Talk:Three Secrets of Fátima

References needed

This article is interesting and worthwhile, but in order to conform with Wikipedia policy, it needs to have a "References" section that lists where the information came from. Please also be sure to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, to ensure that the article complies with those policies as well. And best wishes! --Elonka 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not yet in the wiki article, but pierre2.net -the Key of Apocalypse is the right interpretation http://pierre2.net/en/la-cle-de-lapocalypse/. Not full. Though the Book written by John the Evangelist and apostle tells that only Jesus Christ God seat at right of Father God, knows the truly unique historical meaning of the prophecy. No man by himself may understand it. Jesus Christ God will reveal it at the right time to one or more of his servants. Dor christian theology the condition of seeing an angel and receiving the thruth by God, is that before this people are living with respect of his unchengeable law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.252.84.244 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Pope Benedict remarks on islam

Recent remarks herald a new assassination attempt and the third secret of fatima? 146.115.120.205 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the Third Secret was JP2's near-assassination in the early 80s. The Vatican has spoken. Vashti 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Third secret update

This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed over seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II.

A resource:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.

The third secret relates the the Bishop in Rome, http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm, not the shooting of the pope, its a supernatural message not human meaning.

The struggle within the church is obvoius to all outsides, the level of corruption and greed is easy to see, for the catholic faith and church to survie it must become poor like this poor priest in Rome,

That's interesting that you mentioned the relationship between the third secret and the shooting of the Pope, which is not addressed in the article. Do you know what the source of that interpretation was? I think the Pope himself made that interpretation, but I am not sure. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's commentary seems to disagree that the message is at all related to the Pope's near-assassination. Albie34423 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Update Needed - Third Secret Revealed!

This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed almost seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II.

A resource:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.

Just becasue it was falsely represented does not mean its true the true meaning can be found in part at this link,

http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm

The section on the Third Secret provides the full text of the third secret along with some quotations from Ratzinger's commentary. What needs to be updated? Albie34423 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Secret and WWII

The second secret is a great example of bending a prophesy to claim a hit; the problem is that it doesn't predict WWII (or, rather, it predicts that Russia, not Germany, would be the antagonist of that war). Titanium Dragon 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article qualifies the statement that the second secret predicts WWII with the word "supposedly" to emphasize the fact that there is disagreement. Albie34423 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 'second secret' is a great example of people believing what they want to believe rather than the obvious truth: The 'secret' was revealed in 1941, three years after the events it supposedly predicted!

Seriously, how can anyone even consider these to be predictions?

I had a vision in 1999 of G. W. Bush's face superimposed over the WTC, and the towers were burning... of course I was ordered not to reveal my vision to anyone until the time was right. So, do you believe me? Well hundreds of thousands believed the exact same kind of "prediction" made by Lucia Santos. I believe this article should place FAR more emphasis on the fact that no one at all knew the supposed "second secret", not even Santos, until well after the events it supposedly predicts.

Note also that the Catholic Church has admitted and apologised for the assistance it gave the Nazis, and Lucia just happened to start decrying Russia and its evil ways in time for Hitler to invade. Funny that! Also note that the 'second secret' says not one word about Hitler or the Nazis, but singles out the evil Russians as the blame for armageddon, even though it was really the Soviet Union that defeated the undeniably evil Nazi regime.

I guess I am not shocked that this would be downplayed here, there are a lot of believers after all, but there should be more emphasis placed on the obvious problems with these 'predictions'. 121.72.1.164 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If Lucia had really wanted to use the prophecy as support for a crusade against Russia in 1941, as you seem to be claiming, why would she say that the war would begin during the Pontificate of Pius XI instead of that of Pius XII? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 121.72.1.164. On reflection, I still think Pius XI matters, but I now think you're mostly right, and I'm mostly wrong, as discussed below in the new section "Second Secret, Pius XI, the Spanish Civil War, and Operation Barbarossa". Tlhslobus (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to the first comment in this section, the 2nd secret doesn't predict that Russia would be the antagonist of WWII. Some may read it to imply this, but it doesn't explicitly say that. It does say it can be prevented by consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but that is not equivalent to saying that Russia would be the "antagonist." And when you read the next paragraph, you'll see that what's being talked about with regard to Russia is something that's larger in scope than WWII, e.g. "wars and persecutions of the Church", along with a mention that "in the end" her "Immaculate Heart will triumph", followed by a period of peace. My guess is that all of this would be more fully eludicated in the real Third Secret, that one-page text which the Vatican never published. Icehound (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How can the opinion with citation of people who doubt the veracity of the timing of the second secret be not taken as a fact, and adding that it is a fact that Dos Santos wrote the 2nd Secret before WWII without citation, be a fact?--79.141.46.227 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that in the second secret it is said that Word War II will break out in the Pontificate of Pius XI? Pius XI died on 10 February, 1939. No historian I am aware of dates World War II to any time before that; most date it to Hitler's invasion of Poland on 1 September, 1939, six months into Pius XII's reign. Perhaps it is simply a typo? I can find no document, however, that claims the second secret said "Pius XII," but maybe it should be changed anyhow?

One user has forwarded the notion that the Second Sino-Japanese War is what the part of the second secret refers to as "a worse one [that] will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI." Is that okay?RugTimXII (talk) 06:01, 08 April 2013 (UTC)

