Talk:Sister Lúcia

Photo at the top of the article EQUAL to photo of Marto and Jacinta at the end

Hi. There is an evident mistake. The woman in the photo at the top of this article, is the same than the photo related to Jacinta and Marto at the end. The same image both for Jacinta and Sister Lucia. Probably has to be removed the one of this article.

Clean up Needed

This page is in need of a serious clean-up, frequent use of words like "apostate," and "so-called" for Vatican II, show a pretty serious POV issue here. The Second Vatican Council wasn't so-called, it was the second Vatican Council. It might have been the greatest movement of the Church in 100 years, or it might have been a plot from the devil himself, but whatever it was, it ceratinly was Vatican II. Several authors of this article have some pretty clear views, and they shine through in the article. NPOV needs to be established, and so I am going to be bold, as per Wikipedia's rules, and do a bit of cleaning up, especially the parts that involve doctinal name-calling. Morgaledth 03:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There - not that I expect those that hate her or those who love her to be happy. But at least now if someone uninterested in the validity of Vatican II decides to read this article, they can get several versions of the criticisms before the text gets reverted. Have fun turning the article back into a personal screed. I've done what I could. At least try and sign your work. :) Morgaledth 04:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

External Sources

I'm wondering why "The True Secret of Fatima" was included under the list of external sources. It links to an article and website promoting the dogma that Mary is God, a clear perversion of the message of Fatima and this article devoted to its beloved messenger. I promptly removed it from the links.

68.254.162.155

Allow me to explain why I undid your recent changes:

(1) There was nothing wrong with the references provided concerning Lucia's first communion. You took what was expressed in several complete sentences and created one long run-on sentence. The original paragraph reads better. Also, according to Walsh, Lucia was initially quizzed by the Prior of her local church. So I do not know on what basis you decided to change it from prior to paster/priest.

(2) I don't understand why you have removed once again the fact that the "sun miracle" was witnessed by many people who attended the event. It is true, and important, so why remove it?

(3) I asked for a reference to the date/issue of the article in the New York Times. I searched the New York Times' archive for one but none showed up for the year 1917. Without a reference this information is not useful and I can't verify it.

I am happy that you wish to contribute to this article and I am not trying to discourage you with my editing. I hope that you understand my reasons laid out above. I would encourage you to register with Wikipedia so that your edits do not show up as a different IP address every time - which makes it difficult to know if you are different people or the same person. You also get your own talk page with helps with communication and collaboration. If you are still not happy please use this talk page to discuss this with me first. Many thanks, Albie34423 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) I have reverted your changes to the paragraph about Lucia's first communion, because your changes are not true. It was Cruz, not the parish priest, who determined that Lucia "understands what she's doing better than many of the others". Furthermore, it is not correct to refer to the parish priest at that time as a "prior".

(2) I did not remove your statement about 70,000 witnesses being present, so why did you accuse me of doing so?

(3) I reverted your changes to this paragraph because the New York times did have a correspondent present at Fatima, and he did telegraph his report back to New York, and part of it was printed in the New York Times on October 17, 1917. If you contact the New York Times, I'm sure that they can confirm that for you. 68.250.157.126 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of my concerns when you undid my changes. (1) That's incorrect. The paragraph clearly indicates that it was Father Cruz who made that determination. As for the title Prior, I gave Walsh's book as a reference. Finally, I told you that the changes to this paragraph create a long run-on sentence that does not read as well. (2) Well, in your last edit you restored this change. Like I said, you should register. Otherwise all that I see are IP addresses and I don't know who is who. (3) Provide a reference and we can put it back in. From what I have read, the story of the Fatima apparitions were not widely known outside of Portugal until after the publication of Lucia's memoirs. Sure enough, I did not find any articles in the NY Times until the 1940s and later. Jaki's book, God and the Sun at Fatima, which extensively covers media accounts, does not mention a NY Times correspondent either. So - how do you know this? Do you have a copy of the NY Times from 1917 or did you read about this somewhere? Provide a reference! Albie34423 (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the dispute about "prior", Walsh does not have a reputation for accuracy. De Marchi does have a reputation for accuracy. Furthermore, if you look at the literature, including dictionaries, parish priests are not routinely described as "priors". Therefore, the consensus would have to be that "parish priest", the term used by both De Marchi in his books, and also by Lucia in her memoirs, is the correct term to use in this article.

