Talk:Rita of Cascia

message: Cascia ou Cássia ??????-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.116.186 (talk • contribs) 
patron saint of the town of La Rita, in the state of Zulia, Venezuela. festivities, fair, mass and processions held that day in this town.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.77.170.13 (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: :Image:Saint Rita.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Saint Rita.jpg

message: Biographical details don't add up:  the article says that Rita was married at age 18, that she lived with her abusive husband for 18 years before his murder, and that she then spent some additional years rearing her two sons before their deaths and her requests to enter the convent.  However, it also states that she reconciled the feuding families and/or forgave her husband's murderers (a prerequisite for entering the convent) at age 36, or supposedly, in the same year as her husband's murder.
The old Catholic Encyclopedia article on her states that she was married at age 12, not age 18.  This would make more sense given the details about the length of her marriage and the years that passed between her husband's murder and her entry into the convent.  Marriage of girls at such a young age would not have been unheard-of in the 14th century. 72.83.247.43 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact-checking of some details needs to be done

message: Saint Rita is listed on the wiki incorruptibility page as a person who has an incorrupt body.  However there is nothing in this article to suggest or source this.  A citation should be added discussing her relics or her name should be removed from the incorruptibility list.  --Lastentwife (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be discussed on the Incorruptibility article. However, if information is found supporting her name on the list, then it should also be added to this article. Nitroblu (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Her body is on public display, apparently. The article amazingly mentions nothing of this. See here:  Scroll down about two-thirds of the way. The article needs a photo of this, btw. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorruptibility 

message: I do not believe St. Jude’s name should appear in the article (previously mentioned under Legacy), as St. Rita is the true patron saint of impossible or lost causes, whereas St. Jude is one of the “patron saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church” and “Hope for the Hopeless”, and generally not considered the patron saint for impossible or lost causes. I have removed his name from the article, unless someone can make a point to put it back in. Nitroblu (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: St. Jude

message: I especially enjoyed "...her subsequent beautification by Pope Urban VIII"— which did seem apropos in the most pious context of this article. Printed texts embody this kind of content: quoting them and citing them would make a more respectable encyclopedia article. As it stands, this one does have somewhat the air of My Big Coloring Book of Saints. --Wetman (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Like most articles on saints, it appears to a non-religious reader to conflict with WP:IN-U.  At any rate, it would be nice to have sources for miracles in articles about saints. Lexo (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A ''beautified'' article

message: Her body is on public display, apparently. The article amazingly mentions nothing of this. See here: http://www.overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm Scroll down about two-thirds of the way. Also here.. http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/IncorruptBodies.htm The article needs a photo of this, btw. --98.232.182.66 (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first site reports that these are the actual bodies of the people in question, but is there any other evidence for it? Lexo (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The body is on display

message: The use of these two designations is inconsistent throughout the article. I have made them consistent by using "Rita" to refer to her during her earthly life and "St. Rita" to refer to her after her canonization. Caeruleancentaur (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rita vs. St. Rita 

message: The last paragraph simply introduces what seems to be a local church in Kolkata, India and makes several unsourced claims. Should it be removed or can it be sourced? 2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:9 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:9 edit: Kerala. 2600:387:15:1517:0:0:0:9 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kolkata 

message: The "Controversy" section of the Infobox should be removed or revised. It groups together dissimilar details/facets of St. Rita's life that are better placed in other sections.
The four items listed in this section are (1)spousal abuse, (2)feud, (3)family honor, and (4)loneliness. This section corresponds to the Controversy:  field of the Infobox Saint template (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_saint). Per the template the section calls for "e.g. controversies about or associated with the saint."
Based on the rest of the article, items (1) and (2) could be considered "associated with" Rita of Cascia, technically, but in the sense that she was a VICTIM of (1) and acted in opposition to (2). (3) is really a descriptor of (2) and not a controversy in and of itself. These don't meet the criteria on the template or the common understanding of what it means to be associated with controversy - she did not perpetrate or (1) or (2/3), and (2/3) didn't arise about or because of her.
(4) is not even a controversy.
The inclusion of (4) makes me think an editor conflated  in the Controversy field with issues that St. Rita's intercession would be invoked for (already covered under "Patronage"), or else, issues that the saint personally faced during her life. 2600:1700:1370:A140:C426:A225:FA08:2E45 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section - Redundant/Misleading