Talk:Bernadette Soubirous

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Old discussion archived See the article on how to archive a talk page

NPOV[edit]

Does not have a NOPV. Someone could place a sign telling this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.96.212.186 (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evident, for example in the sentence: Three years later in 1928, Doctor Comte published a report on the exhumation of the Blessed Bernadette in the second issue of the Bulletin de I'Association medicale de Notre-Dame de Lourdes. The blessed Bernadette should either be in quotes, as in an appellative given to her and not as a statement or it should not say blessed, as the article should not make a statement on her presumed sanctity. 87.194.35.234 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miraculous Medal[edit]

Bernadette didn't own a real miraculous medal, but a combined medal (they are not unusual) with the Immaculate Conception (as on the Miraculous Medal) on one side and St. Teresa of Avila on the other. 83.181.65.218 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have one of those. It had a profile of Mary's face looking down and the reverse side was the Sacred Heart. Interesting that hers had Teresa on it, famous for pragmatic advice for how to handle visions and manifestations. Bernadette wouldn't have known about that at the time though. --Bluejay Young 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May rework[edit]

I am hoping to remove the NPoV tag. any comments? Dominick (TALK) 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK hearing nothing about it, I will start work. Dominick (TALK) 11:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dominick. Speaking frankly, I have had it with the pseudo-skeptical remarks being inserted into this article. They do not serve to make the article more NPOV -- rather, they interrupt the flow of the narrative. There are ways to report what happened, and what was said to have happened, without resorting to "This could have happened for natural reasons" and the extraneous links to Ms. Shack's ill-worded articles, which are based largely on original research and her own speculation. I've done my fair share of that when I was disturbed about a subject, and I try not to handle articles like that on wikipedia any more if I can't keep my emotions out of it. I'm coming very close to going on another hiatus from this article if something can't be done. --Bluejay Young 07:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are making progress. Please keep on trucking! Dominick (TALK) 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears that all of the "pseudo-skeptical remarks" have been removed, because I certainly do not see any. I just wonder why skeptical remarks and points of view permeate the articles about supernatural phenomena which are not sanctioned by organized religion, but are removed when the phenomena is sanctioned by organized religion. Jersey Jan (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of times that words such as "claimed" and "supposed[ly]" occur in this article I find frankly comical - especially as the article doesn't allude to any authorities that have undermined the trustworthiness of the alleged apparitions. It's perfectly reasonable to describe the apparitions as resting upon the uncorroborated testimony of one illiterate peasant girl - surely we don't need to be reminded of the fact in every sentence. (If it's necessary for Wikipedia articles to be written so that any sentence can be lifted out of context and used without ambiguity, then the resulting text is going to make bizarre reading.)
I tend to agree. In an attempt to prove NPOV it becomes pedantic and even weasel in it's method. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not resort to such qualifications, leaving it to the reader to believe or not. "> Saint Bernadette of LourdesGoldenMeadows 11:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. I hope someone acts on this. The article in its current state is embarrassing. If no one does something about out in the next month or two I may come back and do it. ETom67 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an attempt to redress the skeptical nature you allude to whilst remaining unbiased. I hope I have succeeded. If it isn't upto standard feel free to revert RoyalBlueStuey 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shack doesn't use talk pages[edit]

Shack doesn't use talk pages. I wish I knew why. Dominick (TALK) 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of warning we can place on her Talk page? MamaGeek Joy 18:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
like what, play nice? Dominick (TALK) 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found a civility warning template, and placed it on her Talk page. I sincerely hope that she will participate in discussions of the article in the interest of furthering the Wikipedia philosophy of non-original research and NPOV articles. MamaGeek Joy 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)this is so wonderful[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I left a 3RR warning on her talk page last night. This morning, her changes were back, including a dead link which I specifically warned her not to re-enter. I have submitted the entire affair to mediation. I think it is alright for other users to add to this form. --Bluejay Young 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date discrepancy?[edit]

Was Bernadette 14 or 17 when she had her first vision? If she was born in 1841 and the first vision was in 1858, she should have been 16 or 17; however, the article says that she was 14. Is her age at the time a typo?

