Talk:Maria Goretti

Bleh to "Where is Waldo?!", let's play "Where is Alessandro?!"

Please stop adding the bit saying that Alessandro Serenelli went to Maria's canonization. It's a mistake from the official page. Assunta did go, but with her four remaining sons and daughters; Alessandro didn't, though he *was* there for Assunta when she died. Lunamaria 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Lunamaria, but your saying it doesn't make it so. Please see http://www.mariagoretti.org/mariabio.htm , or see http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=78 , or see http://catholicism.about.com/cs/saints/a/mariagoretti.htm , or see http://www.scborromeo.org/saints/maria.htm . Please do not revert unless you can provide documented evidence. Thanks. Ward3001 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've written a rather detailed reply to you, and it should reach your inbox soon. Hope it clears your doubts. Lunamaria 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I also replied on your talk page. Ward3001 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is actual video footage of Alessandro at the caonnisation;

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PR1_vb4To Matthewafallen In all the sources I've read on the story about St. Maria Goretti, Allessandro Serenelli attended her Canonization.--Splashen (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Links

Added some more links. Specially check the "Sex or Death?" one; very intresting discussion. Lunamaria (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Lunamaria

Discussion

Hi, Maybe, in the article, we should refer to an "open debate" or something like that. Yesterday, I wrote, based on my material, that Alessandro was not there, but this seems to truly in question.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple sources cited in the article that say Allesandro was there. If you wish to challenge that please provide the sources here on this talk page for me to see first, including all citation information and direct quotes that pertain to his absence from the canonization. Otherwise leave that part of the article like it is. Simply making the statement "based on my material" is insufficient to delete something from an article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The article claims Gonzanga's mother attended his canonization, making Maria's mother the second, but the link to the page on his life shows that he would have been over 158 years old at that time (requiring his mother to be at least 170 years old), I think the citations mean Gonzanga's mother attended his beatification when he would have been 37 years old. Maria's mother was the first if this is the only case known. Thus I suggest editing it to be consistent with the Gonzanga article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The deal with Maria and her sainthood... anti-feministic or not?

I agree. She is my patroness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.245.19 (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

While making research for class projects, I found an article about rape that included criticism to Maria's canonization made by feminist groups. So, I added the "controversy" bit along with a link to the article, which in itself is a rahter intresting read if we ignore the annoying "womyn" word that is thrown around. Lunamaria 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also added some trivia bits related to the "Cielo sulla palude" movie. Lunamaria 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly urge wikipedia to remove the section pertaining to feminist views of Saint Maria Goretti, as it appears to needlessly interjects feminist ideology into a profile of a Catholic saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepopeami (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My own point of view on such feminist criticisms on the canonization of Maria Goretti are that such criticisms are hypocritical. If Maria Goretti had stood up to the the attempted rape on secular grounds, & ended up being killed, feminist groups would all be hailing her courage. But, because she stood up to her would-be rapist on religious grounds, these people take great offence. We all know that the emotional scars endured by rape victims can last for years & years, should they survive the attacks. I have even read comments from people before, claiming that the kindest think the rapist does is kill his victim(I've read this concerning cases where the victim was killed), or if they themselves had been raped, that they would "wish they were dead." But, because the Catholic Church has chosen to canonize one such victim, the Catholic Church is severely criticized for it. Talk about having a double standard.--Splashen (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Church's idea that Maria was a saint because she died before being raped is just revolting. If her aggressor had decided to rape her, he would have done it. The whole business is an insult to the poor women who are victims of rape - it seems to imply that they were raped because they consented. On the other hand I think that this is not the place for such polemics - Wikipedia should be open to everybody, and if devoted followers of the Catholic Church want to write an article about Maria Goretti from their viewpoint, they must be allowed to do so without being subject to criticism. Hoping that they will always have a similar attitude. Yougeeaw (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Church didn't canonize Maria Goretti because she died before being raped. The Church canonized her because she fought off the rape for religious reasons. If he went ahead & raped after he repeatedly stabbed her, the Church would have still canonized her. She told Alessandro that he could go to Hell for what he was trying to do. And it's your "If her aggressor had decided to rape her, he would have done it," is just what's revolting here. He was bent carrying out the rape, but, Maria managed to fight him off. It cost her her life, but, she managed to fight it off. You almost imply that he wasn't intending to go ahead with it.--Splashen (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Poorly, poorly written cluster eff parapgraph

