Content deleted Content added
m criteria checked |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 6 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Catholicism}}, {{WikiProject Saints}}, {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Portugal}}, {{WikiProject Women in Religion}}. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6. Tag: |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|living=no|listas=Dos Santos, Lucia|1=
{{WikiProject Biography
{{WikiProject Catholicism
{{WikiProject Women in Religion|importance=low}}
▲{{WikiProject Saints|class=C|importance=Mid}}
▲{{WikiProject Women's History|class=C|importance=Mid}}
▲{{WikiProject Portugal|class=C|importance=Mid}}
}}
== Photo at the top of the article EQUAL to photo of Marto and Jacinta at the end ==
Line 169 ⟶ 163:
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
The result of the move request was: '''Withdrawn''' by nominator, unanimously opposed; to be replaced presently. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
----
<small>[[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure|(non-admin closure)]]</small>
[[:Lúcia dos Santos]] → {{no redirect|Lúcia of Fátima}} – Current title, [[Lúcia dos Santos]], is not nearly as [[WP:RECOGNIZABLE]] / [[WP:COMMONNAME]] as [[Lúcia of Fátima]]. The lead even admits it: "<
*'''Oppose, per ancient n-grams''' <s>'''Unsure''' but will watch the discussion</s>. It is her real name, and the infobox, first mention in the lead, and her name on the template should reflect that by staying with her complete name, even if it is moved (I'm talking myself into lean-oppose). Some ancient n-grams should be dug up and exhibited on this. I just created the page 'Sister Lucia of Fatima' and redirected it here, so we'll see if views go up and sustain. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
::Well, this [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Lucia+Santos%2CLucia+of+Fatima%2CSister+Lucia+of+Fatima&year_start=1917&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CLucia%20Santos%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLucia%20of%20Fatima%3B%2Cc0 n-gram measuring the three variations from 1917 to 2008] seems to support the present name pretty much overwhelmingly, and actually shows no results for 'Sister Lucia of Fatima'. Any proof that this has changed since 2008? [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 1:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
{{OOCOT}}
::::Keep in mind that Ngrams are not absolute. Authors often like to use "real" names rather than their more recognizable alternatives, especially with modern-era names like Lucia's that ''have'' real surnames available. Thomas Aquinas and John Damascene, to name two, are not counterexamples to this idea, since neither had surnames in the modern sense.) Most people would recognize "Lúcia of Fátima" more easily than "Lúcia dos Santos"; in the first case, it's easy to make the association with the Fátima apparitions without already knowing her full name, whereas in the latter, the reader would have to know her full name already. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
:::::To put it another way, keep in mind that [[WP:COMMONNAME]] doesn't strictly require the most frequently used name; rather, as its alias [[WP:RECOGNIZABLE]] more clearly suggests, it requires recognizable, natural names, and not necessarily the "official" name. Bill Clinton instead of William J. Clinton, for example. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
{{OOCOB}}
:::While we're at it, [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Lucia+Santos%2CLucia+dos+Santos&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CLucia%20Santos%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLucia%20dos%20Santos%3B%2Cc0 this Ngram] shows that "Lucia dos Santos" is far more common than "Lucia Santos"; and the source that used to be in the article at the claim that "dos Santos" is incorrect makes no such claim, and has been removed. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
*Well this RM is broken as can be, the nominator is changing the name of the page without discussion. I'd suggest this RM be cancelled and a discussion about the name change take place. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 00:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
::The undiscussed move should be as uncontroversial as can be, and in any case it is irrelevant to this RM. If you have a problem with it, please revert per [[WP:BRD]] and/or start a separate discussion about it. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
:::Just realized I used the same phrase as you. It's not my intent to parrot back your words or mock you. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
::::Parroting back my words is as fine as can be. No problem. As for the RM, it seems that by you changing the name, and that the n-grams show that "Lucia of Fatima" is not close to being her common name, you might want to leave it as is, although it's your RM and you can of course keep it going. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 1:11, 13 July 2016
:::::Your not taking offense is as great as can be. I've seen the Ngrams for the current title vs. the proposed title, but I'm going to keep the RM going, for now anyway. IMO this is a case where Ngrams don't tell the whole story (see my out-of-order comment above, in the green box). [[User:Jujutsuan|<
* With no source other than my (Portuguese) memory, I'd say, in Portugal she is mostly knows simply as "Sister Lúcia" (pt: Irmã Lúcia). If the need arises we would probably add "of Fátima" (pt: "de Fátima".) I had no idea she was named Santos. I have no idea what would be common use in English - [[User:Nabla|Nabla]] ([[User talk:Nabla|talk]]) 20:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I believe {{U|Nabla}} is correct, even in English; [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Lucia+Santos%2CLucia+dos+Santos%2CLucia+of+Fatima%2CSister+Lucia%2BSister+L%C3%BAcia&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CLucia%20Santos%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLucia%20dos%20Santos%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLucia%20of%20Fatima%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28Sister%20Lucia%20%2B%20Sister%20L%C3%BAcia%29%3B%2Cc0 see here]. "Sister Lucia"/"Sister Lúcia" blows all the others out of the water. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
