Talk:Our Lady of Soufanieh

{ailyn puasa| date = 13 September 1984 (UTC) | result = no consensus | page = Our Lady of Soufanieh }}

References in other languages
This article is fully referenced. In addition to two references in French and one in German, two in English - one book and one film - are provided. The advancement of knowledge would be greatly impeded, and scientific culture greatly impoverished, if only references in one language were allowed. No peer-reviewed journal in the world would impose the rule that only references in the journal's own language are allowed. Guardaiinalto (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment above. That is not how English Wikipedia works. History2007 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliability, Notability, and Language barriers
Studies and research may all be found on one website, but that does not mean that that website follows under “I am my own source.” The website itself did not produce the information; it only collaborates it. The medical documentation, videorecordings, and etcetera came from various locations and various individuals, though compiled on soufanieh.com. This does not deny the fact that the interviewed doctors said what they said, or deny that the medical documentation is indeed reliable medical documentation. Compiling data all onto one website does not negate the accuracy or authenticity of the data that it holds, especially in this case where you are enabled to see the original medical documentation and otherwise for yourself (although not all of it is in English). We should remove the flag that this article is insufficiently cited. Before this assertion can be fully understood, I see that it may be necessary for me to break down soufanieh.com into it's core components with direct references to the original medical documentation and testimonies of the doctors. I will post a summary of this on the main article page as well, since it is evidently necessary for me to do so. The following seven doctors: Dr. Goran Salerud, PhD, Professor of Biomedical Technology, Institute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Linkøping, Sweden, Dr. Oivind Ekeberg, MD, PhD,  Professor of Behavioral  Sciences in medicine, Medical faculty, University of Oslo, Norway, Dr. Knut Kvernebo, MD, PhD, Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Medical Faculty, University of Oslo, Norway, Dr. Ekeberg Øivind, MD,  Professor of medical behavior science, University of Oslo, Norway, Dr. Häggblad Erik, PhD. student in medical technology, Linkøping University, Sweden, Dr. Kvernebo Anne Kari, Medical student, University of Lund, Sweden, and Dr. Salerud, Gøran, Professor of Medical Technology, Linkøping University, Sweden-- --did studies on Myrna Nazzor and concluded that her stigmatic conditions were not the result of erythromelalgia. With the condition of erythromelalgia, affected patients have red, warm and painful hands or feet, and may develop skin ulcers. In this condition the key mechanism in the pathogenesis is micro vascular arteriovenous shunting of skin blood flow, creating a condition where there is high levels of blood flow, but the affected skin is still hypoxic. This was also studied by a Scandinavian medical team.

Furthermore, we have the medical/scientific reports and testimonies of: Dr. Pierre Salam re- Mme Alice Benlian, documenting medically inexplicable recovery. Again, in another inexplicable cure testimony of video format. Dr. Youssef Massamiri, Doctorat d'État es-sciences Pharmaceutique, testing her blood. Another testimony, in video format. Drs. Michael Obeid and Otto Seidel Str, who tested her oil in a German laboratory. Doctors in a laboratory of Syria; another test of the oil. Dr. Georges Mounayer, in video format. Again, two days later, in text format. Again, on November 11th, 1993. Dr. Addoumie R, a radiologist. Dr. Sawwaf. Drs. Geneviève & Jean-Claude Antakly. Dr. Gamil Margi, who gave her physiological tests during an ecstasy and could not detect any trace of hypnosis or hysteria, regarding Myrna. Again, in video format. Dr. George Iskandar, testifying to her corporeal olive oil profusions. Dr. Lawrence Segel. Dr. Cato Mork, dematologist, also participated in the documentation of Mrs. Nazzour's 2004 stigmata and ecstasy, during which samples of her corporeal oil profusion were taken. Dr. Philippe Loron, neurologist, who analyzed her stigmata and testified to their spontaneous eruption as well as that they healed completely, on their own, without even a crust, in less than 7 hours after eruption. Again, including a full testimony. He also tested the oil that came from Mrs. Nazzour's skin in a French laboratory. He also made comments about her 2001 stigmata and ecstasy, as well as another summary of events and testimonial. Dr. Loron also participated in a television interview testifying to these events. Dr. Loron published a book with his findings: Constat Médical et Analyse Scientifique des événements de Soufanieh. Dr. Bibianne de la Rocque, an expert psychologist at the Institute of Psychology at the University