Alessandro came in! Oh! We're supposed to know who he is? The article never explains this. Who the hell was he? COME ON! --98.232.182.66 (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

This sentence in the opening paragraph seems problematic: "She died a martyr to preserve, and seal with her blood, her love of Jesus and her loyalty to God's commandment." Not only is it overly religious in tone, promoting an explicitly Catholic POV (as opposed to merely reporting on it), but it's also almost content-free. It doesn't say WHICH commandment, and strongly implies that her death was voluntary and at her own initiative, when this was not even close to the case. I'm replacing it; I welcome further discussion if need be. Flewellyn (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Overly religious tone"??? We're talking about a saint who died because of her faith. She isn't just another murder victim. How do you think she became a saint? "Catholic POV"??? She was a Catholic, and she is canonized a saint by the Catholic Church. There is no POV. If she were just someone who was randomly murdered and faith and Catholicism were not involved, you would have a point. When a person's notability centers around her faith, it is not POV to point that out. And there is no implication that her death was voluntary. She never told her killer, "Please kill me so I can be a martyr and saint". There is absolutely nothing in the article that says she wanted to die. She died because she did not want to violate the principles of her faith. Is your next slashing of "Catholic POV" to remove references to Catholicism from John Paul II? I'm not pushing Catholicism, but Catholicism is an integral part of this article. Ward3001 (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not the mentioning of Catholicism that is problematic. Of course that should be mentioned, it's crucial. But the way that sentence was phrased is strongly religious, and promotes Catholicism, instead of reporting about it. As for the rest, stating that she died because she did not want to violate her faith is fine, but saying WHY and HOW she died is important. Otherwise it looks like a whitewash. I'll reedit to include a mix of both wordings. Flewellyn (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to assume too much, but I believe you have little knowledge of Maria Goretti. And that's fine; I'm sure you can still spot POV when you see it. But this time you're seeing it when it's not there. I have no problem with a detail or two about how she died. But her faith in Jesus and God's commandment was a core part of her life. In all likelihood it is why she died in a situation where many other people might have made a different decision in order to live. That is not a promotion of Catholicism or a "whitewash." It is an essential part of the story of Maria Goretti's life and death, regardless of which particular faith she belonged to. If we were writing about an Islamic martyr or any other religious figure, I would have no problem including such details that are so essential to understanding the person. Look at the lead for other religious figures. You will see very similar statements that, taken out the context of this person's life, could be interpreting as POV bias in favor of that person's religion. This article is no different. Ward3001 (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think the wording in your last edit is fine. I think we can agree that addresses my concerns while keeping the focus as you were arguing, yes? Flewellyn (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Controversy

The controversy section has been flagged since February for lack of verification. There are several controversy "titles" which are followed by one or two sentences, creating an overwhelming impression of controversy, where there is none.

This should be a biography of a famous saint, who is venerated throughout the world. The controversy section reads like a did you know what happened in the American boonies article, some of which may be incorrect: (When I lived in Pensylvenia, I never heared about a Maria Goretti law). This whole section should be drastically reduced. --Thomaq (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Body on display, article mentions nothing

Apparently Maria Goretti's body (which is on the wikipedia list of incorruptible) is on display at the church of Our Lady of Mercy in Nuttuno, Italy. The article doesn't mention this, though. http://members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/IncorruptBodies.htm --98.232.182.66 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Day of Death?

The article says:

On July 6, 1902, finding eleven-year old Maria alone sewing, Alessandro Serenelli came in and threatened her with death if she did not do as he said.

The following day, twenty hours after the attack, having expressed forgiveness for her murderer and stating that she wanted to have him in Heaven with her, Maria died of her injuries.

