Talk:Miracle of Calanda

This page only cites one source.The source website is Abbey Saint Joseph in Flavigny (http://www.clairval.com/index.en.html), and is a site of a religious nature. No evidence supporting this story has been offered, but the article has been phrased to assert truth value without corroborating evidence.

So, I've tagged it. MyStupidAccount (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This still seems heavily reliant on a single source and I think there is a valid question of neutrality in the way it's written. Tagged again for review. (Elbonio (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC))

neutrality disclaimer

Hi, I cited several references when I wrote this page, and have since added more, so I think the neutrality disclaimer isn't necessary. Guardaiinalto (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bias

I think it still need more analysis. I don't really accept this as fact, as I would like to have a skeptic point of view. It's still not neutral enough for me, and I guess for plenty others as well. Aediasse (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia text, of which this is a translation, goes a fair way to avoid that implicit bias by making it an article about the book, with a book info-box. It would seem sensible to do that here. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in Wikipedia is achieved by sheer attribution, i.e. Wikipedia itself does not say that the miracle itself takes place, but sources do. As long as there is clear attribution of these sources, this article qualifies as neutral. Ran9876 (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I too question the veracity of this claim.

With regrards to the references, the first (Vittorio Messori (2000). Il Miracolo. BUR.) is a book which details the event, written in 2000. My suspicion is that everything stems from this one source.

The second reference is a "Spiritual Newsletter" (Dom Antoine Marie (2006). Letter of Saint Joseph Abbey. Saint Joseph Abbey.) so clearly has bias. While this web page has references for several incidental claims, none of the claims relating to the miracle itself ave a reference. It seems likely this story was lifted straight from reference one, by an uncritical author.

For the bibliography and external links, the first (Vittorio Messori (2000): Il miracolo. BUR, pp. 272 ISBN 8817258717) is just a repeat of the first reference!

The second (Läpple, Alfred (1989): Wunder sind Wirklichkeit) is in German, so I am not sure about. It appears to be legimate, refering to the miracle in question. however, the purpose of this book is to prove that miracles happen, so this is certainly a biased source.

The third (Sbalchiero, Patrick: Calanda, miracle dit de. - in: Sbalchiero (ed.)(2002): Dictionnaire des miracles et de l'extraordinaire Chrétiens. Edition Fayard) is also promoting the idea that miracles are true, so again is a biased source. I could not check what it says of the Calanda Miracle, or what its sources are.

The fourth (Dom Antoine Marie (2006). Letter of Saint Joseph Abbey. Saint Joseph Abbey.(retrieved Jan. 2009)) is the same as the second reference.

The fifth (Miracle at Calanda, 1640. Pdf file with pictures) is a religious document, with no references. I am guessing it draws exclusively on reference 1.

The sixth is in Spanish (Documentary film from Spanish TV Channel Cuarto Milenio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iePqXyqrX0A (retrieved Jan. 2009)) perhaps someone who speaks Spanish could establish what sources are cited, and hw biased this is.

The seventh (Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia Between Religion and Science) is an Encyclopedia published by the Centro di Documentazione Interdisciplinare di Scienza e Fede operating at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, so another biased source. The page in question does mention the Calanda Miracle; it references the second in this list (Läpple) as its source.

The eighth (English Cardinal on path to sainthood after 'miracle' by Ruth Gledhill ("The Times," November 10, 2009)) has a very brief, unreferenced footnote about the Miracle at Calanda. Actually this is a very misleading reference, as it purports to be in an respected UK newspaper. The true is that this is a link to a comment about a newspaper article, nd the article itself DOES NOT MENTION CALANDA. The original article is here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6909659.ece The actual page linked to is another religious site. This reference is just plain misleading.

The nineth (Calanda in Aragon) is broken, but I guess is about the place, not the miracle.

The last (Il Miracolo di Calanda: osservazioni di ortopedico) is by a surgeon considering the miracle from a clinical point of view. Certainly this reference should be here, but it must be noted that this reference itself only cites the first reference as evidence that the event took place.

All but the last two are clearly biased, with a desire to promote the claim that miracles happen. I see nothing to suggest any of the references got their material from anywhere besides the Läpple book and the Messori book; everything comes down to these two, both of which had an axe to grind.

Can anyone find any reference to this miracle that predates Läpple's book in 1989? Why did this miracle claim remain so secret until then? This is especially strange, given how well the news was originally spread, including a book by a German docter, an audience with the Spanish king. The vision at Lourdes is nothing compared to a guy growing his leg back, so why was this quietly forgotten until 1989? F2Andy (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've tried verifying the German source, and it doesn't appear to be relevant. The book is in google books, and does not contain the words Calanda or Pellicer. If someone wanted to reinstate the reference, a page number would be welcome. —Argav ۞ 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The event is described in A. Läpple's book on pp. 129-131, under the title "Amputiertes Bein - nachgewachsen (1640)" (i.e. "amputated leg regrown"). Läpple's account is based on the following study: L. A. Naval: El Milagro de Calanda a Nivel Historico. Estudio critico de los documentos que lo atestiguan. El ambiente a la época. Zaragoza 1972. Guardaiinalto (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell is there a skeptsim place?

Far to negative there isn't skeptscim of the bible im removing it sorry people would be offended.Awsometilthegrave (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lolwut? I don't think you know how Wikipedia works. --70.145.76.243 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I added

4 WikiProjects. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Where's the body?

If people truly believed that a miracle had occurred, where is Pellicer's body? I think that the editors of this article have gravely underestimated the Catholic Church's propensity to sometimes lie. The body of Galileo, a supposed heretic of Pellicer's day, was preserved and is available this very day for scientific examination. Why not the body of Pellicer, who died after Galileo??? If the churchmen of his day truly believed that he had his amputated leg miraculously restored to him, it seems to me that they would have build a basilicia in honor of the miracle and entombed Pellicer's body in a crypt within it.

I think we're supposed to talk about the Wikipedia article here, not the content of it per se: Your question would be better suited at Catholic Answers, Reddit, or some other forum. That said, a simple explanation may be that they did not find this miracle so profoundly exceptional to be worthy of its own chapel for veneration. Moreover, the bodies of canonized saints are venerated, not merely people who were healed. Because these answers are clear to many readers, and clearly accessible at other forums if asked, I think we should not add this content to this article. -- Newagelink (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

He is apparently buried in Velilla de Ebro's cemetery. I didn't have that much trouble finding a picture of his grave. So his body is presumably there. Some sources indicated it was exhumed in 1950 for examination. I'm not sure the sources for that are up to snuff, but I can add them if you want.--Tibby57721 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory

Why is there an "Alternative Explanations" section in this article? The articles on the moon landing, the Holocaust, or any number of other historical events don't have sections presenting conspiracy theories claiming that they were faked. 2602:306:C583:2370:25D1:C4AA:8C3F:E1DB (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In fairness definitely stating a Catholic miracle is true, and there is no alternate explanation available, would probably sound like supporting one religion over another or over no religion. Although personally I'd agree that the alternate explanation "he invented an amputation that never happened" is rather weak compared to skepticism in other areas I've seen. (In that the idea he made it up for money doesn't really seem to be based in anything in the story and "a guy made stuff up to be a better beggar" is something people then I think might have been willing to consider.) Then again I am Catholic so you know.--Tibby57721 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)