Jump to content

Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Request to remove semi-protection

The topic of this Section has since become a moot point.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Why is this article semi-protected? I'm sure there are Christians around the world with and without Wikipedia Accounts with useful facts to contribute. In all seriousness, who would dare to vandalize the article about the Holy Virgin Mother? -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.183.4 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are kidding. I used to revert so many IP vandals on this page, I totally welcome semi-protection. History2007 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That saddens me. This is the Holy Virgin we're talking about, so it's kind of sacreligious to vandalize the article about her. I'm actually shocked. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.187.29 (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This phrase need to be reconsidered

In the first section, the following phrase appears "However, early non-biblical writings state that she was the daughter of Joachim and Saint Anne.". Yet there is no reference. What are these non-biblical writing? I am writing to warn that I will be deleting this phrase if there is no clarification concerning these so called writings. Also, the writing is unnecessarily wordy and appears as though it was transalted from a foreign language. The entire section needs rewording and tightening up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talkcontribs) 04:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The writing was not transalted it was metapeppered! The "writings" "are" primarily the Protoevangelium of James. -- JALatimer 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Name

I think that this article should have Blessed mother in Her name since catholics call her that. Does anyone else agree with me?- BennyK95 - Talk 18:12, October 9 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article is about her, not about Catholics... The current name is simple and descriptive. Omnedon (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed there are 3 articles, this being the least venerative. Hence the title here is reflective of the tone of the article, compared to the others. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
As a Catholic, I would say that the name should contain "Blessed", but we already have two pages like that: Blessed Virgin Mary (for all Christian views), and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) for specifically Catholic views. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Appellations

"usually referred to by Christians as the Virgin Mary or Saint Mary" How often is the Mother of God referred to as "Saint Mary"? "Usually"? I thought Roman Catholics and Anglicans normally reserved "Saint Mary" for others named 'Mary.' I know the Orthodox do not refer to "the holiest of all the saints" as merely "Saint Mary" but as "Theotokos", etc. -- JALatimer (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When reffering to her as a person, Catholics and Anglicans call her the Blessed Virgin Mary and Orthodox call her the Most Holy Theotokos, but there are certain catholic & anglican churches named after her under the title "st. mary", and within the anglican calenders her holidays are reffered to with St. Mary. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Marian devotional practice

I've added a short section on this, an important aspect which seems to have been curiously overlooked in the article so far. The actual influence of Mary on Christian spiritual and devotional practice needs to be in the article I think, since it is the way most people relate to her. I've also added a link to the fuller treatment in the Blessed Virgin Mary article. Xandar 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a good move. And the BVM article is where most of the material belongs. History2007 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

POV In "Christian Views of Mary"

At the bottom of the section "Christian Views of Mary" there is the statement: "From this it may be said that her attitude paralleled that of John the Baptist who said 'He must become greater; I must become less." There is no source for this comment and no history of any such diminishment being declared by Mary as to her role in the Church. This is mere inference on the part of the contributor. While there is no doubt many Protestants do not revere Mary, to say she held such an attitude is POV and as such, has no place in this article. The interests of impartiality would be best served by the deletion of the line mentioned above. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristuccia (talkcontribs) 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-Christian Views

Pagan view

I'm not sure of posting etiquette/standards on Wikipedia. I'm also not sure what constitutes good source material - I imagine published non-fiction is the minimum. But I'm posting here because I am part of a family spiritual tradition which worships Mary as a Goddess. I'm sure there must be some credible anthropological information recorded somewhere on this sort of practice. I've been lead to believe it is farily common among Gypsy families (one of which I come from) at least. I'd like, in the long run, to see some kind of work put into at least mentioning that some Pagans worship Mary. Also I know for certain that some Neo-Pagans at least view her as 'as face of the Goddess'. Thank You, Apple Ament (ladyament@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.90.38 (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can find reliable sources (books or websites, etc.) to any information about pagan views of Mary, then I'd say go for it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
But how does one know it is "the same Mary"? Worship of Godesses has been taking place for over 4,000 thousand years, and it is not immediately how the verbal folklore has merged them. That is why there are two articles in Wikipedia Queen of heaven (antiquity) and Queen of heaven. So one must be sure that there is clear identification, else you need to add it to Queen of heaven (antiquity). History2007 (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist view

I would like to invite input for this particular heading.


As an Atheist, one would have to believe that Mary did NOT give birth to Jesus by means of "Immaculate Conception". I believe Christians and non-Christians alike would agree to that. With that said, one would have to ask why such a claim would have been made and who would have been the one to actually impregnate Mary.


Here are just a few questions that I wish to pose:

Was it common for parents of a child to hand their child over to the Temple of Jeruselum at that time?

How was Mary raised at the Temple?

Was it frowned upon to have a child out of wedlock at that time?

Did Joachin and Anna(the parents of Mary)have a last name?

