Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus

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)

Requested move 2008

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The result of the discussion was move rejected.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary — As per WP:COMMON. Current title is awkward, the word "Mary" is by far most commonly associated with this person. Mary, with nothing else on the end is the common name and there is no other Mary who that could be said of. Thus I propose this move and also suggest that the information currently located at "Mary" be merged with "Mary (disambiguation)". — Victory's Spear (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2008 (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: I see no problem with it. Jesus goes to Jesus, and the current title is very awkward, as mentioned. ^Law _shoot! 23:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jesus is far less common a personal name than Mary, especially in the English speaking world; the standard for primary usage is that it is much more frequent than all other uses combined, which is clearly false here. More common than any other usage, even if true, is not sufficient; just as we do not use Elizabeth simpliciter for the present queen of the United Kingdom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the strawman is comparable. There is no figure who is known globally and commonly as just Elizabeth, or even as The Elizabeth (the UK in itself has two Queen Elizabeths who are equally well known). However, in this case, there is no other person who is known commonly and simply as Mary, without a qualifier. "Mary (mother of Jesus)" fails the policy of common name, and for such a well known and core figure as well. Keeping in mind she is the most well known female figure in Christianity and the most mentioned female in the Islamic Qur'an. Religious figures and royalty are vastly different fields. - Victory's Spear (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is true that no figure is known as just Elizabeth in the way that the mother of Jesus is known as just "Mary". But that does not mean that this topic meets the threshold set by WP:PRIMARYUSAGE (must be much more used than for any other topic), for which Jesus clearly does. Personally, every time I meet someone named "Jesus" I am reminded of the historical figure. But when I meet someone named "Mary" I don't think I ever think of the subject of this article. There is no comparison. No way does this topic have primary usage of the name. That said, it is certainly true that the most common name used to refer to the subject of this article is just Mary, and that's why it's important to disambiguate the name with the use of disambiguation information in parenthesis. So it seems to me the current title is exactly right as it is. --Born2cycle (talk)

• Oppose this request is biased towards a Christian POV. I would suggest Mary, mother of Jesus or The Virgin Mary (or Mary, mother of God) (Ofcourse, Jesus should not sit there either, it should be Jesus Christ) 70.55.86.100 (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is biased towards a "Christian POV", could you please present the name of just one other person who is known globally and prominently as just "Mary"? What is the secular POV of another Mary of this prominence? Thanks. When people type in Mary they're most likely looking for this article, so in following with WP:COMMON that is where it should be IMO. - Victory's Spear (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think that people are most likely looking for the Madonna? They could just as easily be looking for Mary Carey or Queen Mary. Or looking for a nursery rhyme, Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Look at Madonna, that does NOT point to 'mother of God', even though it's even more closely linked to her. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think that somebody looking for an article on "Mary Carey" would type in just the term Mary, when her WP:COMMON name is "Mary Carey" never just "Mary"? I argue that most people who are typing in the term Mary are looking for the most famous woman who is known by that name, with no qualifiers; ie - this article. It seems to me rather blind anti-Christian POV to suggest that isn't the case. As for the name Madonna, well there is also a universally well known popstar also known by just that name with no qualifiers, so it is clearly a different case to the Mary destination situation. - Victory's Spear (talk) 07:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support the move. Either this page or Mary (given name) should be at Mary. Whatever happens, the pages Mary and Mary (disambiguation) need to be merged. 87.114.132.119 (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd expect Mary (given name) to be at Mary, while this article about a particular Mary to be at "Mary (some kind of disambiguation)". The current name, "Mary (mother of Jesus)" seems reasonable. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose The current content of Mary is in desperate need of cleanup, with most of the content merged to Mary (disambiguation) and Mary (given name). Then either of those pages should be moved to Mary. Personally, I would expect the base title to be about the given name. The current title "Mary (mother of Jesus)" seems fine to me, although Mary, mother of Jesus would also work. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, the mother of Jesus is not the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of "Mary" (for which merely being the most common usage is not sufficient to claim the name for the article title), so this article should not be at Mary. Second, "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 as Mary, mother of Jesus would incorrectly imply. Keep it at Mary (mother of Jesus). --Born2cycle (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Quite contrary. This is not a primary usage. (The first Mary that sprang to my mind was the girl in the rhyme; the second the Queen of Scots; the third was Bloody Mary. The B.V.M. came equal fifth with the wife of William.) —Ian Spackman (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — not primary use. There have been various Queen Marys, Mary Poppins, Mary J. Blige, Mary Magdalene, etc, etc. Your point that she is the most globally known Mary doesn't hold up, since in other languages her name is not "Mary", but, for example "María" (Spanish), "Marie" (French), "Maria" (Italian and Portuguese), Παναγία (Greek), and so on. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 17:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, these people, unlike this Mary are all, always known with qualifiers. They are "Queen Mary", "Mary Poppins", "Mary Magdalene", not simply Mary. Surely when somebody is looking for an article on Mary Poppins, they type in the full thing instead of just searching "Mary". I can't imagine a visitor to the site typing "Mary (mother of Jesus)" when looking for this person though.

