wikimedia commons, so this article will remain without an image until we get better verification on the original (doubtful) or download a new image to wikimedia.

Jasper0333 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking a bit into the authenticity of this image, and other images from Zeitoun. This website claims that analysis of the photo "found no particular fault with the picture that would betray its authenticity, but double exposure could not be ruled out either." The source book, unfortunately, seems to be inaccessible, and is only available at three libraries in the US.

However, I have my own doubts about the photo, but I could be wrong. On the right cupola, there seems to be some sort of discrepancy between bright and dark stone arches. The line looks to be completely vertical in the photo, which is strange. Looking up photos from this perspective, I don't see a source for that sort of strange discrepancy.

This website has a copy of the same photo in significantly lower resolution, with less well-defined features. However, this probably doesn't mean anything; most of the images on that site are of similar low quality and are probably screenshots of an older documentary, though I have no way of proving this.

Votedforkang (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is still here

Added a lot of stuff. God, this is awful to dig through all these sources, so many with a blatant religious bias. Used a blog as a source, but hey, we're already using shitty religious blogs here. And the blog provides a really good summary of the whole situation, despite the author's... odd conclusions. Anyways, it's going in. No more biased than the literal copt blogs being used haha. Hope I can find a reliable photo to be used for the wikibox. Hmm.

Jasper0333 (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

READ THIS if you are new to this page

This is one of many pages about Marian apparitions. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians (Copts?) hate the "Skeptical interpretation" section and remove it every month or so, only to get instantly reverted. Annoying, but whatever. Anyways, here are some important things to know about this page:

1. Christians/Copts: Please stop removing the skeptical interpretation section. We have it for every miracle/marian apparition. Yes, Cynthia Nelson not seeing Mary doesn't mean Mary didn't appear, but it is an important piece of information, and the only one written by a skeptical eyewitness. The most important part of a miracle is critically evaluating it and considering alternative explanations.

2. The photo. I initially removed it, but there were no alternatives on wikicommons, so now it's back with an "alleged" under it. I think that's good? I'm considering changing alleged to disputed, but that might be too biased language.

3. Something to make the Christians cheer up after their failed attempts to get rid of "Skeptical Interpretation". There are more alleged miracles that haven't been added here. Namely, some hard to explain dove-like objects flying around, the shutting down of the electricity changing nothing, some miracle healings, and the supposed prophecy. Any Christians coming here to remove Skeptical Interpretation, try adding these things instead. Cynthia Nelson's report talks about the miracle healings and prophecy, while the Parasociology blog talks about the the doves. I don't remember where I read the electricity shut-off thing. Some religious site maybe? Just make sure to state that the prophecy was a rumor that was floating around, and hasn't been confirmed.

4. The Nasser sighting. I haven't looked into the sources on this, but I've heard they aren't very good. It's possible this is a later rumor. Maybe make more clear the alleged part of the alleged Nasser sighting somehow?

That's all for now. Thanks for any help, and for the love of God, stop removing Skeptical Interpretation. Jasper0333 (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)