::It would be like [[Mother Teresa]]; cf. [[WP:PRECISE]]. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
:::'''Now You're Cooking, but...''' told you this RM is broken. The common name does seem to be 'Sister Lucia', but this RM is about changing it to "Lucia of Fatima", which has very little back-up. You really can't go switching names midstream, but a new RM under the name 'Sister Lucia' seems reasonable. Still should have her real name as the infobox title though. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 18:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
::::I don't know about broken, but I can see it's failing and that there's a better alternative, which only came up because this discussion happened. So I'd say it served its purpose. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
*'''Weak Oppose''' per Randy Kryn. 21 million Google hits for the proposed name and 62 million Google hits for the current name. The current name seems more common than the proposed name.
----
Line 198 ⟶ 192:
== Infobox ==
Hi {{ping|Randy Kryn}} Did you have an actual problem with the switch? "It needs to be discussed" isn't an argument; [[WP:BOLD]] and [[WP:BRD-NOT]] #5. Most other Servants of God get saint infoboxes; it's certainly more appropriate than the most generic person infobox. And there's no other competing infobox, like theologian or Christian leader, that I'm aware of. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
:Is she a saint or just "beautified"? There is no data in the article that I can find on a quick read that she has attained Catholic sainthood. If she's not a saint then a saint infobox is premature. If she is a saint it should be cited and clear in the lead. And are you sure about the page name, that it's her real name, there was that cite about it that you removed, I haven't read it and will do so at some point soon. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 00:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
::She's a Servant of God. It's a few steps back from beatification, but it's a very real thing. See [[Canonization#Since 1983]], and also take a look at the infoboxes in articles in [[:Category:Servants of God]] ([[Mariam Vattalil]] is my personal go-to example). The order of titles bestowed throughout the canonization process goes Servant of God -> Venerable -> Blessed (beatified) -> Saint (canonized). The infobox is called "saint", but it is applicable to anyone Servant of God or higher as long as the appropriate title is listed in the "titles" parameter. In Lúcia's case, "Religious, Servant of God" would be appropriate. (I'm guessing "beautified" was a joke? An oldie but a goodie. ;) ) The citation that used to be in the article claiming that "dos" was ''not'' part of her name was to a source that made no such claim (her own memoirs). In fact, it ''used'' the "dos" in several instances with her close relatives' names; at most, it offers no guidance, but more likely it shows that the "dos" is proper. That plus the Ngrams showing "Lúcia dos Santos" far outweighing "Lúcia Santos" should be enough, until and unless a reliable source comes up to prove it wrong. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
:::(Note that a lot of the articles in the SOG category are stubs and/or for Christian leaders (which includes sainthood parameters), so the infobox usage there is inconsistent; but many of them do use the saint box when another does not supersede it.) [[User:Jujutsuan|<
::::I'd say that a saint infobox should go to saints. Santos' notability is larger than a catholic universe, the 1917 events belong more to the history of such phenomena. With you working on this page and others it is getting those pages in front of editors again, so good work. I made a few additions and fixes to the template (although lost in the history, I put up the first 1917 Fatima events template, which was later merged into one created later, all without discussion) because of these discussions. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 1:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::I don't see any reason to be so restrictive on the use of the saint infobox. It's very commonly used on beati, venerables, and servants, in addition to saints proper; and all those classes of people are "venerated" in the Catholic Church to varying degrees (though the infobox is not exclusively for Catholics). As for the realm of Lúcia's notability, while it might extend beyond Catholicism, that ''is'' her primary association: she's first and foremost remembered a witness to the distinctly ''Catholic'' event, a mystic, and a nun. (I'm really not even sure what else she's known for...) How strongly opposed to returning to the saint infobox are you? (And thanks for the kudos!) [[User:Jujutsuan|<
::::::Even though some pages may use the saint infobox on non-saints it seems that only saints should have it. Maybe that's a personal bias, haven't looked at the "rules and regs" on that. In any case, the title of such an infobox should be a mix of non-Catholic and Catholic. And the Fatima events were not Catholic events (unless there are reliable sources that say Mary self-identifies as a Catholic), although the Catholic influence in town was such that they stepped in to both deny and then to claim the reliability of the youngsters experiences and their aftermath. I'm surprised it's only us conversing here, Wikiprojects and editors who watch articles aren't what they used to be. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 12:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
:::::::If your concern with the infobox is that it says "venerated in", that is true of servants, venerables, beati, and saints proper. It's a matter of formality, certainty, and officialdom that the three former classes don't jump to sainthood immediately.
