Talk:Hubert Schiffer

Confusing
This doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all. The first half is an uncritical account of a miracle, the second a rebuttal with a small counter-rebuttal added. It's a rather confusing bit of work. I'll try to research this and improve it. Rosejpalmer 14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only does it read like a narrative, it also does not reveal anything about Father Schiffer's life/history prior to Hiroshima. More is needed for this article to meet even the barest minimum of encyclopedic standards. --TheTriumvir 01:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very happy that I find this article here. I knew his story I think that it is true. Thank You for keeping this article here in Wikipedia Michelangelo2204 (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What does someone's history have to do with what happened at Hiroshima? Perhaps this entry should be retitled "Hiroshima House left standing" or something like that. The facts are indisputable that the house was left standing when all others around it were totally destroyed, and that the men in the house survived with no radiation effects whatsoever. What is so confusing about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.123.87 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete
The article is missing some references and government documents corroborating their story would be preferred. It is simply an account as the priests/followers have documented it. However, that does not take away from the validity of the story. It's simply missing references and/or corroboration. Another way to complete the page is a real counter-argument (explanation) presented with evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the "Skepticism" comment at the end is simply an opinion, lacking substance, and offers no rebuttal whatsoever.

Neutrality and POV
Given the above concerns, and the general appearance of this being a coatrack for the miracle theory, I've added a neutrality/POV tag. 86.150.51.208 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC) visit site: http://www.sxws.com/charis/mary25.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.84.187.62 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The site you refer to no longer exists. It is a shame that, just because someone does not believe in miracles, they think that this is not a neutral entry. What makes it not neutral? Where is opinion stated rather than fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.123.87 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?
The only 2 sources offered so far for this story are obviously biased. There appears to be no documentary evidence this priest even existed; never mind evidence that he and the others 7 priests were the only people to surived in the 1km radius epicenter of the Hiroshima blast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.77.98 (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible additional sources
Eyewitness testimony of Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosphy at Tokyo's Catholic University, recorded by Yale Law Library Testimony

A (biased) blog post which has some photos and references to details not mentioned elsewhere in this wiki article: A Divine Miracle for Skeptics Who Do Not Believe in Miracles

Photo clipping from AP Wire Photo 12 years after the bomb dropped: AP Wire Photo

Another biased site which has the names of some of the other Jesuit priests involved More names, some details


 * 1) Father Hugo Lassalle, S.J. [b. in Germany in 1898 - d. 1990] Superior of the Rectory and Church
 * 2) Father Wilhelm Kleinsorge, S.J. [b. in Germany in 1907  - d. on November 17, 1977]
 * 3) Father Wilhelm Kleinsorge, S.J.
 * 4) Father Hubert Cieslik, S.J.
 * 5) Father Hubert Schiffer, S.J. [b. in Germany c. 1915 - d. ??]

Another section on that same site: More names, more details #2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.79.31 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A first-person account from Schiffer can be found in the January 1951 issue of The American Legion Magazine here. I'll find some time to update the article from this source. He was certainly injured (by his own description) more seriously than the current page text indicates. Dmoore5556 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * biased how, please explain because "biased" is not enough as a comment. It should it explained how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Miracle or rationality?
How to explain it rationally?