Did anyone have a last name during that period?


I am looking forward to answers to these questions and any information that can be useful regarding this particular topic.


--Simon Says (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I kind of think that if God didn't exist Mary wouldn't have immaculately conceived Jesus Christ, so it goes without saying. Also I think that having a child out of wedlock in Western society was looked down upon throughout history until the year 2000CE or so.75.44.220.32 (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


Athiesm has no "official view" of the Virgin Mary. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Immaculate Conception does not refer to the conception of Jesus, that would be the Virgin birth (Annunciation, Nativity of Christ). The Immaculate Conception refers to the Catholic belief of Mary's conception in her mother's womb. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence from "Other Views" section

History2007 removed the following sentence from "Other Views" section:

Some scholars of the historical Jesus, regard the nativity of Jesus to be an early Christian story created to liken Jesus to Moses (the Massacre of the Innocents) and to show him fulfilling prophecy (the return from Egypt, etc.).[citation needed]

I think it is worthwhile do add this, so if anyone is able to provide some sources for it, please do it. Thanks. BartłomiejB (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if that analogy is true. And it certainly has no source. That analogy does NOT appear in the New Testament, so it would be "scholarly speculation" at best, and as usual will depend on how many drinks the scholar had before the speculation. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a number of sources (and sentences) here: Historical Jesus#Birth. Not sure why you two were edit warring over it, and why it took 3 days to start discussing it here. -Andrew c [talk] 23:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So what are the sources? And there was no war yet, that was why it ended up here. It is still pure speculation, and no sources listed at the moment. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Really? You want me to copy and paste it because you couldn't go to the link? OK. These all seem to work (though we may want to consider slight rephrasing to correspond with whatever source or sources you choose):
  1. Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend, London, Penguin, 2006, p22
  2. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, p.85
  3. Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. p. 36. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
  4. Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
-Andrew c [talk] 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
It is simpler than that. If you have reliable sources, please add it. No problem. No source, no statement. It is no big deal, but needs a source. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Although I read vermes book and wasn't impressed. "Historical scholars" can be found to deny that there's even one word in the bible that's actually true! Xandar 11:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
And in this situation, a Catholic priest... :) -Andrew c [talk] 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But as you well know Xandar, that is not how Wikipedia works. You and I may not like Vermes, but that is beside the point. If he wrote it and a well known publisher printed it, then it can come in. And in the end, will not make much difference to the state of the world. But, since you mentioned denial, as as aside, the winner of the denial competition is still another group that you may not have heard of. They are in Japan, have a gift shop, and claim the grave of Jesus who went there just before the crucifixion (of his brother Isukiri) and became a rice farmer. They have a Wikipage Shingō, Aomori according to which Jesus built up a significant number of points on his frequent flier card as he went back and forth to Japan. I have not seen anyone challenge their championship status yet. Anyway, if Andrew has a reference, he can add the Vermes item, else no point in discussing it. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't formulated exactly how I feel about the sentence in question, especially in the odd "other views" section. So I have no strong feelings regarding adding or removing it. I just saw some edit warring (i.e. more than one revert), and it was over sources, so I thought maybe I could help by pointing to a sourced section of another article discussing the same topic. BartłomiejB seems more concerned with keeping the content than I. Maybe the sources can help BartłomiejB, or not. Doesn't concern me too much. Just thought I could help, without getting involved in editing (dumb idea? possibly). ha. -Andrew c [talk] 15:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: History2007 removed the whole "Other views" section altogether. I restored it. BartłomiejB (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not even remember this discussion as I was doing those multiple edits. But, I still do not / did not see this as a "section" as such given that it has just 4 sentences, 2 of which are without a reference, and the Ehrman quote refers to all phenomena and is non-specific. But let us let that be. History2007 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Eastern: Georgian Orthodox Views

I really didn't wanted to be in this talk page, but I had to, since the views of people here are completely un-understood for me. I am an Orthodox Christian and I claim that on this page the informations are edited by lot of Catholics, Muslims and Protestants. These people are highly against our country - Georgia. As the Eastern Orthodoxy says - Mary is Theotokos, the mother of god and the birth giver of god. She is not Fatima, Lourdes or Europe. Mary was a Jew, not an European. She never wore rich clothes or crowns until she went to heaven with his beloved son and saints. We highly respect the truth, not fantasy. So please respect us too. Imorthodox23 (talk) 8:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You have every right to include these views in the article with the proper citations. The article should not in any way be dominated by anyone view of Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
First off, this is not a "religous article". This is an encyclopedia, based on sources. What you were reading were sections discussing the different views. Some do not even beleive that Mary was a virgin, and that is mentioned in the article. Just because your religion has certain beliefs that does not make them the only that are mentioned in the article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Imorthodox23 was suggesting that only the view of his religion be presented. He left me messages on my talk page that seemed to suggest his idea of how wikipedia works might not be entirely accurate.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Well from their statement above, it seems more like they are acusing Catholics of believing in false doctrine, and saying we believe Mary was some wealthy European. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the article / flag removal

I am going to start fixing the article one section at a time, to remove the flags. To keep focus, I will try to fix one section per day, sometimes every other day for larger sections. I would like to get input about what the WP:OR and citations claims are, one section at a time. Let us start with the easier parts, say the Islamic views. I had touched up that section a few days ago, and more references today. Almost everything there seems well referenced to me. Now, please:

  • List any/all claims to WP:OR or missing citations for the Islaimic section so I can fix them.
  • Or please feel free to fix them yourself - less work for me.

