Talk:Joseph of Cupertino

Section conflicts with NPV

The Skeptical Enquirer is not an unbiased source and shouldn't be used. It is a magazine written by an advocacy group against religious experiences, so it conflicts with NPV. There are two problems with the following line: "According to the Skeptical Inquirer, eyewitness reports of Joseph's levitations are noted to be subject to exaggeration, and often written years after his death." 1. the footnote does not show in any way that the reports are exaggerated, only that the Skeptical Enquirer claimed this in an issue of its own magazine. 2. AI research will show that more than 100 people were interviewed who witnessed the events (more witnesses than most historical accounts of events) and therefore the evidence weighs heavily in favor of reporting in Wikipedia objectively. A simple question to an AI engine shows that the longest "levitation" lasted two hours and his longest horizontal flight was at least 70 yards. I believe the information listed in this section needs to be edited. Editor1963-a (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The Skeptical Enquirer quote is properly attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Wikipedia is biased in favor of reality. Religious beliefs are stated straightforwardly. Extraordinary claims that contradict physical laws are subject to WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

AI isn't a reliable source on Wikipedia. That being said, I've restored Professor Carlos Eire of Yale University's explanation on Joseph's sources and gave proper attribution to Gordon Stein and Joe Nickell. Thanks for pointing out this issue by the way, neither Stein nor Nickell are exactly the best sources on Early Modern European history given their lack of qualification as historians.

Gordon Stein (April 30, 1941 – August 27, 1996) was an American author, physiologist, and activist for atheism and religious skepticism.

He returned to the University of Kentucky for graduate work, earning an M.A. (1982) and PhD (1987). His PhD is in English, focusing on literary investigation and folklore. ~2026-42132-68 (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Carlos Eire is a devout Catholic who believes in miracles , . Clearly a huge bias. Eire is an unreliable source to be giving undue weight to on levitations. He believes levitations are real and attacks "materialists".

Nowadays, miracles and anomalous events, including levitation and bilocation, are considered absolutely impossible by the dominant materialistic culture of Western nations. Even some Catholics who consider themselves “devout” share in this worldview to some extent and are embarrassed or annoyed by fellow Catholics who still believe in supernatural phenomena or assign them significance. And I can testify from first-hand experience that any present-day scholar who dares to argue that levitations and bilocations might have actually occurred in the past or might still be occurring in our day and age will be dismissed by some die-hard materialists as a crackpot or a liar.

We should not be citing him two or three times on this topic. Carrot juice (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Or, if cited, be it in context. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Carlos Eire is a senior professor and historian at Yale University, you can hardly get a more reliable source for Joseph of Cupertino than this.

Carlos M. N. Eire is the T. Lawrason Riggs Professor of History and Religious Studies at Yale University. He is a historian of late medieval and early modern Europe.

A rather stark contrast from Gordon Stein, who has no qualifications in history whatsoever (rather a Masters in management) and Joe Nickell, a PhD in English.

He [Stein] earned degrees in psychology and zoology, a doctorate in physiology from Ohio State University and master's degrees in Management and Library Science from University of Rochester, Adelphi College, and the University of California at Los Angeles.

He [Nickell] returned to the University of Kentucky for graduate work, earning an M.A. (1982) and PhD (1987). His PhD is in English, focusing on literary investigation and folklore. ~2026-42132-68 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Excellent point about the lack of qualifications for Gordon Stein and Joe Nickell. The credentials for Carlos Eire as professor of History and Religious Studies fit this topic well.

With regard to extraordinary claims that contradict physical laws, many events and beliefs are "fringe" before they are understood. In medicine this has been catalogued extensively. In the 19th century germ theory was fringe and not believed (that tiny organisms caused disease) and Ignaz Semmelweis's insistence that doctors wash their hands was soundly ridiculed; the belief that there were specific blood types was criticized and disbelieved (all blood looks the same); the discovery that Helicobacter pylori was the cause of ulcers in the 1980s was met with considerable skepticism. If I were to tell someone a thousand years ago that the energy in my pinky fingernail contains so much power in it that I could destroy a city if I released it, I certainly would have had a "fringe" belief, and yet this is true.

One more point is that we have magnets today that when placed underneath another magnet of like polarity will make the first one levitate. Levitation itself is certainly possible.