Your question caused me a lot of work, but turned our to be rather useful, so thanks for asking it. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The late great British historian AJP Taylor once wrote an essay claiming that, unlike World War I, which almost everybody agrees began in August 1914, almost every belligerent country tends to have a different starting date for World War II, depending on when they got into the War (incidentally, I'm Irish, but as a schoolkid in Belgium I was taught the war was 1940-1945, presumably because Belgim got invaded in 1940). He then said that if declarations of war count, World War II began when Mao declared war on Japan in 1937 (Chiang Kai Shek was actually ruler of China at the time, and Mao was fighting a civil war against him, which got called off until Japan got beaten; perhaps Mao declared war on Japan shortly before Chiang did). Therefter there was continuous fighting between at least nominal great powers in Asia from 1937 until Japan surrendered in 1945, and estimates vary but 20 million Chinese civilian deaths is a common enough estimate, a number which dwarfs the 400,000 US deaths, the 350,000 British and Commonwealth and Empire deaths, and exceeds the 6 million German deaths, the 6 million Jewish deaths, the 6 million Polish death (3 million of them also Jewish deaths), etc, and is only exceeded by the highest estimates for Sovet deaths (at 26.5 million). If you add in Chinese and Japanese military deaths, the Sino-Japanese war on its own may well exceed the death toll for World War I (usually estimated at 20 million), but in any case there's no reason for treating it on it own. The notion that World War II began in Europe is thus a weirdly Eurocentric one, that is presumably disagreed with by over 100 million Japanese and over a billion Chinese, and their historians, as well as sensible Western historians like AJP Taylor, and presumably also any Catholic historian who wishes to defend Fatima. Of course one can also very reasonably argue that there was no World War until the Asian ad European wars merged into one in December 1941 (quite a bit after the Prophcy was published in August 1941). But in any case the 'prophecy' doesn't mention World War II per se, it just mentions a great war, and the fact of the matter is that a great war began in Asia in 1937, and it eventually expanded into a World War. And I suspect few sensible historians would dispute that.

It would also seem very strange (arguably extraordinary) of Lucia and her supporters to publish a prophecy in 1941 'predicting' a great war would start in the Pontificate of Pius XI, knowing perfectly well that the Sino-Japanese war had begun in that Pontifcate and the European War had not, and yet somehow have intended their contemporaries to understand that the prophecy (which never mentions Europe) somehow referred only to the European War. And I suspect few, if any, people at the time bothered to challenge them on those seemingly known-to-be-absurd grounds (as opposed to the perfectly reasonable grounds that it was mainly 'prodicting the past'). In other words, I would wish to be able to confidently argue that the entire debate about the supposed relevance of the European start date should arguably be dismissed under WP:EXTRAORDINARY as some kind of extraordinary claim lacking any supporting evidence, let alone the extraordinary evidence that ought to be required. It also doesn't have a single cited reference in support of it either, let alone one that qualifies as a reliable source. In other words the supposd relevance of the European start date looks remarkably like Original Research that is iillegal under WP:OR, and very bad original research at that, since it seems entirely based on ignorance about the real history of the period and total implausibility regarding the psychology of Lucia and her supporters (and probably also almost everybody else at the time). UNFORTUNATELY I can't make that argument because a brief look at some of the arguments out there online showed only a few mentioning the Sino-Japanese war, and none saying Lucia had mentioned it in her writings, etc, so maybe it's a case of strange but true (and I couldn't be bothered to try to find out, as I stopped being a Christian over 40 years ago, and am not all that interested in Fatima 2, and am mostly just mildly interested in what I see as the rather surreal absurdity of the Eurocentrism on display).

If one were to chase up so-called 'reliable sources' in libraries (which I couldn't be bothered to do, as already mentioned), I would normally expect most of them would basically say much the same as I'm saying, because much of it appears to be the self-evident truth, and also because I expect most scholars interested in Fatima are Catholic, and the remainder are presumably not going to tie themselves to a seemingly absurd criticism of the prophecy when they have plenty of sensible criticisms available to them. But in this strange case, I can't trust my normal expectations. Arguably no such sources should even be necessary, as sources are normally only supposed to be needed to defend controversial statements which are likely to be contested (and contested by reliable sources, otherwise anybody can contest anything, no matter how self-evidently true). But clearly the problem here may be that people don't agree on what is self-evidently true, and that reliable sources regarding the Pius XI war in Fatima2 may need a lot of effort to find, and may turn out to be different from what I would normally expect.

Meanwhile the problem would seem to be how to amend the paragraph in the light of the above. I intend to add at least one source, and I may give some more thought to the matter, but if I couldn't be bothered (as is quite likely), then perhaps others might do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Below are some links that support the idea in the Pius XI Fatima2 context (though I'm not sure whether any of them qualify as 'reliable sources'):

---

http://old.fatima.org/library/cr73p08.htm

Our Lady's Library Articles, essays and stories from the pages of The Fatima Crusader Magazine The Impending Great Chastisement Revealed in the Third Secret of Fatima

by Father Paul Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., S.T.L. (Cand.)

FOOTNOTES

(2) Some, who would attempt to discredit the Message of Fatima, have claimed that the war broke out with the invasion of Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, during the reign of Pius XII, but this view is incorrect. Actually, conflicts broke out between the Japanese Manchurian Army and Chinese forces on July 7, 1937 at the Marco Polo Bridge near Peiping (Beijing). The Japanese used this incident as a pretext to overrun northern China, and then moved on to eastern and southern China. The war came to an end only when the Japanese Manchurian Army (Kwantung Army) surrendered to Soviet forces, who were only at war with Japan for 5 days, in August 1945 after the dropping of the atomic bombs.

---

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=8964682 Feb 14, '12, 8:29 pm beehumble's Avatar beehumble beehumble is offline Regular Member

Join Date: June 11, 2010 Posts: 1,742 Religion: Catholic Default Re: What scriptural basis do we have for Fatima's divinity?

2) you say, "Oh really, please show me evidence that Lucia predicted Jacinta's and Francisco's death and the beginning of WWII before the fact (not to mention the statement was that a war would break out in the reign of Pope Pius XI when actually it broke out under Pius XII )"

If it was written after the fact, with the intent to fool people, don't you think they would have taken their time and got that little detail correct about Pius XI versus Pius XII?????? Instead, historians have agreed that WWII started earlier than Sept 1, 1939. Pius Xi died in Feb 1939, but Japan was already at war with China in 1937

---

http://www.holytrinityparish.net/Links/OurLadyOfFatima.pdf

Our Lady of Fatima By Greg Witherow

Mary predicted “a worse [war] will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI”. There is no doubt the prediction of a greater war was accurate. But skeptics will point out Pope Pius XI died on February 1939 and World War II is considered to have begun on September 1, 1939 (during the Pontificate of Pius XII). Was Mary wrong? In fact, a case can be made that the War was set in motion long before September 1, 1939.

Japan invaded China in 1937,then the USSR and Mongolia in 1938. Hitler invaded the Saarland in 1935, Austria in 1938, Sudetenland in 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. War raged in the Spanish Civil War and Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. Poland was carved up in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. In fact, the Axis powers had started their wars of conquest long before the Chamberlains of the world acknowledged them. Mary was right, Chamberlain’s peace was Fiction.

