Talk:Charlene Richard

Re GA nomination

I have searched diligently for a copyright-free image of Richard and have been unable to find one. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. An image isn't necessary for it to pass as a GA. --1ST7 (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlene Richard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted within the next 24 hours. --1ST7 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

1. Well-written

   • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, there needs to be a word other than "cult" to use for the article. If this movement is considered a cult, then there needs to be some information about who considers it to be one.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
3. Broad in its coverage:

   • The article is pretty short. Is there any more information that hasn't been covered?

4. Neutral:

   • See "Words to Watch" comment above".

5. Stable:
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

   • No images in use.

I'll put the article on hold to give you time to address these issues. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 06:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Cult: I understand your concern about "cult" and MoS is right when someone attempts to use the word in a pejorative sense, but here I'm using it as the technically correct term for the veneration of a saint, see Cult_(religious_practice)#In_Christianity and, indeed, I'm not trying to imply anything about her followers of that negative nature nor do they have those characteristics. The academic paper which I cite in footnote 2 uses the term in that way, not the pejorative way:

"In the past, especially before mid-twentieth century, a saint's cult (i.e., a large following of people who share a devotion to a person believed to have special powers of intercession) often formed slowly, spreading from person to person by word of mouth for more than a century. In the case of Charlene, not only has the cult formed quickly, but many people who knew Charlene as an ordinary child are still living." (Gaudet, Marcia (1994). "Folk Veneration Among the Cajuns". Southern Folklore 51 (2): 153–66)

Nonetheless, I've removed the uses of the term due to the common misunderstanding of it's meaning. Doing so has made the article somewhat more vague and less technically correct, but arguably more accessible.

Additional uncovered information and length: While more detail and analysis could be added to the article, it would just be that, detail, not expansion of the basic story about Richard, and virtually all of it would have to come from the Gaudet article. I've already drained as much from Gaudet as I can without causing the article to rely too much on one reliable source. There is one other semi-academic article (here), but it's largely a regurgitation of (and relies in part upon) Gaudet and it's also poorly written and of uncertain reliability and adds very little. I did not use it for that reason. The fact is that the article as it now stands is "broad in its coverage" in that it covers all the salient facts about Richard which make her notable or important.

Images: I've made a diligent search and can find no images which are not copyright-protected or which would — but I'm no expert on this — survive WP:NFC scrutiny. Worse, most are almost certainly copyright violations where they now exist. For example, I'd like to use this image or this image, but they're almost certainly copyright violations of the materials which are shown in the images. (There are some photos of her grave which might on first blush survive NFC scrutiny, but when carefully examined incidentally include pictures of living people or statuary which would violate paragraphs 1 and 10 of the nonacceptable use list. Even if they did not, it would seem odd to include a picture of her grave without first including a picture of her.)

One of your edits: I've reversed one of your edits from your reference to a "movement" back to a "popular belief". The single most significant thing about Richard is her status as a folk saint: a person's whose nature as a saint (a person who's soul has gone to Heaven rather than Hell, Purgatory, or Limbo) is popularly recognized but not officially by the Catholic Church. That recognition may or may not be supported or urged by some organization, but the important part is that the belief is held by ordinary folks. In this particular case it's Richard's Americanness, young age, and ordinariness (especially before she got sick) which makes her significant. In other words, it's not any organization or movement which makes her important, it's the widespread belief of ordinary people. That's what the academic paper and all the news stories focus upon. Indeed, the organizational/movement aspect of her popularity is it's least important part.

Let me know if there is more that I can address. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, an image isn't necessary for the article to pass as a GA. It looks good now, so I'm going to pass it. Congratulations, and thanks again for your work. --1ST7 (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Grandmother's advice

I've reverted this edit because, first, it's not supported by the cited source and, second, and perhaps more important, it doesn't seem to be all that significant, thus perhaps giving it undue weight. (It seems to me that it's far more important that she not only had the Therese idea in her head to the point that she asked about it than it is what answer she received, especially an answer which doesn't seem to make much difference in relation to what later occurred.) Nonetheless, I stand ready to be convinced otherwise and will be open to hearing anything the proposing IP editor cares to argue to the contrary. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charlene Richard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140524023149/http://www.katc.com/news/moving-day-for-lourdes/ to http://www.katc.com/news/moving-day-for-lourdes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

New major article

A feature article appeared today, December 20, 2022, in the New York Times Magazine about the history of Charlene Richard and the attempt being made to seek her canonization. A quick read-through (it's behind a paywall, unfortunately) suggests that there is likely additional information which could be used to further improve this Wikipedia article and be reliably sourced by this NYT article. See: "The Miraculous Life and Afterlife of Charlene Richard". TransporterMan (TALK) 21:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)