of Paris, who testified that Myrna Nazzour was not faking, as per what he saw of the natural countenance and natural emotions that she expressed. She was video-recorded throughout her experience. Of his many statements, he stated that: “Tn the same atmosphere of lack of exhibitionistic behavior, I noticed Myrna its reservation in simplicity.” He drafted a full report of Mrs. Nazzour's behavior. Dr. Antoine Mansour, UCLA physician, provided testimony handwritten and in text. Also, on Australian television, he made testimony. On video, he also discussed the stigmata and the 100% pure nature of olive oil. Dr. Antoine Mansour also provided testimony in video special published by Fox Television; yes, when she came to California, this story did get American television coverage. User:History2007, I do not understand how you came to the conclusion of defining this as lacking “notability;” unless you give that term a very constrained definition. Aside from being on Fox Television, there was an arabic article in a Canadian newspaper - Al Moustakbal (The Future) reporting about these events. It was also reported about by the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. Also, Mrs. Nazzour's experiences were part of a television documentary, “Living Miracles.” Canadian television also produced a documentary. Italian television discussed it in a talk show, “Miracolo.” The list goes on, but I think you get the picture. These collectively makes this story far from lacking in notability. Either User:History2007 was misinformed or did not do enough searching when in concluded that this story does not have enough coverage to be deemed “notable.” In addition to that, there are thousands of testimonials from bishops, priests, and ordinary citizens... but I am positive that many skeptics would simply see that part as an empty cup, despite the fact that those would hold weight in the court of law. She traveled to over 20 countries, testifying as well as showing the masses her miraculous corporeal oil profusions. For those complaining about a language barrier: most web browsers can translate web pages for you. I suggest you utilize that functionality or hire a translator for those pages that you wish to read from which have only graphic images of the documents. There is more than enough information in English, or easily translatable to English through your web browser, to enable this page's existence on English Wikipedia. And aside from all this, there are countless see-it-for-yourself-videos, portraying her whole experience. This is far more documented than many other posts that reach the Wikipedia public, especially with regards to those posts of spiritual nature. Yet people have the nerve to say that story is poorly documented; that it lacks sufficient verifiability, reliability, and notability? Do not shame this article with such faulty assertions just because you predispose yourself to the belief that this story is false, or just because other similar stories are sometimes false. The documentation speaks for itself, and at the least provides sufficiency for this article's peaceful existence on Wikipedia. None of any those aforementioned doctors or people are affiliated with soufaneih.com except by virtue of their documentation of this story. You cannot honestly disregard all of the above very simplistically only because soufanieh.com chose to compile it. I'll repeat: we should remove the flag that this article is insufficiently cited. Wikipedians, let me know your perspective, before I move to make that reality. COice6 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there a link that confirms that she has been elected as pope yet? That seems to be the only thing not claimed here. And you add 20 references but they all come from the same website, and hence fail WP:RS. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and WP:CALM. Wikipedia does not work based on "see if for yourself" analysis. It works based on WP:RS. If this is for real, will show up in L'Osservatore Romano soon, no worries. Until then.... History2007 (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, you should probably read this. There were 60 people swearing that they saw the miracle, and the local bishop said that he himself had seen it weep. But then it all turned out to be fake afterwards... So time will tell... History2007 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How is that article related to this Our Lady of Soufanieh article? Various specialists, including psychologists who articulated her behavior and temperament, tested everything and found the absence of any trickery.  The saw her hands, forehead, and side burst open bleeding right before their eyes, and the wounds heal completely without a scar or scab, just hours later.  They testified to this and determined no scientific explanation.  Furthermore, various individuals videotaped her for hours on end, on and off over the course of 22 years.  Is it wrong for there to be a wikipedia page that illustrates the extensive studies of these scientists and their expert testimony?