After this section has been fixed, we will declare it "in good health" and then systematically deal with the other sections one by one (roughly a section a day) until no issues remain. The lede is best done last, of course.

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Islamic views section

Please list the items here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Protestant/Lutheran & Latter day Saints sections

Well, no complaints about the Islamic section yet, but late entries will be accepted. It seems well referenced and free of any WP:OR issues. I saw that AfaProf cleaned up a lot of things and that helped a lot with the NT section, as well as ref formats. My next project: Protestants/Lutherans and Latter Day Saint views. I see nothing there that has errors or is missing a reference, but please do suggest it: it is my tomorrow's project. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated.

Please list the items here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Marian feasts section

Well, no complaints about the Protestant section either, but again, late entries will be accepted.

Today I fixed the Marian feasts section, so it will not just be "a list" of mostly Roman Catholic feasts. In fact, in the process I discovered the very interesting fact that the dispute that lead to the First Council of Ephesus was triggered by a sermon on the first feast dedicated to Mary alone. That fact is probably too much detail to add to this article, but I have added a section: Marian_feast_days#History_and_development which gives the history of Marian feasts. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated there and here.

Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the feasts section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Marian titles section

I fixed the Marian feasts section, added refs etc. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the titles section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Did someone say copyright?

As I went to add references to the Orthodox section, I noticed that the text there was copied 100% verbatim from here. So I have reworded it, added new material etc. not to have any copyvio problems. But there was no other way, given that it was a 100% copy.

On another interesting note, the other day, I noticed the reverse! As I was looking on the web, I came across the book The Spirit of Holiness by Dr. Joe J. Payyapilly, and looked at the Mariology section. At first I said "that seems strange" because I had not seen that book before and I was sure I did not copy anything from it to the Mariology article. Anyway, it turned out that it is a book published on Aug 12, 2010 in which Dr. Payyapilly used a 100% verbatim copy of the Mariology article. So Wikipedia is gaining ground.

Anyway, I have removed the copyvio from the Orthodox section now.

By the way, much of the material on the front part of Christian perspectives had already been used elsewhere in the article, and some was unsourced. I cleaned that up. Looks better now, I think.

By the time this article is cleaned up, say in 2-3 days, it may provide good material for Dr. Payyapilly's next book, to come out August 2011. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Most interesting. I'd heard of students copying from WP, but... Xandar 22:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Veneration of images

I added a clarification regarding the veneration of images by some Christians. And given the Brouhaha about images on the Catholic Marian page, as to whether the pope understands these things or not, I should probably add Orthodox explanations here, but this is too much detail for the article itself:

  • Orthodox believers venerate icons by bowing and kisses, both at home and in churches.[1]
  • Orthodox Christians venerate icons, i.e. two dimensional religious paintings.[2]

Mother of God with icon veneration.[3]

  • The icon of the Virgin is without doubt the most venerated icon among the Orthodox.[4]

So I think this should clarify the fact that the Orthodox do venerate icons, as do Catholics, but the veneration is to the person, as the Devotions section states. However, quoting large sections of the Council of Nicaea or the Synod of Constantinople is probably too much detail for this article. History2007 (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

References

  1. ^ Weaver, Mary Jo et.al Introduction to Christianity 2008 ISBN 0495097268 page 68[1]
  2. ^ Jerome, Benjamin, An educator's classroom guide to America's religious beliefs and practices 2007 ISBN 1591584094 page 65 [2]
  3. ^ Vasilaki, Maria Images of the Mother of God: perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium 2005 ISBN 0754636038 page 97
  4. ^ De Sherbinin, Julie Chekhov and Russian religious culture: the poetics of the Marian paradigm 1997 ISBN 0810114046 page 15 [3]

Overemphasis on criticism of Catholic view of Mary

This article is giving WP:UNDUE attention to the non-neutral viewpoints of non-Catholics' as regards the Catholic view of Mary. There should not be an effort to isolate Catholics here. The article is not here to judge which religions' view is superior, inferior, flawed, etc. The article should just present the view of each in a neutral way, without comparing and editorializing about any differences. The reader can note the differences on their own.