It is NOT true that the local priest (you called him prior) denied communion to Lucia "even though 'she understands what she's doing better than many of the others'. Lucia's own memoirs report that once Cruz informed the parish priest that Lucia "understands what she's doing better than many of the others", the parish priest REVERSED his decision to deny her holy communion, hence the local parish priest didn't deny Lucia communion "even though she understood", he GRANTED her communion "because she understood". I have eliminated the problem with the run-on sentence, while making clear that it was "because she understood", not "even though she understood".

As to the article in the New York Times, the appropriate citation has been given, that being the New York Times for October 17,1917. You couldn't possibly find the article looking at archives that only go back to the 1940'S... Why don't you ask the New York Times for a copy of the article from October 17, 1917? 70.231.23.39 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying now about the quotation. It was not obvious that it came from Father Cruz. I was wrong about that. As for the New York Times article, the digital archive goes back to 1851. No articles appear in my search before the late 1940s, after Lucia's memoirs were published. I used the search query "Fatima Portugal". I am not going to belabor this however. I am satisfied with a reference inserted into the text. Albie34423 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single person there was there as a "witness". If you don't like this, explain on the talk page before you revert. It is actually not as simple as that. Not everyone "witnessed" the same exact thing or anything at all. Even more importantly, some people claimed to have witnessed the phenomena who were not there at all, but standing many miles away. This last fact in particular is an interesting one that I had previously overlooked. Albie34423 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who is present is a witness, no matter what they might say they saw, and no matter what they might say that they didn't see, therefore the event that day was witnessed by all 70,000 people who arrived to witness it. Svp28 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously some event was witnessed by everyone that was there, but what I find most interesting about the specific sun phenomenon is that it was also witnessed by people who were not there, but standing many miles away. By the way, good catch with the paragraph on the Three Secrets. I had taken that directly from the article on the Three Secrets so I have also applied your correction to that article. I am glad you have finally registered. Now there is no way to confuse you with another anonymous editor. Hopefully we can continue to work together here to make this a good article. Albie34423 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Miracle of the Sun

De Marchi and Jaki do not "disagree" in any sense concerning descriptions of the miracle of the sun. Jaki includes discussions of all of the sources that De Marchi used and many, many more. De Marchi only cites a few witness accounts, while Jaki has filled his entire book with witness accounts. In fact, that is most of what the book is about. There is no disagreement here. Different people described the phenomena in different ways. The "fire wheel" became a common expression. For example:

But in front of me was a woman with a white felt hat which I used as a mirror to see what was happening to the king of stars [the sun]. This lasted about 20 minutes. Meanwhile I heard someone by my side crying, imploring, and saying that the sun was turning around like a wheel of fire. - Senhor Silva (Jaki, 69-71)

…that he looked at the sun and saw that it turned into different colors, coming close and gyrating like a fire wheel. He saw three times that phenomenon. -Romano de Santos (Jaki, 87)

Romano was one of the witnesses to give a sworn deposition in front of the parish priest of Porto. Jaki writes, of the rest of them, "Of the remaining ten witnesses all, except the third and fourth, used the expression ‘fire wheel’ (roda de fogo)...The word 'fire wheel' had become by then a standard expression to describe what the sun had appeared to do. Their testimonies nowhere contradicted one another. The differences related only to details, an all too normal case in truthful multiple testimonies." (Jaki, 87)

Maria de Capela's description cited in De Marchi contains the same language: It turned everything different colors, yellow, blue, white, and it shook and trembled; it seemed like a wheel of fire which was going to fall on the people. (De Marchi, pg. 136 in my edition)