Additionally I'm not sure how foreign language translations of the exact same name has a bearing on the English language useage (this is the English Wikipedia, so people search English language names). Jesus translates as Gesù in Italian, does that mean his article shouldn't be located at Jesus? - Victory's Spear (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point about their names having qualifiers. The comment regarding other languages was in response to your coment: "There is no figure who is known globally and commonly as just Elizabeth". I interpreted that as implying there is a figure known globally and commonly as "Mary", but I misinterpreted the nuance of your argument—that there is no one else commonly known as just Mary. On the other hand, is the Mary in question more commonly called "Mary" than either "the Virgin Mary" or "Mary, mother of Jesus"? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a good point about the other names having qualifiers, and might amount to an argument in favor of the proposed move if Mary currently redirected to this page. But it doesn't. Mary is currently a dab page, and for good reason. Despite the other uses having qualifiers, this Mary does not meet the primary usage criteria. Anyone who types in merely "Mary" should get to the dab page that is currently at Mary. That's the way it is, and should remain. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is simply no way that WP:COMMON trumps WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. To argue that one use of Mary is the primary use, is insane. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's been about 2000 years since the most commonly named Mary was the mother of Jesus. And even then what about Mary Magdalene? Today it is far more commonly simply a woman's first name. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Mary was an extremely common feminine name among the Jews of first-century Palestine. The mother of Jesus was a poor woman who does not appear to have travelled much, spending most of her life in disreputable Nazareth. Mary was once the most common girl's name in English, for many years, but it has long since lost that title. You've got it all backwards. Srnec (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

    Indeed I have then, but that makes it even more important that Mary be a disambig page or at least the common name, and certainly not used for the mother of Jesus. It looks as though Mary (given name) should be merged into Mary. 199.125.109.107 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The idiomatic solution would be to use the Virgin Mary, as established idiom, just as we use Ethelred the Unready or Edward the Confessor. Some will disagree, in all three cases, that the idiom is accurate; but this does not, and should not, prevent our using it until English usage changes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying there should be a page move to Virgin Mary? It seems highly unusual to me, as her name is not 'Virgin Mary.' We should at least ensure the move, if any, results in an entry that begins with 'Mary.' ^Law _shoot! 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Her name wasn't Mary, either. So? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Her name was not Mary? The example you gave of Edward the Confessor still has Edward as the first part of the article entry. The entry is not Confessor Edward because his name is not 'Confessor.' It makes no sense to use a descriptive term as the title of a biographical article when we have a name. ^Law _shoot! 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

To unpack slightly: there are two ways to deal with such questions:

• We can look for the "authentic", "real", "correct" name of the subject, the one her neighbors called her. This is certainly not Mary; it is likely to be something like Mariam, although some variation is possible (nothing written by her neighbors survives). This is not Wikipedia practice, chiefly because, as in this case, few English-speakers will understand the result. (The same line of reasoning would induce us to spell it in first-century Aramaic script, which hardly any of our readers will even recognize.)
• On the other hand, we can look for what most English speakers actually call her. That will be "Virgin Mary", even though Mary is an invention within English, and as distinctively English as Marie is French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your point but if we start delving into arguments about not having a fundamental name, such as Aramaic pronunciation, we are going to end up somewhere in Plato's cave. If we can't agree that her name is even Mary, we are not going to get anywhere. You say that most English speakers refer to her as Virgin Mary, but that is original research. My own experiences, also original research, as a Protestant, would entail seldom, if ever anyone referring to her as the Virgin Mary. Catholicism reveres Mary as much more of a 'holy' figure than Protestants, by virtue of the Immaculate Conception. ^Law _shoot! 02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no theologian, but I wonder if "Virgin Mary" begs a POV (Roman Catholic?). Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be "Blessed Virgin Mary", which I would oppose on the simpler grounds that fewer anglophones use it. "Virgin Mary" is no more Catholic than Edward the Confessor, which also originally had theological implications, but has become common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Virgin Mary" is not the name used to refer to the subject of this article and so should not be the title. One might argue that "The Virgin Mary" is the name, but I think it's fair to say that just "Mary" most correctly reflects the name, so that should be the title, and that since this topic does not have WP:PRIMARYUSAGE it must be disambiguated with appropriate information in parenthesis. The current title already accomplishes all this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. I think that Mary does have claim to be primary usage, but not as clear a claim as I'd like. The question in my mind is not so much the matter of fact as the interpretation of the rules, and also whether the rules are quite right and whether we can even expect the letter of the law to cover such an unusual case. I think that there's no perfect answer, and I'd prefer just Mary or Virgin Mary (using this as the article name is just stating that this is what people do call her, not whether they're right to call her that) or The Virgin Mary. The current title Mary (mother of Jesus) is acceptable, just, I'd prefer to avoid such unusual disambiguators as it seems to me that they give the subject undue weight, which as a Christian I'm tempted to support but as a Wikipedian I must at least weakly oppose. The Virgin Mary has the same problem of undue weight, but not quite as badly IMO so again I'd consider it acceptable. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "Mary (mother of Jesus)" is a mess as a title. It is NOT the thing that even 1% of average readers would type in to the search to get to this article. "Virgin Mary" is what most people would type - and that should be the name of the page since that is the title she is most known by in the English-speaking world - and not just among Catholics. There is of course a page titled Blessed Virgin Mary, which contains more specifically Christian devotional information with relevance to Mary. I don't think merging the pages is an option (it has been rejected in the past) since this article covers Mary more historically and on an all-faith level. But I've always thought the structure of Mary articles on WP is confusing. Xandar 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, mess is the word. What looks like a disambiguation is really a sort of subtitle. I don't think an article on any other mother of Jesus (and there are of course many of these, just not of this particular Jesus) would be likely to share this disambiguator. Andrewa (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• In my experience here in England, to most people "Mary" without further definition means some girl or woman called Mary who is a member of the speaker's or listener's family. To me the most common name of Jesus's mother is "the Virgin Mary". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. When an article is named according to the Name (disambiguation information) format, there is no expectation that anyone will type exactly that in when doing a search; the expectation is that they type in Name, just as they would if they were searching for any other usage of Name, and that that would bring them to the [[Name]] disambiguation page, from which they could scan for and find the particular usage of Name that they're looking for. So the fact that less than 1% of the people searching for this article will type in Mary (mother of Jesus) is no reason to not make that the title. What the disambiguation information does is clearly distinguish this usage from all the other uses, which is exactly what it is supposed to do. I just cannot understand why anyone would think this title is a mess. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jesus is not the result of an Immaculate Conception!! Jesus is the Incarnation "verbo carno factum est" The BVM is the Immaculate Conception tvm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyvonmeyers (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Virgin Conception resulted in Jesus, and was Mary's only pregnancy. The Immaculate Conception was Mary's own conception, and it's called that because she was exempt from Original Sin. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More on Titling

The title of the article should be the most commonly used name in English. "Mary (Mother of Jesus)" is hardly used by anyone. It isn't even logical. Mary, mother of Jesus who? An undefined Mary is being defined by her relationship to an undefined Jesus. Virgin Mary or Mary the Virgin would be much better. I think we should move it to the title "The Virgin Mary" or "Virgin Mary" does anyone agree? i think we should do this as she is more known as this, and it just seems a better title without brackets, and what is your preferance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.92.250 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree The Blessed Virgin Mary, her title is Mother of God not Mother of Jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyvonmeyers (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In Acts 1:14, Luke names Mary as "Mary the mother of Jesus". So how is that title not logical or hardly used? Calling her the Queen of All Saints is just plain wrong. Newtaste (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the current title has been discussed before, and survived. It may not please everyone who reads Wikipedia, but the way Wikipedia works no page on this type of topic will ever please everyone. Changing the current title will probably result in a long discussion, and the end result will make no major difference to the content of the article, or the information it provides to the reader. The term Virgin Mary redirects anyway, so whovere searches for that will end up on the page. I think it is best to leave things as they are and use the energy that would have gone into the debate title for improving the references for the article. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at Nativity of Jesus

Outside input is requested at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a section, The narratives compared, which is a table showing the differences in detail between the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Questions have been raised as to whether it should be included. Concerns include original research, novel synthesis, and dependence upon primary sources. The table can be seen at this version of the page: [4].Opinions concerning whether it should be included at all (given its current state, as well as the "Nativity as myth" section, which addresses discrepancies in the narratives), and if so, then in its current state, or beefed up with references, or converted to prose, are needed and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who respond at the talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Section rearranged

I have put the article sections into what seems to be a more logical order, starting with the Life of mary and then proceeding through titles and Doctrines. I also added an extension to the lead, which should have been there, more fully summarising the article content. Xandar 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Mary of Nazareth
Madonna and child, chiaroscuro woodcut, by Bartolommeo Coriolano
Spouse	Joseph of Nazareth
Children	Jesus of Nazareth
Parent(s)	Joachim and Anne

I was be bold and removed the infobox from the article because:

1. It's factually incorrect (Mary is not venerated in Islam - veneration is honouring a saint and there are no saints in Islam)
2. It's against NPOV (the article is about Mary in general, not about Blessed Virgin Mary, for whom the infobox is created).