Also, there is a lot of original research and poor use of citations, and citations that can't possibly be checked, and for some, it is not even clear what the citation is about. I will post them later. This article needs a rewrite and real sources. There are a lot of claims being made here with scant sources to support them.

All the comparisons are to the Catholic view. There are no criticisms drawn, for example to the Lutheran view versus the Anglicans. It's always a critical comparison to the Catholics.

And this sentence is total invention: "On this showing, Catholic traditionalists would argue that there is no conflation [46] of the human and divine levels in their veneration of Mary."

  • The citation is to a dictionary.
  • It doesn't say anything about the 'showing' referred to
  • It does not show any argument between these so-called 'Catholic traditionalists'
  • nor does it show that anybody in authority in the Catholic Church has suggested that there is a belief that Mary is divine.

This is clearly WP:OR and the article is filled with similar examples. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "nor does it show that anybody in authority in the Catholic Church has suggested that there is a belief that Mary is divine": pope John Paul II described events of 1981 assassination attempt in these words (bold added by me):
"I write these words today, May 13, from the Agostino Gemelli Polyclinic. Allow me, dear Brothers, to hark back to what happened 13 years ago in St. Peter’s Square. We all remember that moment, when in the late afternoon shots were fired at the Pope with the purpose of killing him. The bullet that tore into his abdominal cavity is now at the shrine in Fatima. The belt pierced by the bullet lies in the Marian shrine in Jasna Gora, Poland. A mother’s hand guided the path of that bullet, and the dying Pope, who was quickly taken to Gemelli Clinic, was saved at death’s door. In September of last year, when I was able to contemplate the face of the Mother of God at the shrine of Ostra Brama in Vilnius, Lithuania, I recited the words of the great Polish poet, Adam Mickiewicz: “Holy Virgin, you who keep watch / Over Czestochowa’s bright mount! Beacon of Ostra Brama! / As once in my boyhood you wrought a miraculous sign / (My weeping mother had scarcely entrusted me to your care / When, raising a dying eyelid, I instantly found the strength / To walk to your shrine and thank the Lord for life restored): / So, by a miracle, you shall restore us…” And as I recited these words after saying the rosary at the Ostra Brama shrine, my voice failed me." (source, p. 4 [in pdf], middle column)
I think that (allegedly) "miraculous" interventions like this one are usually credited to God by theists, so it seems that Mary is some kind of a goddess to Catholics, no? BartłomiejB (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand the text. JP II says he "thank(ed) the Lord for life restored." He didn't thank Mary, because she didn't restore his life. God did.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The sentence "A mother’s hand guided the path of that bullet (...)" is quite unambiguous. It is obvious for any person who knows Catholicism a little bit that Mary is quite important figure in this religion - for many faithfuls it is some kind of a goddess, including pope apparently. BartłomiejB (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
You are greatly mistaken Bart. You obviously no nothing of the Catholic views of Mary, many of which are shared with Anglicans and Orthodox. Catholic only believe in One God (and that God is a Triune God [Father, Son & Holy Spirit]. Mary is the MOTHER of GOD(Christ). She is very special to us, but not considered divine, as that is heresey. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

The lead needs to be rewritten as it is too long, too detailed, does not present a summary of the entire article, etc. See WP:LEAD. I've given it the appropriate tag.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Any guesses on which tag is found next to add to the article. Again, the shotgun approach to collaborative editing. Marauder40 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the Lead is word-heavy, and I've spent a lot of time editing it. I support further trimming. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Afaprof, I saw that you trimmed it and I trimmed it even more. It is really easy to keep hitting the delete key and trimming even more, but then it may get too short. There are no factual errors in the lead, and it covers the content. Do you have other suggestions? If so, please provide them, else I will remove the lead tag. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary in New Testament/other sections

Mary is really only mentioned by name in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. This section can be summarized in a few paragraphs. Also, the overlinking is distracting to the reader.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, according to certain churches, Mary is also mentioned in the Book of Revelation as the Woman of the Apocalypse, and is mentioned also in other gospels and NT books as the "Mother of the Lord". --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the gospels that mention her by her name Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Mary is not only mentioned by name IN the New Testiment. So a section about her in the NT should also include when she is not mentioned by name. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I will try to do that when I get to it, unless someone gets to do it first - which I would prefer, so there will be less for me to do. History2007 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Christian doctrines/Christian perspectives

Both these sections can be combined. Again, the over wikilinking is distracting.