User:History2007 claims that this article lends “undue” weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. How does this article lend “undue” weight? Is there any omitted contradictory testimony or contradictory evidence that exists for this particular story? There is research of roughly two dozen scientists indicating that the events of this particular article were scientifically inexplicable. Anyone is free to say that all of these scientists are wrong, but don't say that their extensive analysis provides “undue” weight for their collective conclusion that her case is scientifically inexplicable. It cannot be defined as “undue” simply because you disagree. And at any rate, this article does not asking anyone to believe that the events that transpired were truly miraculous. It only illustrates, in great detail, that the events were scientifically inexplicable. With respect to fulfilling the requirements for wikipedia posts, this article passes. It provides the heavy scientific documentation and studies of roughly two dozen independent scientists--which you can even review for yourself--granting it verifiability. The doctors are the independent contributors of data, who, before soufaneih.com even existed, conducted their own original research. The doctors did the studies themselves, not soufanieh.com, so the references to their work which happens to be found on soufaneih.com do not void this article's reliability. As I said, soufanieh only compiled this information. How would this be any different than having the same documents and testimony dispersed across twenty different websites? The doctor's documentation, testimonials, and analysis are are the same, whether found on soufanieh.com or any other website. As I said, if anyone wishes to review their research for themselves, they even have direct online access to the doctors' independent reports by viewing the referenced links. The article is reliable in the information it provides, and the article is verifiable. COice6 (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello? References 7-74 come from the website for Soufanieh. So you have 67 references from a self published website. That is undue weight to a non-WP:RS source. As I said above, and as the Wiki-policy pages mentioned above state: Wikipedia does not work on a "see for yourself" basis. You should read WP:RS and WP:V again - maybe a few times ... Then you may not repeat the same argument that goes against Wiki-policies again. History2007 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading WP:RS, it states that "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The referenced work is not produced by soufaneih.com, though it is published by that website.  The referenced work is produced by roughly two dozen established experts--doctorate professors of their fields of study--whose works have been published by reliable third-party publications (unless you want to make the argument that those universities where they work are unreliable third-party publishers). Thus, the references to the studies and works that they have produced--some of which happen to be found on soufanieh.com--are reliable. COice6 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not the case here, and of course having over 60 of them is clearly over weight anyway. These so called experts have not published material on this topic in Nature. But I have a feeling that there is so much WP:COI here that we are not going to get very far. Look at this "reference" you have. It is a copy of a letter on the Soufanieh website. I can typeset that to be a letter from Elvis Presley in 10 minutes. Give me a break... This is a self-published unreliable reference. This is what you need to do:


 * Call Dr Iskandar
 * Ask him to publish his findings in The Lancet or The New England Journal of Medicine
 * Then bring the reference, and it will be WP:RS

Enough is enough... Just give up. This letter is laughable.... History2007 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I placed references for both their research as well as their testimonies. What you have there is a copy of his testimony.  If you have serious doubts as to its authenticity you can either call him, or I can remove it. He is only one referenced testimony  of over a dozen.

