Talk:Alexandrina of Balazar

Untitled

Please read my article. If you like, correct and put it in due place. If you don't like, delete all. Thank you. J.F.

2018: Shouldn't exist clear medical evidence to make this an interesting / useful article?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:1340:3FC:9CD3:F302:41F6:D4D3 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Biography

Alexandrina Maria da Costa (30 March, 1904–13 October, 1955) was a Portuguese mystic, born and died in Balasar. In the sequence of a jump from a window when she was 14 years old to run away from men who pursued her, suffered a gradual paralysis that placed her in the bed from 1925 onwards. Her first mystic manifestations occurred on 1934. She is said to hear a voice repeating that her way will be: «to suffer, to love, to repair». She offered herself as victim soul and Jesus announced that he will do on her «great things» and that he will be her master, even having Alexandrina spiritual director.

On 1935, she heard the claim of Jesus for the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Her spiritual director, Marian Pinho sj, after some hesitations, in the following year began diligences to obtain that consecration. But things have run slowly and in 1938 Jesus asked her for suffering weekly his holy Passion. Indeed, from March, 1938 onwards, all Fridays, between 12 and 15 o’clock, she, paralysed since 1925, stood up from bed and in a way all could understand followed the several steps of the Passion until the Calvary, but not arriving at the «consummatum est», as it was predicted. That was a very violent spectacle, as can be verified in a film made in 1941 and in a contemporary written publication. However on May 1942 this visible suffering stopped. Perhaps the Pope was already decided to make the consecration, what happened on 31 October, 1942, 25 years after the apparitions of Fatima.

Alexandrina’s health was bad, her sufferings were continuous. But now she began other torment: she stopped eating. Her sole food became the daily Communion.

Braga’s archbishop insisted on medical evidence; then she was carried to Oporto to be watched in the Refuge of Infantine Paralysis. They have been 40 days under hard observation, but at the end Dr Araujo could affirm: «It is absolutely certain that during forty days of being bedridden in hospital, the sick woman did not eat or drink».

However this didn’t convince Braga’s religious authorities; they published a note where was said that in Alexandrina there was nothing extraordinary. Some time after, Fr. Marian Pinho was forbidden to visit Alexandrina and later sent to Brazil. In 1944, she gained a second spiritual director, Fr Umberto Pasquale sdb. But soon he was also prohibited of visiting her and later must go to Italy.

From 1944 until 1955, Alexandrina dictated weekly the «Soul’s Feelings», her mystic diary. She had the frequent visit of the assistant physician, Dr Azevedo, who had also the course of theology and was her great admirer. She couldn’t move any member and had great problems of vision and bones. Her suffering was horrible, but you would see her lips always smiling. In some periods she received thousands of people a day, who heard her teachings. Jesus said that she was living his public life.

Meanwhile, her physical forces weakened more and more and on 13 October, 1955, she flew to Heavens, as her admirers have said. On 25 April 2005, Alexandrina Maria da Costa was beatified by Pope John Paul II.

Bibliography: Francis Johnston, Alexandrina, the Agony and the Glory

Writings and spreading

Alexandrina left an Autobiography (only until 1943), five volumes of the «Soul’s Feelings», a diary which is her main work, several volumes of letters and minor works. These writings weren’t yet integrally published; indeed in Portugal the Catholic Church, till the present, didn’t manifest a true interest on them.

Diversely, in Italy, Fr. Umberto Pasquale and his co-operators and followers – A. Rebesco (whose biography Estatica was translated into Thailandese and Chinese), Gabriele Amorth, Chiaffredo Signorile and his wife Eugenia Signorile – had edited biographies or works composed with quotations of Alexandrina’s writings.

Fr. Marian Pinho, who died in 1963, edited in Brazil two biographies on Alexandrina: Vítima da Eucaristia (which had translations into French and German, before author’s death) and No Calvário de Balasar.