Wouldn't this mean that Maria actually died on July 7th, not July 6th? Morhange (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Alessandro attacked Maria on July 5, and she died the following day, i.e. July 6. Antique Rose (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Papal honors for Maria Goretti

I propose that this section be removed from the page. Popes talking highly of canonized saints? Who'da thunk it? This isn't notable. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but the "controversy" section should be removed from the article about this saint per WP:UNDUE. Ostap 05:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how two sentences of negative are undue in a page that is otherwise entirely positive about her. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about negative/positive, this is an encyclopedia article about a saint. "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." This isn't Feminist criticism of Saint Maria Goretti. Ostap 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems we're at an impasse on the controversy section, but as there aren't objections to my original proposal, I'll be doing it shortly. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section ought to be expanded. If the sanctity of Maria is based not on her simple faith but her willingness to die, she is reduced to a modern version of Lucretia. Death before dishonor. Dimadick (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Literature

Guerri, Giordano Bruno, Povera Santa, Povero Assassino - La vera storia di Maria Goretti, Mondadori 1985, still available as ISBN 8845261026. (German translation available as ISBN 3894845031. Sorry, no English version AFAIK.) Have fun. Lupo 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you enjoy this book? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 18:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title be St. or Saint Maria Goretti? Homework2 ^{pass a note}sign! 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, religious honorifics generally are not included in titles. E.g. cf. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Teresa of Avila. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Alessandro - adult or minor?

In the second para of Early life he is referred to as "... his adult son, Alessandro." The next para supports this by stating his age as 20 years. However, under Serenelli's imprisonment and repentance we are told that his sentence was commuted because he was a minor. Surely, he can't be both an adult and a minor? Was this some quirk of Italian law that considered people under (say) 21 to be minors? If so, this needs to be clearly stated. 58.7.251.135 (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Italian law, but I supposed he could have been sentenced as a minor. As for changing the article, we can't add or change anything without a reliable source. I don't have access to the source cited in that paragraph, so I don't know its contents. But we can't make any comments about Italian law without a good source to back it up. Cresix (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I found a reference that he was a minor, so I have added that. I suspect that the age of majority at that time was 21, but is now 18. This is consistent with the article on him in the Italian Wikipedia: “With the process, Serenellis was sentenced to 30 years in prison: he avoided the life sentence because the laws of that time was not yet of age” (Google translation). However, I have also added a reference implying he was eligible for death, which implies he wasn’t a minor, unless perhaps he was tried as an adult or some other quirk of law.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how Alessandro Serinelli would be viewed by secular society, even with his repentance.--Splashen (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where was she sitting?

Someone changed “finding eleven-year-old Maria sewing alone” to first “finding eleven-year-old Maria sitting on the stairs alone alone” and then “finding eleven-sewing alone”. I think these were genuine mistakes made by someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing, so I merely reverted them. However, I wanted to add what I thought that editor wanted it to say, but first I wanted to check the facts. Different biographies use different words - porch, stairs, terrace - making it difficult to know exactly where she was sitting. Inspecting the photo of the scene, I see it’s a long stairway with landings at the top and halfway down. I suspect she was sitting on one of those landings, maybe the top one which could be called a porch. So I have changed the wording to “finding eleven-year-old Maria sitting alone on the outside stairs, sewing”.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Airbrushed depiction"

I'm going to dispute the neutrality of this statement: Aileen la Tourette wrote a fictionalized account of Maria Goretti (The Oldest Girl, Gariband Press, 2011) that allows Maria to express a more challenging and likely personality than the one associated with the Catholic Church's air-brushed depiction of her. Maybe we can find a less polemical way to word this? — AJDS ^talk 13:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the discussion in the section Papal honors for Maria Goretti, above? I’m also not happy with the existing wording, and intend commenting on it, but first I want to further expand/improve the rest of the sentence I recently edited.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That wording isn't acceptable at all. Asarelah (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the opinions expressed in this section and in the Papal honors section:

I don’t object to minority views being included, provided they are properly justified, but in this case it is just a personal opinion expressed in a work of fiction, and no supporting evidence given. I’m not familiar with the book in question (I’ve just read the description on Amazon.com, Kindle edition). Maybe it gives good reasons for coming to this conclusion, but that’s not apparent from the three sentences in this article. And it doesn’t ring true to me: I don’t find the popular version (“the Catholic Church’s air-brushed depiction”) to be at all unlikely. Furthermore, there may well have been pressure on the Pope to canonize her (“political reasons”), but surely that is normally the case: each candidate would have their fervent supporters, and this doesn’t necessarily mean that the Pope would give in to the pressure, or rather that he would canonize someone who wasn’t worthy of that honor, he might just do so sooner than he otherwise would have.