WP:RS does not require that they have published on this particular topic in Nature or other journal/magazine. It requires that they, in general, have published work in the relevant field of the work that they have produced for this topic. And this is satisfied for all of the doctors from which I presented scientific/medical analysis. I am not making testimony equivalent to scientific/medical analysis and I am sure that is clear to most people reading this article. If you want I can separate the testimony from scientific/medical analysis if it is confusing for you. The numerous scientific/medical analyses that are extensively referenced stand reliable, since the producers of the works have previously-published work in the relevant fields as University professors of that field. COice6 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your repeated POV-pushing of that website, and your representing it as WP:RS. That website is not WP:RS and the material subject to WP:UNDUE. Your statement that "you can call him..." to verify his letter just shows you still have not understood Wiki-policies. Enough.... History2007 (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And let me conclude this never ending discussion by reminding you (assuming you have read WP:V now) that: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. You have made a large number of exceptional exclaims (alluding that they are scientific!) and provided no exceptional sources, except a self-published, who knows where it came from, website which is clearly, clearly subject to WP:COI. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to assert that the work produced by doctorate university professors is not reliable, then you might want to go to WP:RS and edit Wikipedia's policy which I quoted regarding reliability. What exceptional claims have I made? The only thing that I have said is that each and every of the doctors failed to find a scientific/medical explanation for her case.  How is this one claim "a large number," and how is it "exceptional?"  Also, can you elaborate as to how I am presenting "undue" weight for this claim, granted that it is the same conclusion of every doctor who studied her case (giving it position as the majority opinion)?  The fact that you disagree with it, or the fact that other cases of similar phenomenon were found scientifically explicable (people stabbing themselves and then claiming stigmata, etc), does not deny the elaborate studying and medical/scientific consensus of scientific inexplicability reached for this particular case, which this article explains in great detail. This scientific consensus does not make the conclusion a minority opinion, nor does it provide "undue" weight granted that there was no alternate contradicting opinion, out of all the people who studied her extensively over the course of 22 years.  This individually-ascertained conclusion is the product of reliable and respectable doctors who happened to reach consensus; it is not a conclusion inappropriately granted "undue" weight. COice6 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The existence of ongoing extraordinary, supernatural events without mainstream publication support, as claimed here is an "exceptional claim". Period. History2007 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that the doctors concluded that the events are supernatural, I claimed that the doctors concluded that the events were scientifically inexplicable, and provided their research that supports that conclusion. If you wish to interpret that as stating that the events were supernatural, that is up to your own interpretation.  Allow all Wikipedians to interpret this as they wish, but do not shame the research and dignity of the doctors by claiming that they are unreliable producers of scientific/medical data. COice6 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, do any other Wikipedians have any further input? COice6 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The very claim that the highly unusual events took place is an exceptional claim. Period. History2007 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are stretching the definition of "exceptional" in attempts to include a simple conclusion that: as per the extensive studies done by reliable experts, they could not find scientific explanation for their observations. If you want, we can see if any administrator would agree with you that: the failure of an expert to find a scientific explanation for an observation is the equivalent of making an exceptional claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by COice6 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC) COice6 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You do not have mainstream sources. You claim unusual events. That is exceptional. Period. And again, if you read Wiki-policies you will see that administrators do not discuss "content" but policy breaches. This is a content discussion. History2007 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No; this is a policy issue, which is the source of reason for your Wikitags. This is a policy issue regarding the definition of "exceptional claims."  The failure of a scientist to find an explanation for an observation is not an "exceptional claim," regardless of how you try to twist it.  I am sure that any Wikipedia administrator will agree that I am not failing Wikipedia policy guidelines by my references to the works that reliable experts have produced, and my plain statements of their conclusions.  I wish for the removal of your Wikitags, and will request the opinion of an administrator as to whether I am indeed failing Wikipedia policy.  If any other Wikipedians have a perspective, now would be the time to express it. COice6 (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can, of course, do what you like. This was the suitable method, given that this is a WP:RS issue. History2007 (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In essence, you are attempting to censor the work of these doctorate professors. After doing all of their studies, if the experts concluded that they were able to find a scientific explanation (Oh, she's stabbing herself! Oh, she just has erythromelalgia!) for their observations, you would gladly allow that information to be added to this Wikipedia article.  