Draft talk:Seton Miracles

The 1st 4 messages in this discussion below, began on User talk:Sulfurboy, on 13 Aug., 2026:

Draft talk:Seton Miracles

Do Miracles like this belong on Wikipedia?

The 1st 4 messages in this discussion below, began on User talk:Sulfurboy, on 13 Aug., 2026:

My draft most certainly was "neutral." Where could you possibly disagree?

Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Today, you rejected my Draft:Seton Miracles for not being written from a neutral point of view. I'm astounded. What could you possibly find in it, that was not neutral? Recall that WP:NPOV reiterates ad nauseam, particularly in its WP:UNDUE and WP:MNA paragraphs, that I DON'T NEED TO INCLUDE minority (i.e, Atheist) views, except "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those [reliable] sources." In fact, there are NO pro-Atheist reliable sources debunking the miracles as non-miraculous. Even the sceptics, the Washington Post reporters, acknowledged that something inexplicable was happening, right in front of their very eyes. Octavius1981 (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Miracles aren't real. Sorry. We don't promote anything here other than what is factually true. Also, considering your very rude approach on my page and here as well you're going to have a very hard time finding anyone here that wants to help you. I would recommend adjusting your attitude and re-reviewing our policies. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
SERIOUSLY?? . . . That's your reason?? . . . Well, it doesn't matter whether you think miracles are real, or fake. What matters is whether the reliable sources think something real happened. IN FACT, we have lots of wikipedia pages for notorious miracles, e.g,: Miracle of the Sun, and Our Lady of Zeitoun. This topic is no different. Surely, you will avoid committing WP:BIGOTRY, by changing your standard-of-conduct, toward articles on overtly-religious topics, yes? Otherwise, you yourself wouldn't be neutral, wouldn't be open-mindedly Agnostic, but would be dogmatically Atheist, which is itself as much a religion, as any religion, for you cannot actually KNOW, from empirical (scientific) evidence, that there's no hidden spirit-world, and no supernatural order, and therefore the claim that these don't exist, is itself blindly CREDAL. Octavius1981 (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Accusing me of bigotry is beyond the pale of acceptable behavior. I have no interest in communicating with you further. If you have issue with my reviews or behavior you can take it up at WP:ANI, but if you continue to come to my talk page with baseless accusations, they won't be tolerated and will be reported. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Octavius1981 (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 3 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion

This Draft:Seton Miracles page should not be speedy deleted as "pure vandalism or a blatant hoax," because it isn't a hoax at all, as anyone who peruses the Draft's 52 footnotes (half of which are reliable sources from the Washington Post), or especially the draft's section entitled "Media Frenzy," will quickly realize. On the contrary, the nomination of this page here, is itself an act of WP:vand, because I was in the middle of procedurally appealing, on the NPOV noticeboard, a blatantly religiously-bigotted decline of my Draft-Submission, wherein the decliner, Sulfurboy, openly admitted that he was removing my article because ["Miracles aren't real. Sorry."] when this user @IrisChronomia, suddenly, without any discussion with me, summarily . . .

Due to the above sudden behavior, and especially for additionally [a curt "Goodbye," in his-or-her very first message to me], it is blatant that this IrisChrononia is just changing the subject, in an attempt to avoid

  1. any discussion with me, and
  2. accountability for Sulfurboy's blatant act of religious discrimination,

entirely contrary to the egalitarian, rational, dispassionate, discussion-centered spirit of Wikipedia.

In general, Wikipedia articles about Catholic miracles, just like my Seton Miracles Draft, do belong on Wikipedia, as these 2 similar instances demonstrate:

  1. Miracle of the Sun and
  2. Our Lady of Zeitoun.

I wrote an excellent draft, and it deserves a frull read-thru, before any-such action is taken. 

Octavius1981 (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have read it through. In its present state it is improperly sourced, editorialising, and lacking in neutrality. It is entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
There's currently actually only 3 unreliable sources here, and I just agreed to remove them:
........the Marian Foundation's 2 AI-generated videos
................❌"Our Lady of the Potomac - “The Greatest Case of Weeping Statues in the History of the World"
................❌"The Seton Miracles - Eyewitness Testimony - miracles at St Elizabeth Ann Seton Church, Lake Ridge VA"
........❌The BishopAccountability.org source.
I will only use these, for evidence that the event is commonly referred to as "The Seton Miracles," not for any other factual details. Octavius1981 (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Burn it all with fire. As Andy says above, "It is entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia." - Walter using an LLM? Ego 12:37, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You're Your opinion, as the creator of the article, regarding what constitutes reliable or unreliable sourcing may not be seen as particularly persuasive. And sourcing is by far not the only issue. And no, you cannot use either AI-generated videos or BishopAccountability.org for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to be as annoying as humanly possible and say:
Your opinion. 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 13:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ouch. I've already corrected 'it's' to 'its' once today. Mea calpa, though perhaps in mitigation I could plead overheating of the brain. It's currently 34°°C outside here in London, I've got no air conditioning, and it must be even hotter inside. I should probably find a cool spot somewhere.
Back on topic, I'd have to suggest that the article title is itself problematic, even ignoring all the other issues. Googling 'Seton Miracles' finds a few minor promotional sources using the term for the events at the Lake Ridge church, but mostly seems to find material relating to the canonisation of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton herself. And discounting partisan unreliable sources, we are left with an article that cites the Washington Post for "what [A small group in Northern Virginia] call The Seton Miracles", and another source stating that it has been called something else. Accordingly, while we can sometimes use non-neutral titles where they actually reflect common usage, that clearly isn't the case here. Given that even the Catholic Church seems unconvinced that any 'miraculous' phenomena occurred, I see no reason why Wikipedia should be labelling events thus, if we decide to cover the topic at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's okay :) Here in Guangzhou, we're at 35 (thanks Typhoon Dolphin (2026), for blowing away all the rain clouds). Possibly explains my sky-high AIV/CSD mispredict rate [malfunction sounds] 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 14:11, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
To AndyTheGrump . . .
🔘 Your Move/Rebase suggestion - On the article itself you suggested that this article's content belongs on the weeping statues page, instead. No I don't think it does, because this instance also involved a priest who had a bloody stigmata, which makes it its own completely separate category.
🔘 Reliable Sources - Well, this is wikipedia, @AndyTheGrump: so if you find any other unreliable source of mine, besides the AI & BishopAccountability video, then PLEASE DO POINT THEM OUT ! . . .
🔘 Article title - Thanks for acknowledging that "we can sometimes use non-neutral titles where they actually reflect common usage," but why did you then follow it up with "that clearly isn't the case here"? I'd think that my additional 2 UN-reliable sources, . . .
. . . . . . the Marian Foundation video & website, and
. . . . . . the online petition,
which all refer to it as "The Seton Miracles," would POSITIVELY constitute that very evidence of "Common Usage." And then there's the NEGATIVE argument: If not "The Seton Miracles," then what other title do you suggest? I can't think of a better one, which would be adequately "recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent," as called for by WP:TITLE.
Octavius1981 (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not going to suggest any alternate title, since nothing I have seen so far indicates that these events merit a separate article. If you want to argue the contrary, you will have to do better than basing arguments around your own credulity. Reports of supposed 'stigmata' are again far from uncommon, and, it should be noted, generally treated with almost the same scepticism by the Catholic church as are reports of weeping statues. There is no new topic here, just more of the same. If you want to convince the world that statues weep, and that the marks of crucifixion spontaneously appear on the bodies of believers, you will have to find somewhere else to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.