The controversial portion of these three sentences could be removed, with justification either that they are not properly justified (as I have argued), or that the views are only held by a small minority (as Ostap argued in 2009, see above) (if that is true). If the controversial portion is retained, it should be qualified, e.g. “La Tourette presents a picture of Maria which she believes allows Maria to express a more challenging and likely personality than the one associated with the Catholic Church's depiction of her.” (So I would also remove the “air-brushed”.) Comments on these suggestions are welcome, as are alternative suggestions.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have now made the minimal changes I suggested a month ago, but ideally someone who is familiar with the book should become involved.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the controversy over this not-very-good article, I don't want to even correct the passive voice and obvious grammatical errors. Frankly, I think some reference should be made to controversy at the time over American troops still in Italy, and fears that they were harming Italian girl's morals. But I don't recall the reference offhand. Clearly, this is a very sensitive political more than religious topic.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

″little sister″

Joefromrandb didn’t give a reason for changing ″little sister″ to ″younger sister″. I can only think he considered the former to be unencyclopedic language. But I’m not happy about the change because ″younger″ could mean a 10-year-old, and someone that age could have physically assisted Maria in her struggle, or at least have run for help, described what had happened, and named her attacker, whereas Teresa was actually just an infant, as stated earlier in the article. So I believe the distinction is relevant and therefore ″little sister″ is preferable. My references do describe her as a ″little sister″, or a ″baby sister″ and ″infant″. I haven’t discovered her actual age or date of birth, but given her father’s date of death, 6 May 1900, she was older than 1 year at the time of Maria’s death. But as Ersilia, the next youngest, was about 4 at that time, Teresa couldn’t have been much older than 2. So she was very young and therefore ″little″.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

While that seems to be entirely correct, "little sister" is generally taken to mean "younger sister" rather than "small sister". I agree that my edit is far from perfect. How about "two-year-old sister"? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see; that won't do. How about "infant sister"? It's in line with the references, and seems more encyclopedic and more precise as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that “little sister” could just mean “younger sister”. I think “infant sister” is acceptable. I looked up “Infant” on Wikipedia, and I see it can refer to a child up to 2 years of age. The alternative I thought of was to refer to her as “little Teresa”, as that unambiguously indicates that she was small.

I have now done another internet search, and finally found a source which has the additional information (and which appears to be reliable). According to it, she was born three months before her father died. Based on that, she was 2 at the time of Maria’s murder, which is what I suspected, and I think you did too.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making that change, which I am happy with.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Although the dispute is resolved I might have said that it would be correct to say 'youngest sister', seeing there were at least three sisters in the same family.Cloptonson (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Her brothers and sisters

The article states she was the third of six children. I don’t have the given reference (Ruef) so I can’t check it, but my references state she was the third of seven or, if you leave out the first child, who died before the second one was born, she was the second of the six surviving children. This agrees with the article in the Italian Wikipedia. Also, the existing names are not in birth order, so I have changed that. I have also given the alternative names I found: pet names?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

When?, where?, who?

When?

Most sources say they left Corinaldo in 1896, but a couple give the date as 1897, so I have given both dates in my addition to the article. Similarly, most sources say they moved to Le Ferriere in 1899, but I found one source which gives the date as 1896, and another as 1900. However, neither of those dates seems likely based on the weight of evidence, so I haven’t included them.

Where?

One source says they first moved to Collegrande near Pagliano. I found a Colle Grande, it’s in Abruzzi, which is the region just south of Ancona; I didn’t find a Pagliano nearby, but there is a Pagliaro in Abruzzi, Pagliaro di Tono. Another source says they moved to Colle Granturco. I didn’t find a place of that name. I didn’t think the evidence for either of these alternatives was strong enough to include them in the article.

I found a number of variations of the name Le Ferriere: Conca delle Ferriere, Ferriere di Conca; La Ferriere; La Ferriere de Conca; and just plain Ferriere. I didn’t think it worth including them.