I've removed this as it does not add to the content in any way and picture galleries are not recommended per WP:IG.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I put it back until it is discussed. Let us hear what other people have to say. This article had many, many images - was attracting them like a magnet. I made the image gallery to manage that. So I think having it there will be useful. Anyway, we will do what the overall opinion on that suggests. History2007 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The gallery is not recommended on Wikipedia. I removed it per policy. Please do not revert good faith edits. The picture gallery does not add to the subject. It is redundant, and there are already many images in the article. Please do not edit war over it. This can be moved to Commons as per the recommendations. See policy WP:IG.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It is simpler than that really: that was a lot of content to remove. If there is consensus for removing it, it gets removed, else it stays. So we will wait to see what consensus has to say. History2007 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The gallery is a useful addition to this article. Do not delete it without a discussion first. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Please explain how it is useful. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Pictures can give as much information as paragraphs of information can. Various paintings of beleifs of the virgin, icons of her, etc. are very helpful for the article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I see multiple benefits, and in fact that question should really be asked of all the other editors who added those pictures over time. From an informative point of view, images such as the early depictions in the Catacombs tell a historical story, while the Old Persian miniature of Madonna and Child reinforces the Islamic perspective. So they do inform me, and I think they will also inform others. Moreover, from a practical point of view, Wikipedia editors at large seem to have expressed a desire to add images through their actions, and a manageable location for that needs to be provided. For instance, in this edit I had to ask User:Md iet if 4 images of Mary's tomb were needed in the middle of the page. In the end those, as well as the image of Assumption statue, 1808 were smoothly handled in the gallery. So the gallery is both informative, and useful - and it is not unduly large anyway. Moreover, the gallery does not bite anyone, does it? History2007 (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Galleries are not recommended. The gallery here is not necessary as the article already has pictures that illuminate the topic. The policy WP:IG is to transfer them to wikicommons.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Wikicommons.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you mentioned the same logic twice above. But gallery tags exist because galleries are not against policy. It is a question of deciding where they fit. E.g. see the galleries at: Flora, Munich, Rose, etc., etc. etc. So there is no "hard rule" in Wikipedia that galleries must be banished from everywhere, else please rapidly remove the other 3 galleries I mentioned here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC).

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Christian devotions section

I fixed the Christian devotions section, added references etc. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the Devotions section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Anglican section

I fixed the Anglican section, added references, recent developments etc. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the Anglican section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Orthodox section

I fixed the Orthodox section. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the Orthodox section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Catholic section

I fixed the Catholic section. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the Catholic section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Christian doctrines section

I fixed the Christian doctrines section. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the Christian doctrines section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Other views section

I fixed the Other viewssection. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the Other views section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the In ancient sources section

I fixed the Other In ancient sources. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for theIn ancient sources section of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the lede

I fixed thelede. Suggestions/fixes will be appreciated. Please list the WP:OR/NPOV items for the lede of this article here:

1.

2.

3.

Thanks History2007 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Imorthodox23 discuss

I think these two articles can't be merged because in the article of Mary, mother of Jesus are texts which tell us about Mary's life and other religion views. The article Mary, mother of Jesus is all about Mary and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is about Roman Catholic Mary, their apparitions, devotions and e.t.c and now you can see why I am suggesting that these two articles can't be merged, but if you want so than let it be so, this was just my opinion. After when you decide remove the sign of the articles being merged. This way the article can be fully completed. I also suggest semi-protection for both of the articles, so people won't vandalize the article. Imorthodox23 (User talk:Imorthodox23) 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Afd/fork discussion

There is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic views on Mary which was started (correctly in my view) based on that page being a fork of this page. The AFD has now been relisted. Please feel free to vote here (at the end of the page) to resolve the issues. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Restart of new article as a case of WP:POINT

Please see: Talk:Catholic_views_on_Mary which was started by Malke by trucking wholesale chunks of text from other articles, as a case of WP:POINT. While the merge argument presented here was that Catholic views need to merge in here, now a separate article opposing the very merge suggestion has started, as a clear case of WP:POINT. The logic escapes me. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:POINT page is now an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Catholic_views_on_Mary, and in my view rightly so. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic section

The Catholic section is very incomplete. Immaculate Conception is just one of the glaring omissions I see here. NancyHeise talk 23:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, the Immaculate Conception as an article contains a lot of information. We do not want to be cutting and pasting information. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Orlady (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)