Line 209 ⟶ 203:
:::::::Well, the children were all clearly Catholic, and to my knowledge only Catholics made/make any kind of fuss over it. Protestants generally brush it off as "[[Mariolatry]]", and I don't think the Orthodox really had much of a reaction. In the memoirs, Mary does in a sense identify with the Catholic Church, telling Lúcia:
::::::::"The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means."
:::::::The "Holy Father" is, of course, the pope. Ergo Catholic. (It should be fairly obvious it wasn't a reference to the Coptic pope.) The "all the Bishops of the world" request is also a strong indicator of Catholicism (could be Orthodoxy, too, but not in the context of the pope). Since religious skeptics and "secular scholars" would dismiss all this as nonsense in the first place, I think that's about as reliable as it gets. In any case, I don't think there ''is'' any non-Catholic info to put in her infobox—if you or anyone else can find some, by all means include it. But that's not any impediment to using the saint box; the same is true for people like St. [[Faustina Kowalska]]. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
{{outdent}} Pinging {{U|Randy Kryn}}... [[User:Jujutsuan|<
:Thanks for the ping, forgot to check back here. Since nobody else has posted, please go ahead with your edit but I would ask that the subjects full name (or 'Lucia dos Santos') be included as the first infobox title and the Catholic designations after that. It still is her name and seems to be the settled title of the page. Thanks. [[user:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] 18:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 223 ⟶ 217:
[[:Lúcia dos Santos]] → {{no redirect|Sister Lúcia}} – [[WP:COMMONNAME]] per [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Lucia+Santos%2CLucia+dos+Santos%2CLucia+of+Fatima%2CSister+Lucia%2BSister+L%C3%BAcia&year_start=1940&year_end=2016&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CLucia%20Santos%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLucia%20dos%20Santos%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CLucia%20of%20Fatima%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28Sister%20Lucia%20%2B%20Sister%20L%C3%BAcia%29%3B%2Cc0 this Ngram]. See [[Talk:Lúcia dos Santos#Requested move 11 July 2016|the RM from 11 July 2016]] for more background and details. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
*'''Notifying''' editors involved in previous RM: {{U|Randy Kryn}}, {{U|CookieMonster755|CookieMonster}}, and {{U|Nabla}}. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
*'''Support''' per nom. [[User talk:CookieMonster755|<b style="color:limegreen"><sup>Ḉɱ̍</sup></b>]] [[User:CookieMonster755|<span style="color:Gold">2nd anniv.</span>]] 21:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
**Love my new signature! [[User talk:CookieMonster755|<b style="color:limegreen"><sup>Ḉɱ̍</sup></b>]] [[User:CookieMonster755|<span style="color:Gold">2nd anniv.</span>]] 21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Line 231 ⟶ 225:
::{{re|Randy Kryn}} I believe it should be formatted like [[Mother Teresa]]'s page, with her [[WP:COMMONNAME]] ("Sister Lúcia") in the infobox header, and with the following opening sentence:
:::'''Sister Lúcia''' (born '''Lúcia de Jesus dos Santos'''; Portuguese: <IPA pronunciation>; <birth–death range>), also known as '''Lúcia of Fátima''' and by her full [[religious name]] '''Sister Maria Lúcia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart''', [[O.C.D.]], was a [[Portuguese]] [[Catholic]] [[nun]] and one of the three children to witness the 1917 [[Our Lady of Fátima|Marian apparitions]] at [[Fátima, Portugal|Fátima]].