Who?

I thought, based on the sources I had previously seen, that the Serenellis moved into the Goretti’s house in Le Ferriere after they were already living there, but the article is vague, and could mean that both families moved in at the same time, or even that the Serenellis moved in first. One of my new sources states that both families left the Ancona region in the same year, and moved to the same large plot of land in Colle Gianturco, becoming partners the following year. Both that and other new sources state that they moved together to Le Ferriere. Yet another source implies that the Serenellis were already living there. Because of this uncertainty, I have left the article unchanged.

Most sources mention only one Serenelli son, Alessandro, but one of my sources mentions a second son, Gaspar, who was also living at Le Ferriere initially, but apparently moved away long before the murder.

I have left the word "malaria" in italics, but I don’t know why it should be: shouldn’t it rather link to the Wikipedia article?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Number of stab wounds and length of time she survived

There have been two small changes to the article in the past week: the number of initial stab wounds has been changed from 11 to 14 (making the total 17 instead of 14), and the number of hours she lived after the attack has been changed from 20 to 24, with no source quoted for either.

I agree with the latter, but not the former. According to my sources, the attack began at either 2 o’clock or shortly after 3 p.m., and she died at either 3 o’clock or shortly before 4 p.m. the next day, so about 24 hours later, though one source states that “bells were ringing the vesper hour”, which implies somewhat later that day (around sunset?).

My sources are inconsistent with regard to the number (and site) of the wounds: 14 to her chest and abdomen; 14, sites unspecified; initially 8 and then 6 more (sites unspecified, but perhaps 8 to the front and 6 to the back); 14 wounds, then stabbed in the back (so presumably the 14 were to the front, and an unspecified number to the back); and 14 times. The Wikipedia article also quotes a source which gives the total number as 14. So there is some support for both the article’s original 11+3 and the present 14+3. However, the stronger evidence is for the total of 14, and therefore for the original 11+3 (though I don’t have enough evidence to decide if that’s the correct breakdown). I think it likely that the editor who made this recent change didn’t see the next sentence, and thought the 11 was the total number, and so mistakenly corrected that.

I am therefore going to change the 14 back to 11, and will give sources for both this and the number of hours.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Askwad’s rewrite

User Askwad has completely rewritten and extended a fairly significant part of the article, and I have mixed feelings about the new version. I rather like the extra detail, and I think it flows together in a logical story. But I fear it might be criticized as being unencyclopedic language or overly religious - and too detailed. I don’t know if Askwad wrote it all him- or herself: it might have been taken from a booklet, in which case copyright becomes a question. Which raises another problem: not a single source is quoted, whereas the replaced text quotes several. And there are some other problems with the new version. For example, right at the beginning, it doesn’t say this was the midday meal. More seriously, I’ve never heard that a second baby was there. It repeats some information, such as that Luigi was dead. “The called for the priest” should be “They called for the priest”. The eulogies belong later in the article.

While I appreciate the amount of effort Askwad put into this, that edit needs a fair amount of work, and maybe it would be better if it were reverted. Several other people have contributed to this article: what do they think?TheTruth-2009 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted. It was an unambiguous copyvio from The Story of St. Maria Goretti. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - and good detective work.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For that I have to thank you. It was you who pointed me in that direction so you deserve most of the credit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing explicitly false information

The incorrect claim that Aloysius Gonzaga’s mother attended his canonization has been removed. While in general I naturally agree that articles should not contain false information, this instance is more complicated: the false information is given and refuted. One can make a case for retaining that in the article. Someone new to Wikipedia, having seen the false information in what appears to be a reliable source, might in good faith add it to the article, whereas if the refutation is in the article, they would not to do that. However I agree that it was right to remove the “Some sources assert” from “Some sources assert she was the first mother ...”.

There’s a similar situation with Maria’s age. Some sources which should be reliable incorrectly give her age as 12. I was thinking of pointing this out in the article.