Mary (mother of Jesus)Virgin Mary — As per WP:COMMON, the current title is not the most commonly used, natural or recognisable one to refer to the subject of this article, and is in fact a needless and awkward disambiguation. There was a debate two years ago about moving the title simply to "Mary", which was not agreed, however "Virgin Mary is less ambiguous than "Mary", and widely recognised. Xandar 22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. For the reasons above. Since the recent merger with the former "Blessed Virgin Mary" article, the title "Virgin Mary" has become more available for this article, and is more suitable than the current clunky title. Xandar 22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with your assessment about Mary's title, and that she is commonly known, among Catholics as well from my experience, as the Virgin Mary. And having Blessed Virgin Mary merged here already makes that article name more appropriate. But then what about Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)? That is a POV content fork focused entirely on presenting an incorrect notion about veneration of Mary. Naming this article Virgin Mary is likely to create confusion in the readers mind, as Blessed is not a title recognized exclusively by Catholics. As it stands now, this article title at least points to a more rationale view and considers Mary in the historical context and as simply who she really was, the mother of Jesus.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Virgin" is a POV claim directly in the article title. The current title is more neutral in tine, not to mention a very clear and unambiguous disambiguation term. I would be happier to have the article at just "Mary" rather than "Virgin Mary". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly the common name, so much so that there's not the slightest POV implied in using it... It's regularly used by people who regard the virginity claim as ridiculous! But even if the POV was there, the naming policy is to go with the common name. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Her greatest "claim to fame" is not her virginity; it is her being chosen to be the mother of Jesus. The article on her son, Jesus, is simply entitled Jesus (though it used to be Jesus of Nazareth, and the lead and saint box still say that). Applying an honorary to her article name in a way elevates her above the simple title given her son's article which is simply Jesus. Her name is not 'Virgin Mary.' The article title should begin with 'Mary.' Putting "Virgin" in the title makes it an ambiguous honorary that is not found in the titles of any other encyclopedia articles I found (see EB for an example).

As far as whether anyone types in the search box Mary (Mother of Jesus) is a moot point. Just typing in "Mary" brings up the title of this article among the others beginning with "Mary", so that doesn't matter.

To quote User Malke, "As it stands now, this article title...considers Mary in the historical context and as simply who she really was, the mother of Jesus." The article handles the great debate as to what "virgin" is intended to mean in scripture (e.g., never had intercourse, young woman, engaged woman, virgin at conception, perpetually a virgin, etc.) Who knows whether it's POV or not? While I personally believe she was a virgin at conception, unambiguously she was incredibly honored by God when he chose her, among all women, to bear (and rear) his son in human form. "Mother of Jesus" is the appropriate disambiguatory information, and presenting it in parenthesis is the appropriate way to do it, since it's not part of her name. Let's stay with Mary (Mother of Jesus). ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

With reference to article TITLES, we should not be concerned with arguments such as who thinks Mary is a virgin or not. That is to do with article content, not title. For titles the prime consideration according to wikipedia naming policy is "what is the name for the subject most commonly used in reliable sources in English". On that consideration "Virgin Mary" beats "Mary (mother of Jesus)" by a considerable stretch. Other considerations include ease of use, namely which title is more likely to be entered by a user looking for the topic? As such the avoidance of made-up names, and the use of unnecessary disambiguators like "(mother of Jesus)" is good practice. Xandar 22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I do see what your point is and I would throw in with it in a minute, but then it starts to make it seem as if there are different Marys. Blessed Virgin Mary, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Virgin Mary, etc. Staying with Mary, mother of Jesus does seems less POV.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. It is POV, but not for the reasons specified above. Virgin Mary is too sectarian, while almost universal among Roman Catholics (and non-religious people who were raised Catholic), it is rarely used by a large number of Protestants. When it is used, it tends to be as small-letter virgin Mary implying adjective usage not as part of a title. (see under "B. God the Son" here). For many Protestants, there is a major difference between the virgin Mary and the Virgin Mary. The terminology and theology surrounding Mary is a fundamental difference between the two faiths. Eastern Orthodox Chhristian usage is more frequent than Protestant, but used less consistently than Catholics see here. VictorianMutant (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support on grounds of common name. I just did a quick check, the Westminster Confession, the statement of doctrine of the Church of Scotland and several other Presbyterian churches, only mentions her once, in chapter 8, but it does call her the Virgin Mary, with a capital V. (The 39 articles of the Church of England do not mention her.) Although she is less important to Protestants than Catholics, when the do mention her they do normally call her the Virgin Mary. PatGallacher (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While quite common, there are many other faiths that do not believe she was a Virgin, as well as atheists and other sects of Christianity. In Orthodox, she is not known by this name, either. If anything, it should be moved to Mary, and the disambiguation page there moved to Mary (disambiguation). 173.24.117.126 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As said earlier, whether random faiths believe she was a virgin or not is in no way relevant to Wikipedia naming policy. Policy states we should use the common name for the subject. If you are commenting here, could you make comments that are based on Wikipedia's naming policies, as linked above. Xandar 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Since plain "Mary" is ambiguous, and "Virgin Mary" is a very common name. It makes sense to disambiguate using the person's own name instead of whose mother she was. It makes no difference whether you believe that she was a virgin or not – article naming shouldn't be based on what we believe but on what the most recognizable English name is. Jafeluv (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The most common name of the topic of this article is Mary, but it needs to be disambiguated due to other uses and this use not being primary. Clarifying which use of the name in question in parenthesis is the most common method of disambiguation in Wikipedia. The advantage of the current title is that it correctly conveys the most common name for the subject is Mary. Adding Virgin in front of it would make sense if "Virgin Mary" was the more common name. No evidence that that is the case has been presented. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That was a fair comment by Born2cycle, namely: "No evidence that Virgin Mary is the WP:Common name has been presented". So I tried to see if that is the case, and the results shown below here indicate that it is more common than Mary, Mother of Jesus by about 20-40 fold, across the English speaking world. That is a wide margin. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Everything outside of parenthesis in an article title is the implied name of the article's subject; anything inside parenthesis is just additional information about the subject needed to disambiguate the name from other conflicting uses of that same name. Words inside parenthesis are not part of the name.