---

http://unveilingtheapocalypse.blogspot.ie/2013/09/church-militant-tv-on-freemasonry.html jim.carroll said... Greetings! My apologies because this comment isn't on topic, but I couldn't find an email address for you. I'm working my way through your book and came across something that may need to be corrected if there is a second edition.

On page 45 you talk about Sr. Lucia saying there would be a worse war breaking out during the pontificate of Pius XI. You then have a footnote stating the Pius XI died in Feb. 1939 before the German invasion of Poland.

This is a common misconception or perhaps Western bias. WW2 started on Sept. 19, 1931 with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, which continued with the Japanese invasion of China. If you've ever watched Frank Capra's set of documentary/propaganda films "Why We Fight", it starts out describing how this war we were fighting didn't start with Pearl Harbor or Poland, but 8 years earlier.

So, in fact the "more deadly war" was raging during the reign of Pius XI. (I would be curious to know if Mary told Sr. Lucia the name "Pius XI", since Benedict XV was reigning at the time of the apparitions. If so, then that name can be considered another Fatima prophecy that came true.) 5 October 2013 21:57

---

http://lynnstimelesstreasures.blogspot.ie/2011_05_08_archive.html The pontificate of Pius the XI was from February 6, 1922 – February 10 1939. Encyclopedias place the beginning of World War II on September 1, 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany a date which fell under the pontificate of Pius XII. A world war does not start overnight, historians list countries coming into this world war before and after this date. The Second Sino-Japanese War ( July 7, 1937 – September 9, 1945) started as a conflict between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan. From 1937 to 1941, China fought Japan with help from Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, this war merged into the greater conflict of World War II as the front known as the Pacific War.

---

Tlhslobus (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Along with 2 Fatima quotes, I've now also added 2 quotes from historians (AJP Taylor and Rana Mitter) in support of the proposition that World War II can be argued to have started in 1937 (though in any case the prophecy doesn't specifically mention World War II, just a war worse than World War I, which arguably the Sino Japanese war already was on its own, though of course there's no need to see it as being on its own). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think the view of the Sino-Japanese war as now stated in the article is broadly correct, but ideally, if supporting reliable sources can be found, it needs to be followed by a skeptical sentence or paragraph as discussed below in the new section "Second Secret, Pius XI, the Spanish Civil War, and Operation Barbarossa". Tlhslobus (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello - I believe one needs to understand the atmosphere of activism and protest within both Spain and (to a lesser extent) Portugal at this time period. The church was seen by some anti-regime activists as an active collaborator in the regime's oppression and of the status quo being enforced on the people. (There is some evidence to back this up but that's not my point and is ultimately irrelevant here) If one were to look at the Spanish Civil War for example (and I'm not saying this predicts the Spanish Civil war from 1936 - 39) we see active persecution of some churches and clergy during the conflict - most famously the desecration of priest and nun corpses by Anarchist mobs - this behavior (while I believe relatively rare overall) was one of the notable early incidents which made the other Western Democracies shy away from openly supporting the Republican Government (they lacked the means to control these bands and to the outside world, it looked at once that the Communists were in charge of the government - their puppet strings reaching all the way back to Moscow, which only happened during the Siege of Madrid - the Moscow-backed Communists being rather marginalized before the war) my point is that the anti-clergy incidents during the war point to a sentiment of bitterness toward the church as an agent upholding an hostile regime - which was perceived by the Spanish aristocracy as having its basis in Communist doctrine and (almost invariably) linked to Moscow, these types of incidents (though not as extreme prior) actually pre-date the Spanish Civil War and if one studies this period of Spanish history they will see that from 1918 to 1936 there was a succession of governments and much socio-economic instability and turmoil often pointed by some of the lower class at the church in Spain as well as general policies by the early Republican Government which aimed to make Spain more like Laïcité in France (for instance, the removal of the crucifix from public buildings sparked outrage from the clergy, aristocracy, and the faithful in general) - which I believe motivates much of this 'prophecy' - whenever it was written inside of that 1918 - 1939 window and by whomever originated it. I cannot speak to these two things - who and when - but I think understanding the societal-political atmosphere of Spain during this time is key to the framing of the content of the secret itself. A war being "worse" than WWI does not necessarily mean LARGER in scope, but could mean worse in character - more horrendous in terms of treatment of non-combatants - more damaging in terms of communities. Or, more in terms of self-interest, WORSE for Christendom and for Christians. We cannot think in big global terms because most people during this time did not think in the same global terms we do today, you have to always consider the localized context beforehand.

Additionally, an argument could also be made that the Second World War started in 1936 with the instances of civilians of the future- belligerent countries fighting before their governments would declare war some years later. I am of course talking about the International Brigades (largely stocked with French, British, Polish, Russians, and Americans) and the Italians and German troops which did fight directly and under the auspices (unofficially) of the Italian and German governments, as well as troops with direct ties to Russia. This is the first time you have all of these belligerents in one place, and on their respective "sides" of the fight (including Italians fighting Italians setting the stage for the future Italian Civil War which dominated the war in Italy from 1943 onward, in which these exiles would return to the country after exile in Spain, then France, and elsewhere) - this is also where you start to see internal dialogues of the Western Democracies begin to swing from "appeasement" to talk of active resistance against Germany and to a lesser extent Italy. (The war in Spain ended just a few months before WWII would kick off in earnest) My point that you first see British, American, French, and Russians first dying here in the fight against Germany and Italy (and vice versa) is significant in a social context.The fixation on officially, diplomatically recognized war being something of a red-herring in matters of God - ultimately I feel any debate on the 'start' of the war more often than not comes down to Nationalized histories and as such (And especially in this case) is largely irrelevant. 2601:87:4400:AF2:24C7:4278:183:E8AE (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Third Secret and John Paul II