::Her birth name would still be listed later in the infobox, where it really belongs. Having 2 and 3 and 4 names in the infobox header only creates clutter, confusion, and unnecessary redundancy. For example, I think the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Padre_Pio&oldid=730962752 current version] of the infobox in the [[Padre Pio]] article is too cluttered, especially the header and titles. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
::::I also fail to see what the infobox has to do with [[WP:NC]]. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
* '''Oppose''': The events at Fatima occurred when the children were all young. Their later lives (not that the other two had much of a later life) were of much less importance to the story than what happened in 1917. At that time she was simply '''Lúcia dos Santos''', and that's what the article should remain as. -- [[User:JackofOz|<
::That's not an argument. What is the woman commonly called? Her secular name is clearly out. She was notable long after the events—e.g. when she published her memoirs—in the 19-FORTIES—and the Church investigated the events in subsequent decades. Even now she's a candidate for canonization—still relevant, and the most common version of her name is clearly not her secular name. Even if she ''had'' fallen out of relevance, her [[WP:COMMONNAME]] is in no way frozen at the moment she reaches peak fame. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
::: ''Her secular name is clearly out'' - that's no argument either. That's just a bald assertion, with not even an attempt at a supporting argument. But why would it be out? Let me quote the lede para from [[Our Lady of Fátima]]:
:::* Our Lady of Fátima (Portuguese: Nossa Senhora de Fátima, formally known as Our Lady of the Holy Rosary of Fátima Nossa Senhora do Rosário de Fátima European Portuguese: [ˈnɔsɐ sɨˈɲoɾɐ dɨ ˈfatimɐ] (Brazilian Portuguese [ˈnɔsɐ sĩˈȷ̃ɔɾɐ dʒi ˈfatʃimɐ]) is a Roman Catholic title of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on apparitions reported to have been experienced in 1917 by three shepherd children at Fátima, Portugal. The three children were '''Lúcia Santos and her cousins Jacinta and Francisco Marto'''. (my bolding)
::: This demonstrates that, when the story is told, the children are given their secular names. Yes, Lucia later took religious vows and a religious name, but that's not how she is known in the context of the events that made her notable, the appearances at Fatima. -- [[User:JackofOz|<
::::{{re|JackofOz}} If you had read the nomination, you would have seen the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] argument, and the Ngram that makes it painfully obvious. It's appropriate to call her "Lúcia dos Santos" in the [[Our Lady of Fátima]] article (needs to be corrected to "dos Santos" though, and qualified with something like "later known as Sister Lúcia"), since she wasn't a nun ("Sister") at the time. Regardless, that doesn't make her overall common name ''not'' "Sr. Lúcia". I'd suggest you look up a wide sample of the literature written about Sr. Lúcia, and you'll see that she is called "Sr. Lúcia" far more often than by her secular name. Or, do it the easy way and look at the Ngram in the nomination. (Note that while I abbreviated "Sister" by "Sr." here, I am not advocating use of the abbr. in the title.) [[User:Jujutsuan|<
:::::By your argument, [[Pope Benedict XVI]]'s article should be named "Joseph Ratzinger" simply because some other WP article "telling the story" of some aspect of his pre-papal career referred to him (appropriately) by his secular name when discussing the period before he became pope. Non sequitur. [[User:Jujutsuan|<
::::::Maybe it wouldn't be a bad general rule... We do not have "President XXX", or "Judge YYY" (unless that is the proper name, as in [[Judge Dredd]], nor most "<function> <person name>" pages, why Popes and Sisters?... We do have, e.g., [[Barack Obama]], with a redirect from [[President Barack Obama]]. - [[User:Nabla|Nabla]] ([[User talk:Nabla|talk]]) 10:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
----
Line 252 ⟶ 246:
== sisterlucyimposter.org ==
An IP has continually added a link to the above mentioned site to "source" some contentious material. I don't know a lot about the subject however looking at the website, it appears to be the project of armchair detectives and I don't see how on it's own, it is a reliable source and in fact, it appears to be [[WP:NOR]]. I have asked in my edit summaries and left a 3rr warning on the IPs talk page but so far, they have not brought it to a discussion. [[User:Praxidicae|Praxidicae]] ([[User talk:Praxidicae|talk]]) 14:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
{{reply-to|Praxidicae}} – I've just happened across this article. The website seems to have some at least notable people contributing – at least one appears to have a Wikipedia article – but if it is {{em|just}} the one website positing this, and the other sources in the section are all just quoting from that website, then I think we can nerf the entire section. —[[User:Ineffablebookkeeper|Ineffablebookkeeper]] ([[User talk:Ineffablebookkeeper|talk]]) ({{[[Template:ping|ping]]}} me!) 21:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
| |||