Ron G., sgore@awesomenet.net

It was not a typo, but an edit, possible vandalism, by the now banned user, user:Dark-hooded smoker. Thank you for drawing my attention to this misinformation which I have now corrected thanks to your perceptiveness--File Éireann 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps interesting to watch[edit]

http://www.nationalgeographic.co.in/watch/program_details.aspx?id_program=4461 Shinobu 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Werfel "facts"[edit]

Whoever is editing this article to insert material from Werfel's book is hereby requested to stop it. Werfel's book is not a biography or a documentary, it is hagiographic fiction. Vauzous was not Bernadette's school teacher, for instance. You've inserted this material several times (comments like "at sixteen the ailing child was very beautiful" are direct quotes from the book). Let's try to keep this article sticking to the facts only. --Bluejay Young 11:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Bernard?[edit]

My understanding is that Bernadette's name at birth was "Marie-Bernard", and "Bernadette" is only a diminutive of this name (a soubriquet). However, she was so widely known as Bernadette that it became accepted as her name. Can anyone confirm this? (I do know that when she took the veil, her name became Soeur Marie-Bernard). Preacherdoc 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Oliver Todd's The Lourdes Pilgrim (Chelmsford: Matthew James Publishing, 1997) she was baptised as Marie-Bernarde but always known as Bernadette. Benbristol, 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in addition to the above, the article has her named as St Bernadette Soubirous. This is wrong. She is Bernadette Soubirous, sure, but St Bernadette of Lourdes. Benbristol, 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

In her excellent, well-researched book Lourdes: Body and Spirit in the Secular Age, the author Ruth Harris describes several events which echo the accepted Bernadette narrative. Until I read it, I was unaware that, in the decades before Bernadette's visions, several illiterate peasant children (usually girls) claimed to see the Virgin Mary in visions in remote countryside (typically clefts or caves in rocks) all along the Pyrenean border between France and Spain (sometimes on the Spanish or Basque side). After investigation, all were discredited. However, Harris points out that Bernadette's visions, rather than being unique and unprecedented, took place against the backdrop of a cultural ethos which supported (perhaps even expected) such events.

Although Bernadette herself claimed to shy away from the publicity which her visions brought, there is no doubting the benefit (in money and status) it brought to her penniless family. It might be reasonable to include some remarks along these lines in the article. Preacherdoc 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, those visions were well known. Werfel and, I think, Zola, both mention them in their books. However unless there's actual documentation that Bernadette's family profited directly from the visions, we can't put that in, it would be speculation. What you can say, if you feel there is need for it, is that the entire area profited, of course, the visions attracted visitors who increased economic prosperity. But this might be more appropriate in an article on Lourdes itself, not on Bernadette or her lady. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17 or 18?[edit]

I've seen in some places that she had 17 visions of the Virgin Mary, other places (in the seeming majority) have claimed 18. So, what I want to know is: which one is it? Elemento 16:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps she made it all up and it was none? Albatross2147 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eighteen according to Abbe Trochu, I'd go with him. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

The article appears to have been vandalised. I do not have the time or knowledge to fix. Can someone attend to the issues under Visions etc? Albatross2147 (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle? - pov tag[edit]

Joe Nickell casts doubts about the authenticity of the incorruptible claims on page 92 of Looking for a miracle. I am tagging the section. —Cesar Tort 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, not this again. We've been all through this. A lot of hard work has been done on that section. Cesar, please check the archived discussions here and at Our Lady of Lourdes. Tag removed. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluejay, in spite of all the "hard work" being done on this subject, the Bernadette article *itself* casts doubt on the incorruptible claim under the 'Exhumations' section where it references the wax face and hand masks that are used to disguise the black tinge of body and sunken eyes and nose. The Wikipedia article on 'Incorruptibility' informs us that "As of yet, none of these cases have been verified scientifically." That article also contains photos of allegedly incorruptible corpses which would be right at home in a Hollywood horror movie! There is no such thing as "a little bit incorruptible". Either it IS or ISN'T. The real world is full of (non-saintly) corpses that have been both naturally and artificially partially mummified. Simply proclaiming that black = white, no matter how many times, in no matter how exasperated a tone of voice, does not make it so. -William Malmstrom 24.160.81.4 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no such thing as "a little bit incorruptible". Either it IS or ISN'T."

Except there, kind of, is. 'Incorrupt' means 'not rotted' basically. There are

-corpses that weren't artificially embalmed, but are nonetheless not rotted away. These may be mummified looking, etc.