There is a statement in the article: "Pope John Paul II said that this secret forshadowed the assassination attempt on his life". The cited source says: "Cardinal Angelo Sodano ... said that, after the 1981 assassination attempt by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca, 'it appeared evident to his Holiness that it was a motherly hand which guided the bullets past, enabling the dying Pope to halt at the threshold of death.''" My opinion is that the source fails verification for the statement in the article. I'm not asserting anything about what JPII did or did not think about the third secret, just that the source does not confirm the statement. I think the statement should be deleted, but I welcome other opinions. Ward3001 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the statement should just be changed to reflect what the source says. I am not an expert on Christianity, and actually am not even Christain, so maybe we want an expert in this subject. (Or at least a Catholic.) Smartyllama 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the source about JPII relating events involved in the assassination attempt with any of the Fatima secrets. The statement only refers to JPII's belief that Mary intervened to prevent his death. The source is unclear about a relationship, if any, between the third secret and the assassination attempt. Without additional information, stating that JPII saw a relationship ("foreshadowed") is speculative. So I think the statement in the article should be deleted. Ward3001 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point there. However, I remember reading somewhere that Pope John Paul revealed that he knew he was going to be assasinated due to the Third Secret. (Actually, the article was about the assasinator, who heard of this and sued claiming that he could not be jailed because the attempt was premeditated.) Smartyllama 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement in the article is not substantiated by the source. The assassination attempt occurred on May 13th, the same day as the first of the six apparitions in Fatima. It seems that JPII believed that this was not a coincidence and that Mary had something to do with his survival. It does not appear that he specifically links the third secret to this event. Albie34423 21:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Secret Disputed

The following was added as a commentary on the supposed disputed status of the third secret. It is true that some groups of Fatima devotees dispute whether or not the full text of the third secret has been revealed by the papacy. I get news letters from "The Fatima Center" which frequently bring up this topic of late. However, this being Wikipedia, I think that we need to find some good sources for this so that it doesn't read like one person's argument in favor of a particular point of view. Albie34423 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some dispute that the Third Secret text released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constituted the entire Third Secret of Fatima. Few question that the handwriting is truly that of Sister Lucia, but there are many inconsistencies with what we knew beforehand about the Third Secret.

First, in her Fourth Memoir, Sister Lucia wrote what Fatima scholars have universally understood to be the start of the Third Secret: immediately after giving word for word the second part of the Secret, as above, Sister Lucia wrote "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc." As the official archivist of the Fatima apparitions, Father Joaquin Alonso, said, it must go on to say that the dogma of the Faith will not be kept in certain other parts of the world.

Also, Father Joseph Schweigl was sent by Pope Pius XII to interrogate Sister Lucia. Here is his report on the interrogation: "I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope; the other logically (although I must say nothing) would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’"

Thus, many conclude that the Vatican released the part of the twofold secret that that concerned the Pope, but neglected to address the other part, which is the continuation of the words of the Virgin Mary. In the Vatican announcement in February of 1960 that the Secret would not be released, the Vatican said the Third Secret contained the "words which Our Lady confided as a secret". No words were included in the Vatican's version of the Third Secret. It is also known from the testimony of Cardinal Ottaviani and Bishop Joano Venancio of the diocese of Fatima, Portugal that the Secret was written on one sheet of paper, whereas what was revealed was written on four sheets of paper.

Sister Lucia died in her convent in 2005 without ever publicly commenting on either the represented or the possible actual content of the third secret, as the Church never lifted it's bar on her, as commanding her not to speak.

Just to note, I have a copy of a report from the Zenit Daily Dispatch dated Dec. 20, 2001, which claims that Lucia told Archbishiop Bertone in an interview that the secret has been completely revealed and published, and that no secrets remain. While this is not an example of Lucia making a public comment on the supposed completeness of the third secret as published, it is an example of a private comment of hers being made public. So, something like the above statement should not be left alone without some qualification.

Yes, well, those are the same folks who wouldn't reveal the secret for eighty-five years, then release nothing which would explain why they wanted it kept secret for eighty-five years, and then merely "saying" Lucia "said" they had revealed the secret. You can be sure, if Lucia had said the secret had been revealed by them, they would have placed her next to the "pope" on international television, saying so.

Much in Wikipedia isn't sourced, and if you want to delete what everyone knows is credible unsourced information, you should at least be claiming that you believe that the information you deleted isn't true, otherwise you look very biased, and which disbelief you haven't stated. The Zenit article you cite is a credible source for the existence of the dispute over the veracity of the Vatican's version of the third secret, therefore I have re-inserted the portion you deleted. 69.215.128.190 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The wiki policy you cite states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." To "challenge" material, means to at least state a belief that the material isn't accurate, not merely that it isn't sourced. If a mere claim that material isn't sourced were all it takes to delete material, 99% of wikipedia would be gone. Since you are unwilling to claim that you believe the material you deleted is not accurate and cannot be sourced, please do not delete the material which everyone knows is likely to be sourced as soon as someone finds the time to do it. In any event, certainly do not delete the material which I DID already source, namely that the veracity of the Vatican's version of the secret is widely disputed. 69.215.128.190 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001 - What do you mean by "edit-warring" and what do you mean by "no verification in the source provided"? Why don't you consider Zenit Daily Dispatch dated Dec. 20, 2001 a citable source? You haven't cited a single wiki guideline that it might violate in its use in the section documenting the existence of dispute over the Vatican's version of the third secret. I'm thinking that you should know that deleting sourced material violates wiki policy, so why did you do it? 64.109.200.117 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I told you on your talk page to read WP:3RR and WP:Edit war, which you apparently didn't do. And about the source you cite: regardless of whether it's a "citable source", here is the issue that you don't seem to grasp: the source you provide does not include the information you have added to the article. If I make a statement in an article that space aliens have taken over the Vatican, and cite a source that talks about space aliens but says nothing about the Vatican, that is not an appropriate source. So essentially, you have not provided a source to back up you edits. That's where you are violating Wikipedia policy. You want the "single wiki guideline": thoroughly read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. And while you're at it, be aware that you have violated WP:3RR, for which can get you an immediate block if reported; and if you continue reverting without adding a source that verifies the information in your edits, I will make vandalism as well as 3RR reports. Wikipedia has some degree of flexibility for new editors, but edit warring, violating 3RR, and adding unsourced controversial information is not tolerated after you have been warned. And you have been warned repeatedly. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern with the section is that it was a poorly cited attempt to argue for a specific point of view. It mentioned that "some dispute" that "many conclude" and that "few question" while also stating that "we know" without specifically stating whom and providing good citations. I moved the section to this talk page rather than simply deleting it entirely because I felt that the topic does deserve to be mentioned, but that this was unsatisfactory. I have created a brief section on this controversy that states some specific facts from both sides with proper references and a neutral disposition. I will be watching to make sure that this space does not get hijacked to debate the merits of the case for either side. Albie34423 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I thank you for making a balanced and appropriately cited addition. Ward3001 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of the article