While I don't dispute the accuracy of your quote, for the record - which book (title, publisher, year) of De Marchi are you using? Svp28 (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the following comes from Almeida's famous article:

And they ask each other if they had seen, and what they saw. The great majority confess that they had seen the shaking, the dance of the sun; others, however, state that they had seen the smiling face of the Virgin herself; they swear that the sun had rotated as if it were a wheel of fireworks; that it came down almost to the point of burning the earth with its rays. . . Another says that he saw it change color successively. (Jaki, 36-37) Albie34423 (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

De Marchi v. Zimdars-Swartz

Your last undo of my changes was completely unwarranted. I have read plenty of source material and there was nothing inaccurate in there. It is all contained in Jaki's book, and elsewhere. And I didn't revert your changes. I supplemented them. Finally, Lucia never planned to release the third part of the secret until her Bishop ordered her to do so after she fell seriously ill in the mid-1940s. Albie34423 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are accurately citing Zimdars-Swartz, then De Marchi and Zimdars-Swartz disagree about when the third secret was to be released, so we'll have to decide which version to use in the article. I don't find anything in Jaki's book about the third secret not being intended for release, or being intended for release only after 1960, both of which statements you want to include in the article. Since De Marchi is the more renowned author on the topic of Fatima, and since you haven't cited anything in Jaki in favor of Zimdars-Swartz's version, I have reverted to the material supported by De Marchi. If you do not believe De Marchi should be the favored source as to when the 3rd secret was to be revealed, please explain before you revert. Svp28 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no disagreement here. Read carefully what I wrote. Lucia did not initially plan on releasing the third part of the secret. After she fell seriously ill, Bishop da Silva was afraid that she would die and take the secret to her grave. So in 1943 he ordered her to write it down. She obeyed, but added the disclaimer that the secret was not to be read until after 1960. Thus, my text states "Lucia instructed that the secret could not be read until after 1960." See? Your wording is correct, but it does not indicate the context of that stipulation. Since there is no disagreement here, I am going to restore my wording. By the way, Jaki does not discuss the secrets. Albie34423 (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

To say that "the third secret was to remain secret" is unclear, because it does not indicate "whose" determination that might have been, or when that determination by them was made. To change the sentence to say that "Lucia" planned never to release the secret would be misleading, because it would lead the reader to think that Lucia planned NEVER to release the third secret (after releasing the first two), whereas there is no statement of hers to that effect. I suspect that Zimdars-Swartz was merely intending to report that Lucia had not intended to release the third secret so soon, but to wait awhile (It's my understanding that Lucia wanted it kept secret until 1960, but revealed it to the bishop sooner because her bishop feared she would die before then), but I don't have Zimdars-Swartz book to confirm Zimdars-Swartz intent, so I have reverted. If you want to revert back, could you please quote from Zimdars-Swartz, so that we can at least clarify the meaning of what you are attributing to Zimdars-Swartz's, so as to report the meaning that Zimdars-Swartz was actually trying to convey?

De Marchi reports that the secret was to be revealed "in" 1960 (p91 of the The True Story of Fatima, 1956), not "after" 1960, and, as he is the more renowned source, I have reverted to his version. Could you please quote from Zimdars-Swartz, both as to her statement, and as to her source for her statement, that the secret was not to be revealed until "after" 1960? 68.253.25.122 (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Zimdars-Swartz actually says "until 1960" so the word "after" was clearly a mistake. I have corrected that. Basically, Lucia did not feel from within her that she should release the third part of the secret in the year or so after she revealed the first two. It was not her intention from the start to reveal the secret in 1960, as far as can be determined. This stipulation was added once she was ordered to reveal it. In the prologue to her Fourth memoir, written after she had revealed the first two secrets but before she was ordered to reveal the third, Lucia describes how she was ordered to write down everything and then saved from the burden of revealing the last secret:

Dr. Galamba said then: "Your Excellency, command her to say everything, everything, and to hide nothing." And Your Excellency assisted most certainly by the Holy Spirit, pronounced this judgment: "No, I will not command that! I will have nothing to do with matters of secrets." Thanks be to God! Any other order would have been for me a source of endless perplexities and scruples. Had I received a contrary command, I would have asked myself, times without number: "Whom should I obey? God or His representative?" And perhaps, being unable to come to a decision, I would have been left in a state of real inner torment! (Santos, 2003, pg. 169)

Eventually, as Swartz describes, the bishop asked Lucia to write down the third secret, but only if she "wished" (204). Lucia, however, remained unconvinced, so the bishop decided to change his suggestion into an order. Now, De Marchi may be more "renowned" in the sense that his book is more widely known, but that doesn't necessarily make him more authoritative. Zimdars-Swartz, at the time her book was published, was an associate professor of religion at the University of Kansas. For sources she relies mostly on De Marchi, Walsh, Michel de la Sainte Trinite, and A. M. Martins' Novos Documentos de Fatima(a collection of primary source material in Portuguese), in addition to Lucia's first four memoirs. Albie34423 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

questioning Albie34423's citations

Albie34423, what is Zimdars-Swartz's citation for "then it will be made clearer" relative to the 1960 scheduled release of the third secret? I am used to seeing Lucia's words translated as "then it will be better understood". Have you quoted Zimdars-Swartz's book exactly? Also, who is the publisher for your references to a "Santos" book and a "De Marchi" book, and what are the titles of those books, and the year of publication for your De Marchi book?. Your page numbers don't match those in my copies of their books. Svp28 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Those two phrases pretty much mean the same thing. To make something "clearer" is also to make it "better understood." There is more than one way to translate something into English, after all. Turns out the quotation isn't quite correct. It should read "then it will appear clearer."

Here's the longer quotation:

Canon Barthas had said in 1946 that Lucia had told him that it was necessary to wait until 1960 "because the Virgin wishes it so." At a conference in 1967, Cardinal Ottaviani reported that when he had interviewed Lucia in Coimbra in 1955 and had asked her then why 1960 had been specified as the date before which the secret could not be opened, she had replied, "Because then it will appear clearer." Zimdars-Swartz lists as her source - Cardinal Ottaviani, "A propos du secret de Fatima," La documentation catholique 64/1490 (19 March 1967): 542.

Here are the full bibliographic details for those two books:

Lucia Santos, Fatima in Lucia's Own Words vol. 1. Ravengate Press, September 2004. This is the 14th edition.

John De Marchi, Fatima the Full Story, AMI Press Inc, 1999. The copyright pages states that it "contains all the text of the 1985 fifth edition published by Consolata Missions of Fatima, Portugal"

Both books have been re-printed so many times that it is not surprising that the pagination is different. Finally, you added that Lucia said the third secret could be revealed upon her death if that happened to occur before 1960, but I have never read anything other than her saying that it could not be opened before 1960. Where did you read this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albie34423 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion of Imposter

If this claim is based on a comparison of photos, these photos should be included (if permissible) or at least linked to so that the reader can make a comparison. I don't subscribe to the theory, so I'll cite three photos here. If anyone is inclined, they can make use of them.

• Child Lucia
• Young Sr. Lucia
• Elderly Sr. Lucia

AAT17 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Lucia's name

The photograph captions and the links at the bottom give her name as Lucia dos Santos. The text clearly states otherwise. I didn't make any changes because I don't know which is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce A. WIlliamson (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If only two of her names are mentioned, Lucia dos Santos is a better form than Lúcia Santos. Her full name was Lúcia de Jesus Santos, Lúcia de Jesus being her christian name, and Santos her family name. In this full form, the preposition "dos" is not needed. I must also observe that Lúcia never signed her name as Lúcia de Jesus Rosa Santos, as it is given by Wikipedia. She was not Rosa. It's a mistake which is spread by the Portuguese Wkipedia.JBarreto (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"witnessed" versus "claimed to have witnessed"

I have re-instated the following wording:

"She was one of the children who claimed to have witnessed a series of apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Fátima, Portugal in 1917.