-the full on, odor of sanctity, looking like when they were alive, ones. These are the controversial ones.

But both can be, and have been, called incorrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.175.24 (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry forgot to sign.

Also, depending on who's talking, saying a holy person is incorrupt doesn't necessarily mean that one believes it's a literal miracle. One does find statements from Catholic sources saying things like "quite astounding" but "not necessarily miraculous". It can be symbolically significant even if it is not beyond the laws of nature. 165.91.175.24 (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Conception Timeline[edit]

According to the Wikipedia, the doctrine of immaculate conception kicked off about 900 and Feast of the Immaculate Conception began in 1476. The statement that Bernadette wouldn't have heard about immaculate conception because it only became official doctrine four years earlier seems a bit misleading. [John Macossay] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.43.195 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes visits, 2008[edit]

Reference to the number of visitors in 2008 should be updated with actual figures if available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.250 (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of visions[edit]

The intro says she had 18 visions, but the text only describes 16. Does anyone know the answer?

Sardaka (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herb vs. Grass[edit]

The use of the term "herb" referring to her eating grass is likely an error in translation. The quote from the French Wikipedia page is: "Vous mangerez de cette herbe qui est là." In French, herbe means grass as well as the English term herb. If she's eating grass as the English page currently states, the term herbe should consistently translated as grass, not as herb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.25.213 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally seen that request translated as "Go and eat that plant there." Works for me. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorruptible?[edit]

In the beginning, there is a random quote and citation from http://www.skepdic.com/lourdes.html which follows the claim of incorruptibility. That fits a discussion about the case, not an overview of her. The statement before it is "After her death, Bernadette's body has apparently remained incorrupt.". Maybe that all should be removed as it is not a central part of the person, but claims about her corpse.

And for the record, "incorruptible" does not mean "life like" but that there is no rotting or decay. Physical and chemical processes are the same and the fact that the body is dead, there is no regeneration. Our skin does not do well at all with no regeneration, let alone the effects of water in our body (which is not bound by incorruptibility).

I think her corpse is not fitting for the introductory statements. I will remove it. LaRoza (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to make it more concise, but kept the information and citation. Since it is a major fact of the subject, I kept the information about the wax coverings and the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRoza (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that internally she's "incorrupt" is absolutely ridiculous. When you click on the citation it lands you on some website that's got nothing to do with fact and everything to do with complete fiction. Take a look at it yourself; this is NOT a reliable source. Sorry but everyone decomposes (the microbes in your gut see to it) and if she hasn't then her body was embalmed and she's encased in a hermetically sealed chamber. Even then, decomposition can take place. You need to find a much more reliable source (the journal "Nature" comes to mind) if you're going to make these absurd assertions. It's supposed to be a biography of this woman NOT a hagiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.95.24 (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a new reference to consider[edit]

I noticed that reference 19 under the Exhumations section has "unreliable source?" written after and I wanted to point to an alternative reference at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/bernbody.htm I leave the reliability of this alternative up to you. Ninioelninio (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't use EWTN. Can't use the official Lourdes website. Can't use devotional websites as references for devotional articles. Surprised they let us use hagiographical biographies like Trochu as references for this article. Secular references are preferred on Wikipedia. A book with the doctors' reports on the condition of her body would probably be fine. The objection, though, seems to be a reference for the fact that many pilgrims still visit the shrine and she is still on exhibition (she is). How you would confirm that without citing the official Lourdes website I have no idea. --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the official Lourdes website to support a statement about activities at Lourdes, just not about the "scientific reality" of it. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening makes no sense[edit]

"Saint Marie-Bernarde Soubirous [...] was a miller's daughter born in Lourdes, France and is venerated as a Christian mystic and Saint in the Catholic Church. Occitan's closest relative is Catalan."

The second sentence makes no sense whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.131.226.165 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Later Years" section has been vandalized![edit]

The following is incorrect and makes no sense:

“Disliking the fact she was attractive, Bernadette went to the hospice school run by the Sisters of Charity of Nevers where she finally learned to control her schizophrenia and speak properly.” – Where do I start! First of all, this sentence doesn’t make any sense. Second of all, Bernadette did not have schizophrenia and, thirdly, she had no problem speaking. This entire sentence is false!