After a recent discussion on the Wikipedia:Help desk, one of the users is asking why can't he edit the article but although the article is semi-protected from editing, the user has noticed that there isn't any lock symbol indicating that it's protected, should the lock symbol be on the article if not why is the editing semi-protected. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is protected because of repeated, dynamic IP POV-pushing, adding unsourced or inadequtely sourced information, and deletion of appropriately sourced information by one user. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i've tried to put a valid link once to a certain site and noticed that one user simply deleted my link and replaced it with http://www.madredelleucaristia.it ... worse, he / she used the descriptions i had for that site i was linking with. can there be any way such uncivilized actions be prevented?

Also, the third secret is a very important and current issue in the catholic church. the participation / entries of various authors should be given equal chance. i'd like to raise the importance of other sites being given a link in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor chito (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence James Downey

Should there not be some mention of the plane hijacking in the 1980s by Lawrence James Downey, who wanted the vatican to release the secret85.0.41.156 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be good if someone has information on it. Albie34423 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Secret of Fatima has been fully published

There is no reason to believe, that the Vatican withholds the complete "Third Secret of Fatima". The prophecies of the Roman Catholic Alois Irlmaier and the "Prophecy of the Popes" e.g., are much more believable and relevant, and Alois Irlmaier has been proven right in the last years with the events unfolding that we now see. And no one withheld these prophecies. And both Alois Irlmaier's prophecies and the "Prophecy of the Popes" speak about the end of the world as we know it.

Irlmaier has not been recognized by the Church, neither has he been noticed by a large group of the laity, unlike the case of Fatima. Interestingly, he also doesn't notice the persecution of the Church after the war which is explicitly noted in the Olivet Discourse - that is, contra Irlmaier, there is no scriptural reason to expect the post-war period to be one of "happiness". 76.24.104.52 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever explained

Has anyone in the Vatican ever explained WHY the third secret was kept secret at all, since it's heavily symbolic and not all that earthshaking?

And really, how could anyone read that statement and think it was a reference to a single unsuccessful attempt on a single Pope's life? Seems to me like a rather transparent attempt to fit a real event INTO the secret, even if it doesn't fit. 69.74.54.23 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? I think your questions are answered in the controversy section. Icehound (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

two links in the "Third secret" section redirect to Jacques Vallée?

They are the links for Dr. Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada. I was going to delete them but wanted some input from others as I'm still new to this editing business. Lynn Maury (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You should delete them if the links aren't going to a page on the right persons. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This was done due to a past dispute. It was not resolved properly in my opinion but for now it might be better if the were changed to something related to the Miracle at Fatima. They are researchers into the Miracle of Fatima and refuted some of the traditional beliefs by the Catholic Church but they speculated about UFOs and this was considered fringe and the page was redirected to Jaques Vallee for inadequate reasons then the computer did the rest. If I don't get to it today I'll get to it later either by changing the redirect or providing information on the individuals. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to The Miracle of the Sun for now but may revist it if I come up with something else. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you object, I plan on just removing the links and redirect altogether, because I believe that the convention is to not link a name at all if there is no corresponding page on the person. Readers who click on a person's name expect it to take them to a biographical page on the relevant person. A link to the "Miracle of the Sun" article can be achieved by working in a mention of the alleged phenomenon into the main body of the article and linking it. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the internal links to the non-existent pages on these two persons and have added deletion templates to the entries. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For now I see no problem removing the links; however I think it would be better to provide a little information about them on the page they are redirected to or provide enough information for an article. I'm not going to spend much time on it soon but may add a little to the article since it would be better than to delete it and then to replace it when there is more information. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Kramer material

Looks like in November there were a bunch of edits adding links to an online book by Paul Kramer. Is this really a reliable source?--Larrybob (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This book is available both online and in print form. Father Paul Kramer is a leading critic and Fatima scholar, and yes it is a reliable source for the purpose of a controversy section. The sections of his book challenging the authenticity and completeness of the Vatican's 2000 release are based on objective, verifiable evidence. And at least three other books by other authors, including an attorney and a journalist, have also been written making the same claims and relying on the same evidence, as noted and cited in the second paragraph of this section. And there weren't a "bunch of edits adding links" as you say, to his online book. There was only one inline link, and the purpose of it was to provide a helpful note to the reader. Most published books aren't available for free at the click of a mouse, and people who are interested in reading this section to begin with would probably find this note to the reader very helpful, and wouldn't find out about it otherwise. And yes, selective, pertinent inline links to online publications like articles and other publications are allowed on Wikipedia, although various editors may disagree as to whether the particular link should be included inline or moved down to an external links section. The other links you're talking about were only added as part of citations, mostly as a second citation. And they were appropriate. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The section Third Secret controversy prob gives undue weight to a minority opinion, and shouldn't be treated too leniently. My advice is "shrink it to small", but not infinitesimal. I see lots of references in that section, but so far I've seen only Paul Kramer's ref as opposing the official papal stmt. The Kramer reference is a website essentially promoting a book with a conspiracy theory, the reference to the Vatican document essentially doesn't support the statements in the section. (Abstain from accusing me for apologism, I'm a Lutheran, and really don't care who's right, but Paul Kramer is wrong!) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources a.k.a. WP:REDFLAG. The Kramer source seems to use various citations from clerical sources, including popes, out of context so to promote an image of conspiracy within the church. My estimation balances towards "crank", not towards "leading authority". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion retracted, WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG retained. This is a political battle between Roman Catholic Church and traditionalists, especially around SSPX, here search for "Paul Kramer", where the three secrets of Fátima are just used as political weapons. The section Third Secret controversy should be placed in another article, maybe in SSPX because it is based around the book The Devil's Final Battle using fear as a advertizement method to sell a book, which revolves around the conspiracy theories about "Modernism" and "Liberalism", that uses whatever "prophecy" or alleged/debunked false prophecy they can find in order to prove that supposed "infiltration from Satan" into the top of the Roman Catholic Church. It's a wonder to me, that they have not been excommunicated. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If the "Third Secret Controversy" section draws too much from Kramer's book then fix it. There are plenty of other sources quoting people who suspect that wasn't all there was to it. I didn't even know who Kramer was until I started reading this discussion page. --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fr. Mario de Oliveira