But yet if they simply conclude that they were not able to find a scientific explanation for their observations, you suddenly assert that their work and conclusions are breaking Wikipedia's policies.  In essence, you are attempting to censor their work. COice6 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Everytime there is a less than WP:RS source... the word that comes up is that one... History2007 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just realized that the whole "exceptional claims" thing is completely irrelevant. I am not asserting any claims. I am simply stating the results of their research. I am not taking those results any further to make any claims.  Stating the results of a study is distinct from asserting any claims.  If, in this article, I were to assert something such as "stigmatas are an act of God," that would be making a claim.  Stating that each scientists failed to find an scientific explanation as per their studies, is only stating the results of their studies.  Results of studies can be turned around and used to make claims, but I have not done that.  There is no problem with simply stating the individual results of each of their studies.  In this way I am not making a claim at all--exceptional or not--and I am not breaching Wikipedia policy. COice6 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. If you say the research of Mr X said "the earth is flat and is made of plastic", you are still making an exceptional claim, else there will never be any exceptional claims in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. X just made a claim about the general structure of the Earth. Mr. X went beyond the specific results of his particular studies to make a claim that goes beyond his research.  Let me clarify. Mr. X did some studies, presumably on a sample of the earth.  He did not study the whole earth and every aspect of the earth, so he cannot necessarily take the results of those samples and extend that to make claim about Earth as a whole, Earth in general. But that's exactly what he did, and we have no way of knowing how representative those samples really were.  He took the results from those sample studies and went further to make a claim about a general concept--the structure of the earth. I have not done that.  I stopped at the results of the study.  I did not extend it to any general concept that already has a prevailing opinion.  I left it to the very specific case of Myrna Nazzour (and not stigmatics in general), and only to the extent that each researcher identified conclusively, as per the limits of their knowledge in their fields of science.  For specific example, I explained that seven professors of medicine did studies to test whether Myrna Nazzour had erythromelalgia.  Due to their positions as established medical professors, we can trust the reliability of their studies; we can trust that, if she has erythromelalgia, they would be able to find it.  This is not to say that they are perfect, however, but that they are reasonably relaible.  I then explained that the doctors, after all their studies, found that Myrna Nazzour did not have erythromelalgia.  This is not making any exceptional claim.  This is a simple statement of results that does not extend to any general claim about some concept that has a prevailing opinion.  This is not stating something such as that "no stigmatic has erythromelalgia."  There might be exceptions to that claim.  That might be more of an exceptional claim.  But I am not extending these statements.  I am leaving these statements purely to the limited, specific results of their limited research.  Each of the rest of the doctors did likewise.  If it is confusing, I'll tell you what.  I'll explicitly state a disclaimer: "These doctors each could not find a scientific explanation for what they studied and observed in Myrna Nazzour's case, but that does not at all mean that there is no scientific explanation for Myrna Nazzour's case, or that there is no scientific explanation for similar cases in general.  There is a scientific explanation for virtually everything that occurs on Earth, though this explanation may have simply eluded these doctors."  Who knows, maybe we will find out in 50 years that a strong enough mind has the power to create wounds in the body, like in the movie The Matrix.  I am not breaking the law, however, if I simply state just the specific results of their studies--that these doctors failed to a scientific explanation, as per their limited current understanding of nature and the world and their limited studies.  You cannot honestly expect a scientist to be so perfect as to always be able to find a scientific explanation for something, even if there is one--especially one that only the future evolution of science would be able explain.  However, you cannot silence all studies contemporary studies indefinitely, in wait for that future scientific breakthrough.  It is perfectly fine to say, "Currently, we don't know.  Currently, we can't explain it. But the future may tell."  So I repeat, if it makes you feel better, I can add a disclaimer explaining that there may still be some unknown scientific explanation.  These doctors are not breaking any laws by expressing their current inability to find it. COice6 (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not really follow this reasoning, sorry. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if u understand how a disclaimer works, I'll insert one so that there is no chance that someone may think I am making an exceptional claim.  All policy issues resolved.  I will next move to remove your Wikitags.