“She then joined the Sisters at their ho house at Nevers at the age of 22.” At their “ho” house!?

“She spent the rest of her brief life there, working as a waitress in the cafe.” A cafe at a convent? Really? She worked for the most part in the infirmary, not as a waitress!

“She later contracted tuberculosis of the lungs in her right knee.” Tuberculosis of the lungs in her right knee? That would be a great trick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan from Chicago (talk • contribs) 21:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, I've fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, but needs some citations.[edit]

I tagged these for citations to be added. It's not that I don't believe the content, but facts need to be backed up. Also, there needs to be a distinction made between the real Bernadette and not the one portrayed in media such as plays, books and on film. I'll leave it to those of you who know more about the subject matter than I do. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"exhumations"[edit]

this section starts with "Bishop Gauthey of Nevers and the Church". Is this a grand claim about Bishop Gauthey? This section needs a source, but especially the claim that "the Church exhumed the body". Then the word "they" in "They claimed" - if "they" means Bishop and "the Church", it really needs a source. In any case the antecedent needs to be clarified --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernadette Soubirous. 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:

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) 09:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title?[edit]

Why is this article titled "Bernadette Soubirous" instead of "St. Bernadette"? I thought she was more well-known under the latter name. This Google Ngram seems to agree, putting the total for saint/sainte/st./st Bernadette consistently higher than "Bernadette Soubirous" (except for the mid-40s spike which I can't explain). Am I missing something here? Herostratus (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HONORIFIC was probably taken in consideration, but WP:COMMONNAME could indeed be good rationale to rename it assuming it's the name she's most commonly known under... —PaleoNeonate – 02:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not. If it was the Ngram wouldn't look like that.
Picking 2002 at random, 0.000001572 % of English-language books contained the string "Bernadette Soubirous", while 0.000003947 % contained one (or more) of the strings "St Bernadette", "St. Bernadette", "Saint Bernadette", or "Sainte Bernadette". (Of course some books contained both "Bernadette Soubirous" and one or more of the "Saint" names, if I'm understanding Ngrams correctly.)
That's better than two-to-one. And it's been pretty much that way consistently since her canonization (except a huge spike short spike in the early 1940s). Herostratus (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletin de I'Association medicale de Notre-Dame de Lourdes[edit]

The Compte quote is uncited (and marked as such). I can find various sources (some dubious) making claims about this 1928 issue of "Bulletin de I'Association medicale de Notre-Dame de Lourdes", but cannot find an archive of the original. Some of the sources (eliminating facebook pages):

Without a source to the original, it however appears to only be a traditional claim that was repeated by many (and it's unclear where they originally heard it). —PaleoNeonate – 02:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles: 1858-1873[edit]

I've discovered articles in the 1858-1873 time period. After cleaning up the original images in Photoshop Elements, I uploaded most of the following:

  • 18580315 Another Miracle - Bernadette Soubirous - The Magnet (London).jpg
    18580315 Another Miracle - Bernadette Soubirous - The Magnet (London).jpg
  • Musée de Bernadette article 1858.jpg
    Musée de Bernadette article 1858.jpg
  • 18580830 La grotte de Lourdes ... Gazette de Lausanne.jpg
    18580830 La grotte de Lourdes ... Gazette de Lausanne.jpg
  • 18580903 A New Supernatural Appearance - The Evening Star (London).jpg
    18580903 A New Supernatural Appearance - The Evening Star (London).jpg
  • 18581006 Paris Gossip - Bernadette Soubirous - Boston Post.jpg
    18581006 Paris Gossip - Bernadette Soubirous - Boston Post.jpg
  • 18581215 The Grotto of Lourdes - Bernadette Soubirous - The Freeman's Journal (Sydney AU).jpg
    18581215 The Grotto of Lourdes - Bernadette Soubirous - The Freeman's Journal (Sydney AU).jpg
  • 18620222 Foreign Intelligence - Bernadette Soubirous - The Standard (London).jpg
    18620222 Foreign Intelligence - Bernadette Soubirous - The Standard (London).jpg
  • 18730823 French Fervor - Bernadette Soubirous - The New York Herald.jpg
    18730823 French Fervor - Bernadette Soubirous - The New York Herald.jpg

Someone here may want to include the images in this article, or possibly use them as sources, as appropriate. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernadette_Soubirous&oldid=1218253249"