Can anybody locate more information about who this "Fr. Mario de Oliveira" is who says that Lucia had "infantile fantasies" and "religious hallucinations"? This quote, originally from the London Times, is otherwise only found on skeptic websites, with elaborations like "he knew her well" and "he knew her as a child". I cannot find any reference to this guy in any of my books on Fatima or online. I've left it in there in case someone does have a reference and can elaborate. --Bluejay Young (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've met Frade Mario de Oliveira a couple times. He's real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.121.178 (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find Mario de Olivera

• "The Pope Comes to Fatima" (in Portuguese). 2010-05-10.

The Google Portuguese to English translation contains this biographical data:

Who is Padre Mario de Oliveira was born on March 8, 1937, in Lourosa Fair. He was ordained a priest / elder of the Church of Porto, August 5, 1962. Since then, until, since March 1973 by staff unilateral decision of Bishop Antonio Gomes Ferreira, the anomalous situation canonical priest without official pastoral letter...

What is clear is that he was not trained as a psychiatrist and therefore not able to diagnose Sr. Lucia, and being born in 1937 was 30 years younger than she, and had no contact with her. I'm going to remove from the article the de Olivera content. It's not enough to appear in the article on the basis that it appeared in the London Times. The extraordinary claim needs more support than from what appears to be a former priest giving a mere opinion without a factual basis. Apart from the Wikipedia, it's disturbing to see so many web sites repeat the damaging "infantile fantasies" and "religious hallucinations" diagnosis without elaborating on how de Olivera arrived at it. patsw (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just fine with me. He sounds like a fake himself. Thank you. --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's wrong. Mário de Oliveira exists, he is a well-known left-wing priest in Portugal and wrote several books and articles about the Fatima phenomenon, beginning with Fátima nunca mais in 1999. He claims it to be a fake that involved the psychological and political abuse of the children's naïve religious awareness.--Jordi (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What kind of citations do you need?

In the section on interpreting the third secret as possibly referring to an apostasy and division within the Church, we go from JP2 referring to "the message of Fatima" (it doesn't say the third secret -- did he mean the general Fatima message or the secret?) as having to do with Revelations 12:3-4, where a third of the stars are cast down by Satan. We go from that to the priest saying that Rev. 12:3-4 has always been understood by Catholic scholars to mean priests and other religious who fall from their consecrated state, so the 3rd secret must have something to do with that. Then we have:

In a published interview, Lucia is quoted as telling Fr. Fuentes, "The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell."[47] A "falling away" from the faith is an apostasy[says who?][citation needed].

The word "apostasy" is linked within the article. It is defined in that article, up front, as "is the formal religious disaffiliation, abandonment, or renunciation of one's religion, especially if the motive is deemed unworthy." That sure sounds like "falling away" to me, and I have been in various churches where when they said "falling away", that was exactly what they meant. Now, would someone explain what kind of citation is needed and what is that "says who?" in there for? I'll be glad to help fix it, but I need to know what is wrong with it. I will also go back and read JP2's speech to be sure he said "the message of Fatima" and was not directly referencing the 3rd Secret. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS to get the idea of what's wrong with connecting dots between "falling away" and "apostasy". For arguments sake, even if there were a "scholarly consensus" that these two terms were identical in meaning, that would not imply that every speaker of "falling away" actually meant "apostasy". patsw (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read enough of JP2's homily from 2000-15-13 to be sure he was talking about the Fatima message in general and not merely the Third Secret. In fact, the parts of the message he mentions in conjunction with the Revelations verse are from the 4th apparition, not part of the secret, and speak about humanity in general: they heard her say "pray, pray very much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them". Therefore this isn't connected with the third secret and therefore I am taking it out.

Since Lucia did not actually use the word "apostasy", if this is not in accordance with the rules -- and I can see how it isn't -- I have to take it out also. Just because it sounds like something she would say doesn't mean she said it, especially in light of the fact that there is considerable controversy over how many of Lucia's statements (not during the apparitions but after she entered Carmel) were in fact really hers. I'm surprised she was allowed to make any public statements. It's not that Carmelite nuns aren't allowed to say or publish anything but when they do it usually just says "by a Carmelite sister". --Bluejay Young (talk)

Religious texts as primary sources

I want to know what to do about this tag. There are no secondary sources that "critically analyze" a lot of this material. It's written by priests or devotees, it's published, it's out there, there's no "critical analysis" of a lot of it. That doesn't mean it's the equivalent of alien abduction narrations. Give me a break. What does it mean, that we should go find reviews in the New York Times talking about -- I don't know, Lucia being delusional or something? I don't mind the third-party notable business, although trying to write things properly is sometimes an experience akin to chewing barbed wire, but confess to being more than a little annoyed with the way Wikipedia's rules are sometimes invented/applied in order to zilch articles on religion and subjective experience. --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pius XI mentioned in 2nd secret?

As I just noticed in the main article about Our Lady of Fatima, I am here too seeing references to Pius XI. Would it have said "next pontificate" instead? I am asking this because this happened in 1917 and Pius XI wasn't elected until 1922. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

As the article says, it wasn't published until August 1941, by which time it did say Pius XI. What it said before that, or whether it even existed before that, is basically something which an encyclopedia can't answer, though skeptics have used the Pius XI 1922 argument to question the credibility of the prophecy, and that is mentioned in the article. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Secret, Pius XI, the Spanish Civil War, and Operation Barbarossa

In the above section title, Operation Barbarossa was the code-name for the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union (also known as Russia) on June 22, 1941, a few weeks before publication of the first and second secrets of Fatima in August 1941.