I haven’t seen the claim that Aloysius Gonzaga’s mother was the first (is the reference included in the article?), but I have seen the claim that Maria was 12.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It’s the O’Grady article that says Gonzaga’s mother was the first.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

December 17, 2013 changes

I’m not entirely happy with the changes by 80.180.39.24, and I see one correction has already been made. Although they may be true, it doesn’t give a source, but implies that it’s from the existing source that actually says something a bit different. And some sourced information has been removed without a reason being given.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe pt article can clarify some questions, this source especially (in italian).
PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Although I don’t understand Italian, the Corinaldo website is very interesting and valuable: it has a specific date when the family left, which was one of my previous questions.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now taken the first step towards addressing my concerns by reinstating the information that was removed.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

To further address my concerns, I have added extra references - two extra pages from the same book - to support the mitigating circumstances. However, although he might well have been immature for his age, I haven’t found a source actually saying so. More fundamentally, I haven’t found a source stating that these factors were actually used in mitigation of sentence (though they may have been). Strictly speaking, therefore, they should be removed, though they can remain in the article as general information, presumably in the “Early life” section.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

English versions of the names

Some English accounts of Maria’s life give the English version of Alessandro’s name, or even of her name. As I recall, the edit by 14.99.48.163 on 9 January 2014 is not the first time the Wikipedia article has been changed to those versions, so perhaps the article should mention this, to prevent a repeat.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My first impulse was to agree (which even motivated to undo that edit), but seeing other similar articles, such as Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi and Benedict of Nursia, I think the names could be changed to the language of the article (including title). Could have some rule in en WP about this.
Regards.PauloMSimoes (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting that the article should use Alexander throughout, let alone Mary. And I must admit I hadn’t even thought of those other saints, or of what the Wikipedia standard is or even if it has one. Most of my English sources use Maria and even Alessandro, and because of that, I am happy for the Wikipedia article to use those names. But because some English sources use Mary and/or Alexander, and because some editors have changed the article to use those names, I was suggesting something like this:
Maria Goretti (October 16, 1890 – July 6, 1902) .... one of the youngest canonized saints.[1] (Some English accounts use the English version of her name, Mary.)
Or, more briefly:
Maria Goretti (English: Mary Goretti) (October 16, 1890 – July 6, 1902) .... one of the youngest canonized saints.[1]
And similarly with Alexander.

It might seem that I am going against what Wikipedia has for the other three saints you mention, as their articles all use their English names, but the deciding factor for me is the name which is most frequently used in English, and with Maria Goretti it’s Maria. But those other three articles all give both versions of their names, so maybe the Maria Goretti article should also do so.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How the most of English sources use "Maria", I think your second option is plausible. Sorry, my English is very poor to write extensive texts, but, as they say here, be bold and go ahead.
PauloMSimoes (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions in a language you’re not fluent in. I am hoping that other editors will add their opinions, on both this question and other questions raised above.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Film awards

I have added that the film Heaven over the Marshes was awarded a prize at the Venice Film Festival. According to my source, it won the Grand Prize, but other sources indicate that’s not the case: the last Grand Prize was in 1948. So I just said it was awarded a prize. Based on other sources, also Crusz, it has won other awards.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've never edited a page so I don't know what to do, but while I was reading I noticed someone has vandalized the page. Under Early Life someone has added that the family liked bears, iPhones, and invented Dr Who. I've read through the whole article and thankfully these are the only malicious edits that I've found. How sick do you have to be to vandalize a page about an 11 year old who was murdered during an attempted rape?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.107.222 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Goretti. 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/20061201063701/http://catholicism.about.com/cs/saints/a/mariagoretti.htm to http://catholicism.about.com/cs/saints/a/mariagoretti.htm

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) 10:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maria Goretti. 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/20131020063936/http://www.comune.paliano.fr.it/drupal-6.14/node/220 to http://www.comune.paliano.fr.it/drupal-6.14/node/220

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) 04:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Discrepancies

On the page for Maria Goretti, it states that her killer, Alessandro Serenellis, was present for her canonization, and died at the age of 87. However, on the page for Alessandro Serenellis, it states that he did not attend her canonization (though he is often reported as being in attendance), and that he died at the age of 88. I don't know which version is correct, but they can't both be. 2600:6C52:6F00:2387:D31:EDA3:74A3:1439 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)