I have done this because to remove those three words would be to take a particular, Catholic point of view (and not shared by all Catholics), and would violated the requirement that articles be neutral in their perspective. If this is problematic, please discuss it here. Thanks! -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 15:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Letters

Should I make a section regarding two letters Sr. Lucia wrote concerning the Fatima consecration?

You can find the letters here: Letters of Sr. Lucia Santos, OCD on the Consecration (EWTN)

Oct13 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I made "Memoirs" and "Letters" subsections instead. Oct13 (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Fatima.org

Some of the information on this page is cited as <reference>Fatima.org</reference>. This is advertisement and bias.

The Third Secret of Fatima section is unnecessary, since there's already a link to the Three Secrets of Fatima article. As such, I deleted the section and added the most relevant information to the Life in the convent section.

Oct13 (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• All references to Fatima.org and the Fatima Center should be removed, the leader Mr Grunner was relieved of his faculties for disobedience and had no contact with Sr Lucia Maria dos Santos, Servant of God. EWTN Q&A on Fr Grunner This particularly would have kept him from seeing her at her convent as they would have viewed his visits as undesirable. As such He and His organization should not be used as reliable sources.
• Fr Fox and his associated Fatima Family Apostolate were (and the Apostolate still is) in good standing in the Church and he was able to visit on occasion Sr Lucia. As such it is a first hand account and reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinkevichjm (talk • contribs) 22:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lúcia Santos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090514061336/http://www.thecalltofatima.com:80/ to http://www.thecalltofatima.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a 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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Lúcia dos Santos → 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: "better known as Sister Lúcia of Fátima". Google Ngrams will not be helpful in this case since her secular name is used in various forms, sometimes inconsistently (e.g. some sources call her "dos Santos", others just "Santos"). The current title is an abbreviated name anyway. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per ancient n-grams Unsure but will watch the discussion. 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. Randy Kryn 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this 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? Randy Kryn 1:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.

---

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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.

While we're at it, 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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 22:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• 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. 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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Just realized I used the same phrase as you. It's not my intent to parrot back your words or mock you. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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. 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). Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• 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 - Nabla (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I believe Nabla is correct, even in English; see here. "Sister Lucia"/"Sister Lúcia" blows all the others out of the water. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be like Mother Teresa; cf. WP:PRECISE. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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. 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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• 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.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox

Hi @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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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. 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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(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.) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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. 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!) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

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. 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.

It's not just some pages, it's most relevant pages. (Here's an example of a venerable with the infobox: Matt Talbot) Unfortunately there are no "rules" for that template; the documentation only details how to work the parameters.

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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Randy Kryn... Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 18:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

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. Randy Kryn 18:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There seems to be a consensus, and I think this can be regarded as an exception to WP:HONORIFIC, since it is a clear WP:COMMONNAME.  — Amakuru (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Lúcia dos Santos → Sister Lúcia – WP:COMMONNAME per this Ngram. See the RM from 11 July 2016 for more background and details. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Notifying editors involved in previous RM: Randy Kryn, CookieMonster, and Nabla. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 21:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Love my new signature! ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• well... my comment here is the same as above. (en:) Sister Lúcia (pt:) Irmã Lúcia is by far the most common form in Portugal, I think. Not sure about the English language. I add that by similarity to Mother Teresa as someone pointed above, this (sister) is probably the best option - Nabla (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional Support, per nom, if her real name can stay as the first mention in the infobox title. Sister Lucia, as a page, will be a good counter-weight to Padre Pio. Randy Kryn 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@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 Marian apparitions at 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 current version of the infobox in the Padre Pio article is too cluttered, especially the header and titles. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I also fail to see what the infobox has to do with WP:NC. juju (hajime! | waza) 23:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• 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. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@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.) juju (hajime! | waza) 09:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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. juju (hajime! | waza) 09:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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. - Nabla (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Sister Lucia Tuy Spain apparition with Virgin Mary.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

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. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@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 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. —Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 21:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)