As background to this section, the following extracts are being copied from the "Second Secret and WWII" section above:

---

(Start Of Extracts)

Actually, the 'second secret' is a great example of people believing what they want to believe rather than the obvious truth: The 'secret' was revealed in 1941, three years after the events it supposedly predicted!

Seriously, how can anyone even consider these to be predictions?

I had a vision in 1999 of G. W. Bush's face superimposed over the WTC, and the towers were burning... of course I was ordered not to reveal my vision to anyone until the time was right. So, do you believe me? Well hundreds of thousands believed the exact same kind of "prediction" made by Lucia Santos. I believe this article should place FAR more emphasis on the fact that no one at all knew the supposed "second secret", not even Santos, until well after the events it supposedly predicts.

Note also that the Catholic Church has admitted and apologised for the assistance it gave the Nazis, and Lucia just happened to start decrying Russia and its evil ways in time for Hitler to invade. Funny that! Also note that the 'second secret' says not one word about Hitler or the Nazis, but singles out the evil Russians as the blame for armageddon, even though it was really the Soviet Union that defeated the undeniably evil Nazi regime.

I guess I am not shocked that this would be downplayed here, there are a lot of believers after all, but there should be more emphasis placed on the obvious problems with these 'predictions'. 121.72.1.164 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If Lucia had really wanted to use the prophecy as support for a crusade against Russia in 1941, as you seem to be claiming, why would she say that the war would begin during the Pontificate of Pius XI instead of that of Pius XII? Tlhslobus (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, 121.72.1.164. On reflection, I still think Pius XI matters, but I now think you're mostly right, and I'm mostly wrong, as discussed below in the new section "Second Secret, Pius XI, the Spanish Civil War, and Operation Barbarossa". Tlhslobus (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I still think the view of the Sino-Japanese war as now stated in the article is broadly correct, but ideally, if supporting reliable sources can be found, it needs to be followed by a skeptical sentence or paragraph as discussed below in the new section "Second Secret, Pius XI, the Spanish Civil War, and Operation Barbarossa". Tlhslobus (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

---

(End Of Extracts)

I may be wrong, but I wasn't aware that 'Catholic Church has admitted and apologised for the assistance it gave the Nazis'. All I'm aware of is that it has apologised for how some of its teachings down the centuries has encouraged anti-semitism (in reply to the "Hitler's Pope" accusation against Pius XII, it also claims, probably correctly, that the Catholic Church secretly saved more Jews from the Nazis than any other organisation - up to 875,000 by one debatable estimate). However Spain's Catholic dictator Francisco Franco did eventually send two divisions to fight alongside the Nazis in Russia. I don't know whether he sent them before or after the 'secrets' came out, but either way the secrets could have been mildly useful to him. In that context the war that begins under Pius XI can be seen as the Spanish Civil War (1936 to March 1939), seen by Franco as a crusade to defend Catholic Spain against an anti-clerical Republic that was supported by the Spanish Communist Party, and received weapons from Soviet dictator Josef Stalin (while Hitler and Mussolini gave military support to Franco). So the June 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union could presumably be portrayed as a continuation after a short breathing space of an anti-communist crusade begun in 1936 in the Pontificate of Pius XI.

Of course it should be said that Franco was not alone in assisting Hitler, and neither were Catholics. Catholic Croatia and Slovakia also supported Hitler in various ways, as he had 'liberated' them from Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and other examples can be found for various reasons in Catholic Vichy France, Catholic Austria (Hitler's birthplace), Catholic Fascist Italy, Protestant Finland, Orthodox Romania, Orthodox Bulgaria, Orthodox Ukraine, the Sunni Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and Shia Muslim Iran's Shah Reza Pahlevi, while many Hindu Nationalists in India fought alongside Hitler's Shinto-Buddhist Japanese allies, etc (so that ironically Hitler and his allies could be described as a splendid example of Politically Correct Multiculturalism in action). My own country, Catholic Ireland, stayed 'neutral' while allowing thousands of Irish soldiers serve in the British Army, but the outlawed Irish Republican Army (IRA) supported Hitler as Britain's enemy, and the Irish Blueshirts had fought for Franco in the Spanish Civil War (while ironically IRA men at that time were enemies of the Blueshirts and had tended to join the International Brigades that fought against Franco and thus against Hitler's side up to the end of the Spanish Civil War in March 1939).

But as far as I know, in Lucia's Portugal, Catholic dictator Antonio Salazar sensibly stayed strictly neutral in the war. So one could see the secrets as either an arguably anti-Hitler (or pro-neutrality or pro-Portuguese-national-interest or pro-British (Portugal is called Britain's oldest ally)) Portuguese way of pretending to assist the crusade while actually refusing to send any troops, or as an arguably pro-Hitler (or Pro-Catholic or Pro-Franco or Anti-Communist) protest by some Portuguese Catholics against Salazar's failure to send troops, or as as an arguably pro-Hitler (or Pro-Catholic or Pro-Franco or Anti-Communist) attempt by some Portuguese Catholics to assist Franco and his Catholic troops without necessarily intending any criticiam of Salazar. It should be mentioned that in 1917 Mary had supposedly appeared to the children on the 13th of every month from May to October, except for August 13th, when the children were being interrogated by officials of Portugal's then anti-clerical Republic (and some, presumably including those interrogators, have seen Fatima as fabrications aimed at undermining that Republic), so it should surprise nobody if Lucia and her friends were sympathetic to Franco's war against the anti-clerical Spanish Republic. But quite likely different supporters of publication of the secrets had many different motives and sympathies. Because of all these political complexities, and because those publishing the secrets knew that Hitler might lose, and because many of these motives and sympathies would be very embarrassing if he did lose (as he eventually did), it is perhaps unsurprising if they didn't make their meaning too clear at the time or since, thus perhaps leading to the confused debate on display now. I should add that I personally don't think the Spanish Civil War (unlike the Sino-Japanese War, and conceivably the Italy-Ethiopia War) can legitimately be seen as the start of World War II (mainly because that civil war ended in March 1939), but that doesn't alter the fact that the 'prophecy' is arguably 'right' when it sees the great war as starting under Pius XI, because it remains reasonable to see World War II as starting in China in 1937 (or Ethiopia in 1935) even supposing Lucia herself didn't see it that way.

