Fatima Miracle of the Sun in Wikipedia

[jmcvann]

Sorry for being behind the times, but I was listening to some old Skeptoid podcasts and got to the one about the "miracle" referenced in the title. To learn more, I went to Wikipedia. Wow. Almost completely uncritical, including 100,000 observers, lots of rain, and a dismissal of possible weather-related explanation.

But by far, my favorite sentence in the article is this: "It has been argued that the Fátima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause, or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft."

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!! No refutation of this claim at all. (Though the "common cause" is obvious: low IQs.)

Now I know that Wikipedia is not the source of sources, but I have seen more critical analysis of other issues in Wikipedia. Am I wrong to be so surprised? Is Wiki full of woo?

[boloboffin]

Be bold.

[I Ratant]

Fatima has many problems...
"Peer pressure" for one..
All those "witnesses" were told what to say by the investigator's leading questions.
After all, if the neighbors saw all those things, and you're at least as pious as they are, you should have obviously saw that same stuff.
It is worthy of note that none of the millions of people enjoying an outing that day along the Western Front in WWI noted any peculiar sun effects, other than the routine dying along the trench lines.
One might surmise a miraculous appearance AT the front lines would have had a much more lasting effect on the progress of the war, instead of appearing in a backwater area of no importance to someone of no influence.

[cj.23]

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!! No refutation of this claim at all. (Though the "common cause" is obvious: low IQs.)


No correlation between IQ and tendency to report UFO sightings. I'll dig out research citations if interested. Kevin McClure wrote a superb little book on the Fatima case - I forget the title but recommended - fine sceptical writer (and Roman Catholic as i recall).

cj x

[Seanette]

I never consider Wikipedia definitive, just a starting point. Too much "any random bozo can put in whatever they want" factor (and yes, I've edited a few articles myself).

[Safe-Keeper]

The best way to use Wikipedia in my eyes is to use the references of the article you're reading. If you want to, for example, study the race to the South Pole, to the the relevant Wikipedia article, read it, and read through the citations for the statements you find useful. Use those references, not Wikipedia, as your sources.

Used this way - as a portal to more accurate, peer-reviewed information, Wikipedia can work great.

But yes, I've repeatedly found that its articles, as does most of society, it seems, support woo more than skepticism.

[The Atheist]

Sorry for being behind the times, but I was listening to some old Skeptoid podcasts and got to the one about the "miracle" referenced in the title.


The skeptoid article itself isn't exactly a model of impartiality, either.

I love Fatima - it's one thing skeptics and fundies (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/fatima.htm) can agree on.

[jmcvann]

No correlation between IQ and tendency to report UFO sightings. I'll dig out research citations if interested. Kevin McClure wrote a superb little book on the Fatima case - I forget the title but recommended - fine sceptical writer (and Roman Catholic as i recall).

cj x

Thanks for setting me straight. I knew that, actually. I should have said the common cause was a lack of critical thinking skills.

[jmcvann]

I never consider Wikipedia definitive, just a starting point. Too much "any random bozo can put in whatever they want" factor (and yes, I've edited a few articles myself).

The best way to use Wikipedia in my eyes is to use the references of the article you're reading. If you want to, for example, study the race to the South Pole, to the the relevant Wikipedia article, read it, and read through the citations for the statements you find useful. Use those references, not Wikipedia, as your sources.

Used this way - as a portal to more accurate, peer-reviewed information, Wikipedia can work great.

But yes, I've repeatedly found that its articles, as does most of society, it seems, support woo more than skepticism.

Totally agree with both of you.

[Puppycow]

The skeptoid article itself isn't exactly a model of impartiality, either.

In what sense?