We should edit or cut the parts in the article that quote people (Stein and Nickell) who work for magazines that break the NPOV rule. Editor1963-a (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, by WP:SCHOLARSHIP we should prioritize material published by university presses and written by recognized experts in the field. Carlos Eire's They Flew with Yale University Press passes with flying colors, while Stein and Nickell's claims do not.

Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses ~2026-42132-68 (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Editor1963-a, you clearly have no no understanding whatsoever of Wikipedia policy, if you think that waffle about germ theory or magnets is relevant to this discussion. Articles aren't based on a contributor's vacuous speculation about hypothetical future understandings. As for the 'NPOV rule', you appear not to have read it, since it categorically states that 'bias' alone is not sufficient grounds to exclude a source. If it were, one could equally argue for exclusion of Eire as a source, on the basis that he self-identifies as a devout catholic. No, What WP:NPOV requires is that Wikipedia articles are 'neutral' in as much as they duly reflect the balance of informed opinion. One would be hard pressed to find supporting evidence for the claim that Cupertino actually levitated. Not least because Eire appears not to have actually asserted this as fact himself. To quote from Eire's introduction “We bracket the question of whether this happened or not,” we say, and by that we mean that since we cannot prove that any of this hovering and flying happened, we put those questions aside and instead ask other ones, admitting that all we can analyze is the fact that some people believed that such things did happen. So we limit ourselves to analyzing narratives and the beliefs expressed in those narratives but not the events reported in them. Those events remain suspended in an ether of their own, much like some stiff-jointed levitating saint, in that vast limbo where all unprovable and unusable testimonies get squirreled away. And all we are left with is the fact of the testimonies given and of the beliefs reflected in them. Eire's book isn't about levitating monks, it is about rational people who genuinely believed that they had seen a monk levitate, and what that tells us about belief. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The cited Eire book won an award for excellence in the study of religion, and I think its placement in the religious perspective section is appropriate. But I'm not sure the existing paragraph is the best summary of Eire's ideas about Joseph of Cupertino. Maybe a brief quote from the book can be found that would better serve. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyTheGrump, for your comments. I should have written a bit more clearly. I do know the policy regarding NPOV. Also, my comments about magnets is in regard to "levitating bodies," in case that didn't make sense to you. 2026-42132-68 has a good point about citing Eire (historian and professor) and I would be in favor of that, especially considering his book was published by Yale University Press and he has excellent credentials. WP.SCHOLARSHIP is clear on this issue, that a university press should take precedence over an advocacy magazine like the Skeptical Enquirer. Editor1963-a (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in your misrepresentation of a policy you clearly haven't read. Regardless of who published Eire's book, or what his credentials as a historian are, he can't be cited for any claim that Joseph of Cupertino levitated, since he makes it entirely clear that he doesn't make such a claim himself. And even if he did, that would merely place him in the same position as any other normally-reliable source making a fringe claim: per core Wikipedia policy, we reflect academic consensus, rather than the views of a single individual. As of now, no reputable academic is suggesting that Joseph of Cupertino actually levitated, and per Wikipedia's actual neutral point of view policy (Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views) our article (which isn't on the topic of people who believe in flying monks) isn't going to suggest that he did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

So let me comment on a couple of things. First, you wrote: “I'm not the slightest bit interested in your misrepresentation of a policy you clearly haven't read. Regardless of who published Eire's book, or what his credentials as a historian are, he can't be cited for any claim that Joseph of Cupertino levitated…” Wikipedia policy does make a distinction between university-published material and a small-circulation newsletter. Yale University carries a great deal of weight, as do his credentials, so let’s quote him.

Also, you brought up a very good point that you consider the belief in miracles to be “fringe.” I actually wasn’t sure if that is a fringe topic or belief, so I did some research regarding whether believing in miracles is or is not mainstream, because I didn’t know the answer. Here are the surveys:

CBS News (1999) 78% of Americans believe in miracles

Barna (2008) 79% of Americans believe in miracles

Barna (2016) 67% of Americans believe in miracles.

The final survey found that only 15 percent said that miracles are not possible.

Lucky Louie and ~2026-42132-68, what are your thoughts regarding quoting Erie’s book? Editor1963-a (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)