However at present that is all speculation and only those parts of it that are backed by reliable sources should appear in the article (which I think would be improved if they did then appear). I expect that some such sources pobably exist, because it makes sense and because it seems quite likely that 121.72.1.164 got his ideas directly or indirectly from such sources. I may (or may not) put a little effort into finding such sources myself, but I don't expect to put in much effort because I'm not all that interested, so if I don't perhaps some other people might. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't realised when writing the above that Lucia was in a convent in Tuy, Northern Spain, from 1925 to 1946, which presumably just makes it even more likely that she supported Franco (and arguably makes it less likely that she was providing a fig leaf for Salazar's neutrality). Before Franco's coup she was writing to her mother of the possible need to return to Portugal because of the anti-clerical Red Terror that had already begun before Franco's coup (and arguably helped provoke it, though it was then on a much smaller scale than it became after the coup (after which Northern Spain was safely in Francoist hands - or at least it was safe for Catholics like Lucia who had no need to fear Franco's White Terror) and it's also claimed that the coup had been planned since the election, before the Red Terror killings started) Tlhslobus (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should also note that the unknown light is perhaps also a problem (for the theory that Lucia is cheering on an anti-Communist crusade begun in 1936) if it is assumed that it is the January 1938 event (as some texts, possibly wrongly, seem to suggest Lucia had decided), and if it is assumed that it must come before the start of the Great War. Father Paul Kruger has no such problems - he says World War II started in China in 1937 and the light happened in January 1938 and refers to a series of punishments (wars, famines, persecutions, etc) that is still unfolding, starting with the Nazi takeover of Austria in March 1938, a peaceful but arguably ominous event that was greeted by cheering Austrian crowds. Of course an unknown new light in the sky could be anything - Pluto (discovered in 1930), the A-Bomb (1945), the H-Bomb (1952), Sputnik (1957), the International Space Station, the discovery of Quasars or neutron stars, any number of new comets, novas, supernovas, etc. Pluto (discovered in 1930, the year before the birth of the Spanish Republic in 1931) arguably neatly fits the 1936 anti-Communist crusade theory, but I don't know if there are any reliable sources saying that, and I suspect not. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Kramer's China theory is weird, Lúcia dos Santos herself explained in 1946 that she considered the Austrian Anschluss in 1938 (when Pius XI was still alive) as the beginning of WW2. This is widely accepted by Fatima investigators, see António Marujo, A construção de Fátima, in: Revista de História das Ideias, 2nd series, vol. 36 (2018), p. 204, note 10.--Jordi (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I believe one needs to understand the atmosphere of activism and protest within both Spain and (to a lesser extent) Portugal at this time period. The church was seen by some anti-regime activists as an active collaborator in the regime's oppression and of the status quo being enforced on the people. (There is some evidence to back this up but that's not my point and is ultimately irrelevant here) If one were to look at the Spanish Civil War for example (and I'm not saying this predicts the Spanish Civil war from 1936 - 39) we see active persecution of some churches and clergy during the conflict - most famously the desecration of priest and nun corpses by Anarchist mobs - this behavior (while I believe relatively rare overall) was one of the notable early incidents which made the other Western Democracies shy away from openly supporting the Republican Government (they lacked the means to control these bands and to the outside world, it looked at once that the Communists were in charge of the government - their puppet strings reaching all the way back to Moscow, which only happened during the Siege of Madrid - the Moscow-backed Communists being rather marginalized before the war) my point is that the anti-clergy incidents during the war point to a sentiment of bitterness toward the church as an agent upholding an hostile regime - which was perceived by the Spanish aristocracy as having its basis in Communist doctrine and (almost invariably) linked to Moscow, these types of incidents (though not as extreme prior) actually pre-date the Spanish Civil War and if one studies this period of Spanish history they will see that from 1918 to 1936 there was a succession of governments and much socio-economic instability and turmoil often pointed by some of the lower class at the church in Spain as well as general policies by the early Republican Government which aimed to make Spain more like Laïcité in France (for instance, the removal of the crucifix from public buildings sparked outrage from the clergy, aristocracy, and the faithful in general) - which I believe motivates much of this 'prophecy' - whenever it was written inside of that 1918 - 1939 window and by whomever originated it. I cannot speak to these two things - who and when - but I think understanding the societal-political atmosphere of Spain during this time is key to the framing of the content of the secret itself. A war being "worse" than WWI does not necessarily mean LARGER in scope, but could mean worse in character - more horrendous in terms of treatment of non-combatants - more damaging in terms of communities. Or, more in terms of self-interest, WORSE for Christendom and for Christians. We cannot think in big global terms because most people during this time did not think in the same global terms we do today, you have to always consider the localized context beforehand.

Additionally, (and this is a bit of a digression, admittedly) an argument could be made that the Second World War started in 1936 with the instances of civilians of the future- belligerent countries fighting before their governments would declare war some years later. I am of course talking about the International Brigades (largely stocked with French, British, Polish, Russians, and Americans) and the Italians and German troops which did fight directly and under the auspices (unofficially) of the Italian and German governments, as well as troops with direct ties to Russia. This is the first time you have all of these belligerents in one place, and on their respective "sides" of the fight (including Italians fighting Italians setting the stage for the future Italian Civil War which dominated the war in Italy from 1943 onward, in which these exiles would return to the country after exile in Spain, then France, and elsewhere) - this is also where you start to see internal dialogues of the Western Democracies begin to swing from "appeasement" to talk of active resistance against Germany and to a lesser extent Italy. (The war in Spain ended just a few months before WWII would kick off in earnest) My point that you first see British, American, French, and Russians first dying here in the fight against Germany and Italy (and vice versa) is significant in a social context.The fixation on officially, diplomatically recognized war being something of a red-herring in matters of God - ultimately I feel any debate on the 'start' of the war more often than not comes down to Nationalized histories and as such (And especially in this case) is largely irrelevant. 2601:87:4400:AF2:24C7:4278:183:E8AE (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The aurora borealis is caused by solar flare activity?

Whoever added that line did not understand the difference between solar flares and solar winds.
The entire bit about solar flares should be removed from the article.--89.146.158.62 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)