Talk:Francisco and Jacinta Marto

Split page?

I think this should really be split into two pages, one on Jacinta and one on Francisco. As it stands it's cumbersome. ANB (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as cumbersome, but let us get other opinions too. Two pages would have too little info on each. History2007 (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Each child in their own right is not as notable.. plus the children are venerated together, so I say one page. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and they were even beatified together so it makes sense to keep them together. But the page could use some more content probably. History2007 (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

References

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.65.8 (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title

The article's current title is "Jacinta and Francisco Marto". It would seem to me that the correct title should be "Francisco and Jacinta Marto", with the children's names reversed. My proposal lists the children not only by alphabetical order, but also by chronological order. The current title seems to be in an arbitrary order and, thus, implies more weight or importance for some reason to Jacinta over Francisco. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC))

Ladies first. And of course Jacinta gave more messages than Francisco. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, this is an encyclopedia ... so the "ladies first" suggestion does not really apply. Also, I am not comfortable with the notion that Jacinta is more important and/or more significant than Francisco. I am not sure what you mean when you say that Jacinta gave more messages. I'd like some more input on this issue. I think that, as an encyclopedia, the order should not be random, arbitrary, or non-neutral POV. I think that alphabetical and chronological order should apply here in listing their names. The lead sentence of the article, itself, begins with Francisco and follows with Jacinta. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

The ladies 1st was a joke of course. But she did have a key message just before she died:

When you are to say this, don't go and hide. Tell everybody that God grants us graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary; that people are to ask Her for them; and that the Heart of Jesus wants the Immaculate Heart of Mary to be venerated at His side. Tell them also to pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for peace, since God entrusted it to Her.

In any case, if you want no order, that does not diminish her order. As is the article has more content about Jacinta. History2007 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, but what I am saying is this. One would naturally assume that, of the two children, Francisco would and should be listed first (either by alphabet or chronology or both). One would not expect Jacinta to be listed first. Therefore, listing her first — unexpectedly and out of the norm — implies a non-NPOV that she is somehow the more important and significant of the two children. They both died at the ages of 9 or 10 or so, so they both clearly had very short lives. The article currently discusses Jacinta more at length. But anyone, myself included, could certainly add more information about Francisco ... and shift the "balance", if you will. In other words, just because the current article talks more about Jacinta ... does not mean that she is more important. It's just that more information has not (yet) been added in about Francisco. Quite frankly, both dying at the very young ages of 9 and 10, it's a rather "safe bet" that they both had relatively "equal" contributions to society and to the Catholic faith. I just don't see a valid reason to list Jacinta, the younger child, first. And, as I said, it violates NPOV, in my opinion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

Well, regarding "one would not expect" I guess that depends on who the "one" is. If I am the one, I would, but I guess if you are the one, it is different. Not an earthshaking issue, however. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I agree ... no, not an earth shaking issue. But, nonetheless, important. Also, the "one" refers to the average, typical reader (and editor) ... not necessarily either you or me. And, the average, typical reader (and editor) would expect to be listed first either the older child and/or the first alphabetical name. Not vice versa. I will give this a few days to solicit other input, before I change the title. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

I guess the person who wrote this book thought otherwise, for Jacinta comes first. But this oneikes it the other way.History2007 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Religious bias

This article gives us the impression that everything that supposedly occurred in Fátima is historically accurate. It was written from a believer's point of view and only includes sources written by other believers. How do we know that Jacinta said what she said? The whole thing smacks of religious propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.12.137 (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jacinta and Francisco Marto. 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/20071029034002/http://www.crc-internet.org/images/jacinta.jpg to http://www.crc-internet.org/images/jacinta.jpg

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 09:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Gravestone and other sources give June 11, 1908 https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/find-a-grave-prod/photos/2017/122/8115823_1493861986.jpg Thisdaytrivia (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Canonization of children

The article says, "In 1937 Pope Pius XI decided that causes for minors should not be accepted as they could not fully understand heroic virtue or practice it repeatedly, both of which are essential for canonization. For the next four decades, no sainthood processes for children were pursued." This comes from this article in the National Catholic Register, but it appears to be untrue since Dominic Savio was canonized in 1954. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. It would be useful to have some documentation on the 1937 decision referenced in the article, though I can't seem to find any at this point online. As you say, Dominic Savio was 14 and, even more strikingly, 11-year-old Maria Goretti was canonised in 1950. That said, their causes may have already been well advanced in 1937, and perhaps the pope's decision only applied to the introduction of new causes? I don't think an understanding of a 'child' as being someone under the age of reason (understood as around 7 years old in the church since the early 1900s) can have been the issue, since the Marto siblings were older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:9B7F:3A00:4494:ADFE:AF9:6451 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)