Actually, besides Italy, Alexandrina Society intensively divulges Alexandrina in Ireland and Scotland, and there are many active admirers in other countries like France, USA, Mexico and Brazil. Some years ago one biography was written in Argentine and an anthology was edited in Japan.

Pius XI or XII

I changed the fact that Pius XII was contacted by her bishop, given that Pius XII became pope in 1939. However, it is clear that the bishop wrote to Pius XI in 1938. But, is there any evidence (beside her website which is not WP:RS) that Pius XII was influenced by that letter to Pius XI to consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart? If so, please provide it, else it will have to be assumed to be guesswork and speculation.

The Vatican biography specifically states that Jesus spoke to her, but there is no mention of a Marian apparition. Is there a WP:RS reference for a Marian apparition? Thanks.History2007 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Her name

A simple search on the Vatican websits shows her name to be Alexandrina Maria da Costa on her Vatican biography. Hence that is teh name to use, not Alexandrina of Balasar. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I cannot understand why you refuse the facts about Blessed Alexandrina of Balasar. The books about this relevant catholic personality refers her as Alexandrina of Balasar (see here) and the official website, and many others, cited her as the most common title received by Mrs. Alexandrina Maria da Costa (under the popular devotion):

• http://alexandrinabalasar.free.fr/ (Alexandrina of Balasar Official Website)
• http://alexandrinabalasar.home.sapo.pt/ (another website about Alexandrina of Balasar)
• http://www.agencia.ecclesia.pt/cgi-bin/pesquisa.pl?tema=193 (the Catholic Church News Agency in Portugal cited her as of "Balasar")
• http://i.pbase.com/g3/21/4921/2/93309203.fJ3DKfpc.jpg (devotionals about Blessed Alexandrina of Balasar)

Also is common in the religious names of saints and blesseds call them with the name of the place where they are born: "Saint Anthony of Lisbon", "Saint Bridget of Sweden", "Saint Pio of Pietrelcina", etc. Please, change the internal link and maybe the article name. 84.90.92.187 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The links you have are in Portugese and French, not English. The Vatican official website calls her what the page name is. If you do not like the Vatican position, please discuss with the Pope. History2007 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

With arguments like this, I don't say anything more. You don't show any respect by the other contributors on WP and your attitude is shameless. 84.90.92.187 (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church in Portugal call Blessed Alexandrina as "de Balasar" (in English means "of Balasar"):

• http://www.agencia.ecclesia.pt/cgi-bin/pesquisa.pl?tema=193 (Catholic church in Portugal)

Also the Archbishop of Braga, Jorge Ortiga, wrote to the Apostolic Nuncio refering the Venerable and Blessed Alexandrina as "of Balasar" not only for the Portuguese people, but also for the whole World (you can read it here)! 84.90.92.187 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me be shameless and refer you to WP:COMMONNAME. It does not matter if the Catholic Church in Portugal calls her Julius Casesar. This is English Wikipedia. Is that clear? This is English Wikipedia, and what the Vatican English pages say matter. Portugese does not matter here. That is all I can say. Now do you want to quote some Turkish sources? History2007 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoration

@Randy Kryn: please justify the text and additional links you wish to add to the article. Those do not look like WP:RS to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe take a step back? You're restoring random fansites like [1]. Theres no chance in hell thats a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Also note that none of sources in the "further reading" section which you've restored are WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The restored external links are equally perplexing, what is the point of linking to the Italian translation of her autobiography? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I wish to add? You came in as I was editing text, removed lots of sources and book and external information that has been there for many years within minutes, I would guess you didn't read them all but just removed them. So please don't use language like that, I was just restoring what was there - come on, you didn't read them. Not going to interact on this right now, later, as it seems a full discussion and all kinds of WP stuff to go through. Hopefully others watch this page. This is a very well known person and moved popes and all to act on her wishes, not a guy who came to bat once for the Boston Braves or something. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources back on the 12th when I determined that none of them counted for notability purposes[2]. Did you review them before restoring them? It took me well over an hour to review them the first time, hard to imagine you did it in a few moments. I would at least think that the fansite doesn't resist more than ten seconds of scrutiny, its clearly not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: are you planning to interact with this discussion today? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Was waiting to see if anyone else chimed in. Maybe this should also be presented to the Article Rescue Squad. Which external link is the fan club? The sources have been there for years and probably have educated many readers, I don't have the books, etc. so can't check them. You found no sources that you think are notable? Randy Kryn (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The link is in my comments above, alexandrinabalasar.free.fr (technically there are actually two, but we use http://www.blessed-alexandrina.com/ only once unlike .free which we use repeatedly). Genuinely none of the sources we currently have now contribute to notability. Just check out the further reading section, you won't need more than a minute a piece to determine that they're about as far from a WP:RS as its possible to get. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: if you're worried about me winnowing down the article and then nominating it for deletion don't be, I find its best practice to let the notability tag sit for at least the better part of a decade before proposing an article about a long dead historical figure be deleted. You can search my history at AfD, I just don't regularly bring articles there even though I regularly tag articles for notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. Yes, on pages where tags go up and lots of sources are quickly removed I do have a concern that they are being primed for an AfD. On the additional reading list, are Amazon links not allowed? All the books look interesting and on topic but I have not come close to memorizing the entire MOS and the subtle ins and outs. Some of the external links seem fine, although the one you pointed out I could see contains lots of data but didn't stick around long enough to read how much (I don't like clicking and hanging around most sites as the bots and cookies load - even the now advertising-ridded Britannica). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Look at the books, they're religious fan-fiction or biographies by non-experts. Interesting and on topic isn't the standard, WP:RS is. If you don't like clicking and hanging around most sites then perhaps you should avoid adding sources you can't verify to a page as you did here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Books on topic would be a standard for 'Further reading' per common sense and WP:FURTHER, they are not being used as sources but are pointed to as further existing information which may interest readers (Amazon links are accepted? I wasn't clear on that). As explained, I reverted your quick mass edits of sources, further reading, and external links which have been on the page for years, not "added sources" - they'd already been added and you removed them en masse, and on a quick look almost all seemed relevent. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

When you restore something you take full ownership of it, so yes *you* added it. If you aren't willing to be a responsible editor you need to cut back on editing. Books which are reliable sources on a topic are a standard for further reading, it does the reader a disservice to point them to non-WP:RS besides for the organizations page. Again "relevent" is not the standard for sources, WP:RS is. Do NOT restore sources removed by a good faith editor without evaluating them for reliability even if they appear relevant. Thats disruptive editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

'Further reading' sections do not seem to be covered by WP:RS as they are not considered sources. WP:FURTHER covers them. Do you differ on this (if not, please consider not labeling future edits from Further reading sections as not RS compliant). Your criticism and claims of disruptive editing are fine in nitpicking, but please note that when many years old entries are removed en masse then you should expect concern, talk page analysis, and questioning. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

These aren't links to the sources as covered by WP:FURTHER, they're links to Amazon where the source can be bought. They serve absolutely no encyclopedic purpose and per WP:ELNO should not be used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I still object to those books, note that the objection is based just as much on what the books are as where they're hosted... They just aren't due because they aren't WP:RS and they won't help the reader. Linking to fan-fiction just isn't appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Added back and removed Amazon links in recognition of the talk page discussion at external links. Now there is a larger problem, by calling the books 'fan-fiction' you are saying that the books and the topic are fiction, showing a clear bias against the topic. Maybe you shouldn't be editing these types of topics per this clear bias. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

By your own admission you've refused to review these books because you're scared of cookies, how do you know what is and isn't in them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I read all the Amazon links. These were not written or listed as fiction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Review the actual sources, then get back to us with why you think these books should be used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)