Thus, the title "Virgin Mary" implies that the name of the subject is "Virgin Mary". The title "Mary (mother of Jesus)" implies that the name of the subject is "Mary".

So the question isn't whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary, Mother of Jesus" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject, but whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

By that logic Mary Magdalene should be at "Mary (of Magdala)", same for Mary of Bethany, and that Mary, Queen of Scots should be at "Mary (Queen of Scots)" or "Mary Stewart (Queen of Scotland)", since she isn't the only Mary Stewart. The same might apply to other Marys like Mary I of England and Mary of Burgundy. And that's just using other Marys as examples! In fact we use the common name, rather than a generic plus bracketed disambiguator. On the disambiguator itself, as I show in the section below, to use the commonest disambiguator for plain "Mary", would mean using, not "Mary (Mother of Jesus)", but "Mary (Mother of God)". Xandar 22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not true that by that logic Mary Magdalene should be at "Mary (of Magdala)". If Mary Magdalene was better known in reliable sources as "Mary" than as "Mary Magdalene", then by that logic it should not be at Mary Magdalene but at Mary (''something''), where the something could be worked out (and I doubt "of Magdala" would be the result). Since Mary of Bethany is the most common name by which she is known, that title is fine too. I thought your point is better made with Mary, Queen of Scots, but apparently she is best known by that name too.

I won't quibble about whether the disambiguator should be "Mother of Jesus" or "Mother of God" - I suspect most everyone will glean the same understanding from either variant. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. On Wikipedia, material found in parentheses in article titles is for disambiguation purposes. The exact phrase "Orange (fruit)" isn't going to give you the most google hits per "common name" or whatever, but we need it, for disambiguation purposes, due to Orange (colour) (and half a dozen other articles, from songs to surnames to software). Arguments that "Mary, Mother of Jesus" isn't the most common name are nonsense, because we aren't claiming it is. We are claiming that "Mary" is more common, but since there are other things named Mary, we add a parenthetical comment for disambiguation purposes. This is naming conventions 101, and it seems a lot of people are off base. If we had a surname for Mary, it may make things easier, or if someone wanted to suggest another disambiguation comment, that may work, but I think "Mary" is more common, and less POV than "Virgin Mary", two birds, one stone. In summary, I'd oppose an article move to "Virgin Mary", but would consider a change in disambiguation. -Andrew c [talk] 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The point of disambiguators is that they are used when they are actually needed. Not to replace the Common Name, or the most easily usable name, as per naming policy. As such a disambiguator is needed for Orange (fruit) since an Orange has no other common name, and this is also the name of a colour. This does not apply to Virgin Mary, since this is the unambiguous common name, which we are overly complicating by using "Mary" (which is not the common name in reliable sources for the subject of this article) and then adding a made up and non-user-friendly disambiguator. Xandar 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No. Polling shows that there are far more uses of Virgin Mary than Mary (mother of Jesus). Xandar 23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose; my reasoning is simlar to nixon's. The title Mary (mother of Jesus) represents a broader and more generally accepted view than does Virgin Mary. We can all agree that Virgin Mary should definitely redirect here. However, I would support moving this article to Mary, since this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Virgin Mary simply isn't her name. For comparison, have a look at Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia - the article on the man isn't found under "Good King Wenceslas", even though Google gives five times as many hits for the latter term. I've also yet to see any evidence that "Virgin Mary" is more common than just "Mary" in the first place, and if it isn't, we should disambiguate instead of going with the less common name because that happens to be unique. Huon (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. New title is unnecessarily pov. No reason to do this. I am Catholic and believe in BVM, but the reasoning to force this name onto a secular Wikipedia is not sound IMO. Having said that, I am in favor of a redirect of BVM to here, if not done already. Student7 (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

We'd better get a few facts straight.

Firstly, the title the Virgin Mary isn't a Roman Catholic thing at all. Roman Catholics do tend to place more emphasis on St Mary (and on many other saints as well) than do Protestants, but that's not the issue.

The question here is rather, when we do talk about her, what's she called? The Apostles Creed is used widely and equally by RC and Protestant, and guess what... all versions (yes there are several) refer to the Virgin Mary.

In that this is probably the only time many protestants refer to Mary at all except at Christmas, the logical conclusion is that the phrase the Virgin Mary is more a Protestant thing than an RC thing. They use many names for Mary; We have only have one!