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by COice6 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)  17:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC) COice6 (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will have to restore teh tags immediately. At that point you will be violating policy by removing them unilaterally. I would also have to issue you a warning History2007 (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How would I be violating policy if I disclaim the "exceptional claim"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by COice6 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By unilateral tag removal. Anyway, this article is so very, very low quality that it deserves a few other warning tags (e.g. disputed/rewrite) anyway. This article is far, far far from using "scholarly sources" and mostly uses a single self-published website. Period. History2007 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The work produced by doctorate university professors is a scholarly source of information. That scholarly source if information is published by soufanieh.com; this doensn't even really follow under self-published source of information since the source and publisher are distinct.  Soufanieh.com only published the work produced by other of other individual professors. And even if it did count as a self-published source in itself, I already explained Wikipedia's policy and how I am still adhering to it:  "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  The referenced work is not produced by soufaneih.com, though it is published by that website.  The referenced work is produced by roughly two dozen established experts--doctorate professors of their fields of study--whose works have been published by reliable third-party publications (unless you want to make the argument that those universities where they work are unreliable third-party publishers). Thus, the references to the studies and works that they have produced--some of which happen to be found on soufanieh.com--are reliable. COice6 (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think I have said about 3,000 times now that the self-published website is not a scholarly source. Now this is number 3,001. History2007 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I woul urge all editors involved to read WP:SPS and WP:RS. Based on what I have seen so far, there are serious questions regarding the reliability of the academics in question. If the material can be sourced from a source other than soufanieh.com, like, perhaps, a reputable online databank or the website of a journal, newspaper, TV show, what have you, those sources are much more reliable than a self-published source like soufanieh. If the material cannot be sourced from such independent sites, then I believe existing policies and guidelines should be applied, which state that controversial material not sourced from such reliable sources directly be removed. It may be that the comments from the academics in question are reliable. If they are, however, they should be sourced from an independent reliable source. John Carter (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources & Notability
I removed everything sourced to the primary source Soufanieh.com. The doctors claims fall under WP:REDFLAG, i.e. they are extraordinary claims that contradict current scientific views, so we require sources that confer a higher level of verifiability, or are at least consistent with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Such claims are also subject to WP:FRINGE guidelines. Santoro's atlas is not an ideal source, however as an independent historical review, it's closer to meeting WP:RS requirements for this article, the subject of which I'm not yet convinced meets our notability guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I Afd-ed this before and there was no consensus. Maybe should Afd it again, if you want, and we will see if it meets WP:NOTE. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a newspaper article or two that may allow it to squeak by, or at least let the story be rendered in an encyclopedic way. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So maybe just leave it as is, so the talk page can be preserved. In 9 month someone else may try to miraculously recreate it - and we will be back to square one. So I think we should just leave it and the discussion here will avoid the self-published re-run. History2007 (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was going to raise the red flag issue but didn't get around to it. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me say this one more time, or maybe 1,000 more times: the very presence of low quality content will in the end affect donations and as user access grows, will slow down the servers and make Wikipedia less usable. That is part of my determination for stopping low quality content: it is not just this page, it affects the image of Wikipedia and that will soon translate to lower donations and then slower response as new servers can not be purchased etc. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Which claim prompted the WP:REDFLAG, and what part of WP:REDFLAG is triggered? COice6 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of it. But especially images such as this and this from a fringe website, purporting to be some kind of medical testimony used to support the idea that a woman actually exuded 100% olive oil while in a religious ecstasy or something. Why such sources are not appropriate has been patiently explained to you again and again. I'm beginning to wonder if WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is the case here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * COice6, I think enough time has been wasted here. Just give up. Enough is enough. History2007 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is needed
Granted, the article is not apologetic. Still, criticism is needed. I found it via a press report from Poland, of all places:

Myrna Nazzour, mistyczka obdarzona rzekomo łaską stygmatów, jedna z przedstawicielek tego nowego nurtu naszej religijności, pobłogosławiła kiedyś posła Andrzeja Dudę.– W 2012 roku w Mogilnie prymas Glemp przewodniczył mszy świętej dla 2 tys. osób. Po mszy Myrna Nazzour udzieliła wszystkim namaszczenia specjalnym olejem...

http://wyborcza.pl/magazyn/7,124059,25023232,ekstaza-choralne-alleluja-i-precz-z-seksualizacja-lgbt-komu.html#S.W-K.C-B.3-L.1.maly Zezen (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What does it say for some reason the the page in the link doesn’t work in mu country 31.218.134.207 (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)