Yes, read that again slowly. It's not shoot-from-the-hip prejudice, it's considering the facts. They may come as a surprise.

Consider now the Nicene Creed, also used by all the larger denominations that use creeds, but not so commonly as the AC. Many versions, the oldest don't mention Mary at all, but the widely used ones all do, and guess what they all call her?

Consider now the other time we Protestants all tslk about Mary: Christmas. Let's consider a few carols... The Virgin Mary Had A Baby Boy... Silent Night... Need I go on?

Please, can we argue from the facts? Andrewa (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A few notes: (1) A sizable number of Protestants do not use the Apostles Creed (Baptists, Churches of Christ, among others). So it is not as widely used among Protestants as Catholics (2) The Apostles Creed which Protestants recite also says "I believe in the holy catholic Church" (all capitalized if you are Roman Catholic), proving capitalization is often a key distinction. (3) Of course the word Virgin is going to be capitalized in the title of a song... that's standard song convention(capitalize major words even those usually not capitalized). Don't know why you mentioned "Silent Night" because the lyrics don't say "Virgin Mary" they say "Virgin Mother." I'm not being POV. I'm not particularly religious and consider myself neither Protestant nor Catholic, but went to both churches when I was younger and have family members on both sides. Just calling it the way I see it. VictorianMutant (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well surely the capitalisation of Virgin Mary in the wikipedia title would be of the same order as in the hymn title - and so the alleged POV issue would not arise? Xandar 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually the Catholic version of the Apostle's creed says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The Apostles Creed is used by most mainline protestants (the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians/Reformed, the Moravians, etc) as well as by Anglicans. They all refer to Mary as the "Virgin Mary". --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Common name criteria

There was a fair comment above, namely: "no evidence has been provided that Virgin Mary is the most common name". Xander's suggestion was based on his intuition, and everyone else has offered their suggestion based on their own intuition of the "common name". Needless to say, I You say tomato & I say tomahto and people's intuitions often diverge. So let us look at some concrete numbers:

So we seem to get a consistent 20-50 fold difference from Malibu to Manhattan to Marylebone to Melbourne in the major newspapers across the English speaking world. I think that signifies that "Virgin Mary" is more common by far. By the way, "Mary of Nazareth" also scores very low. Other metrics will be appreciated, but will probably establish similar patterns. History2007 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As I just explained above, the question isn't whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary, Mother of Jesus" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject, but whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject. Here are some results that should help us shed some light on this pertinent question.
This clearly shows that "Mary" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject than is "Virgin Mary", and, so, that is what our title should convey, which is what the current title does. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If Mary was ambiguous, that might indeed be a better name for this article. It, however, is not, and it's even not the primary topic for that name. (I think this is a point we agree on.) The article must therefore be disambiguated somehow. If you look at the disambiguation guideline, the first thing it proposes is using another term that is equally clear and is unambiguous. For example, New York City is located at that title to disambiguate it from other meanings of New York (mainly the state, which has been determined to be the primary topic for whatever reason), although "New York" is probably a more common term for the city. Similarly, Heavy metal music is named so because there exists another term for the topic that avoids the use of a parenthesized disambiguator like Heavy metal (music genre). Similarly, Virgin Mary is a completely valid disambiguator for the topic of this article if we can agree that that title is equally clear and unambiguous. Of course, whether Virgin Mary or Mary (mother of Jesus) is more clear is a matter of opinion, but I for one find the first one more recognizable. Jafeluv (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(I think you meant, "If Mary was unambiguous...", since Mary is ambiguous.)
You got me. I strongly disagree with that aspect of WP:D - I think it's important to convey the most common name of the topic with the title, and adding precision to the name (not in parentheses) does not do that; to the contrary, it incorrectly implies the added words are part of the most common name.

I became even more convinced of this when I watched a 5th grader do homework recently using Wikipedia. Because some names of some people were disambiguated by adding precision without parenthesis (as is being proposed for this article), this child thought the disambiguated name was the name of the person in question, and used that in her work. Names that were disambiguated with information in parenthesis, as is done currently in the title of this article, did not create that problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant "unambiguous", of course. Sorry about that. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, the argument can be made that New York City is almost as commonly used to refer to that city as is "New York", if not more commonly.

    In other words, if the answer to a question is that city, "New York City" is likely to be just as valid and correct an answer as is "New York". But if the answer to a question is the subject of this article, "Mary" is almost certainly a much better answer than is "Virgin Mary". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, I fear your google searches are flawed, since many of your "Mary" plus Mother of jesus hits, also refer to her as the Virgin Mary. In addition, with reference to using the top disambiguator for Mary. For (mother of Jesus) you got 600,000 or so results.
for +"Mary" mother of God we get 6,260,000 results. That would indicate Mary (Mother of God) would be the best disambiguator for straight "Mary". Xandar 22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.