The infobox was transferred to the article Blessed Virgin Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, bold is often good, as is discussion before major changes. I really can not agree with such a big change to a "stable article" which has not been challenged for months without prior discussion. I think we should put it back, discuss then see what transpires. It also reduced teh quality of the other article. It just has to go back for discussion. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So, do you personally have any objections to my edit? I removed the infobox because it is innaccurate and against NPOV policy and I've inserted two images instead - a Christian and an Islamic representation of Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. And someone else reverted it before I had a chance to do it! It says Mary Mother of Jesus at the top, so it is the right info box. Period. History2007 (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not know what you meant by period, as this discussion is not over. You haven't addressed any of my arguments. The infobox is against NPOV, it's misplaced and it's inaccurate. The infobox is called "Infobox Saint" and it is used in more than 500 articles about Christian saints. It doesn't matter what it says at the top. You could put Infobox Saint in the article about Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and would everything be OK if you just wrote "Elizabeth II" on the top? No, it wouldn't. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The internal name of the info box is not visible. Period. Hence it makes no difference. It is the content that matters. Period. That it is NPOV is your point of view, not mine. And another user reverted you, so you are one step behind the curve. You need to prove what is NPOV and if other editors agree the content may be modified to address that. I see no problem in it since it addresses Christians, muslims, etc. Period. History2007 (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you would use Infobox Saint in any article as long as the "internal name of the info box is not visible"? You could put Infobox Saint in the article about Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and would everything be OK if you just wrote "Elizabeth II" on the top? It does make difference, because the infobox is used only for Christian saints. Period. The article about her son uses Infobox Person and as such it should be an example for this article. Period. That it is against NPOV is a fact, not my point of view. Period. The other user hasn't consulted the talk page yet and there is no reason to refer to him/her all the time; you are supposed to give your arguments. Period. Besides, Wikipedia is not a democracy, which means that arguments are more important than the number of users. Period. The infobox addresses christians properly, but it doesn't address Muslims properly as they don't venerate Mary like the infobox claims. Period. Surtsicna (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you say it said venerated by muslims? Not any more. Period. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact still remains: the infobox used is Infobox Saint. Infobox Saint is used in articles about Christian saints. It is supposed to be used for Blessed Virgin Mary, not for Mary (mother of Jesus) who is honoured by those who don't recognize her as saint as well as by those who recognize her as saint. That's why the infobox is against NPOV policy. The infobox refers to her as "Saint Mary", "Blessed Virgin Mary", and "Theotokos" - it is obvious that it is supposed to in the article Blessed Virgin Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I do not agree. Info box internal names are not visible. As for titles, that is the "content", a separate issue. And given that the titles are in wide use, I see no problem. The article itself has a section on titles so the box just reflects the content of the article. Period. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not reading what I'm writing. You are not addressing my arguments. You are just stubbornly repeating same sentences and the word period (for which there is a symbol, a dot, you know) even though I informed you that saying period after each comment is offensive! Exclamation mark! As for "content", you cannot consider it a seperate issue as it's a part of the infobox. The article Blessed Virgin Mary is about general Christian views on and veneration of the Virgin Mary. All fields of the infobox would be useful in the article Blessed Virgin Mary; all fields are not useful in this article. None of the fields can be used to describe Islamic view of Mary; all fields are meant to describe Christian view of Mary. Thus, the infobox would be much more useful in the article which is specifically about Christian devotional aspects (as it has veneration, shrine, feast, and patronage parameters). On the other hand, this article, which is (or is supposed to be) about general view of Mary, would be better off with either Infobox Person or two images representing Christian and Islamic views of Mary. Surtsicna (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On the top of the section, you can see how it would look like if we decide to use Infobox Person. Do you have any suggestions regarding Infobox Person? Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, but I do not agree. The smaller info box you have does not reflect the contents of this page which has a title section, doctrine section and multi-religious entries. Hence that would be an inadequate representation. History2007 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It does reflect the contents of this page which has information about her ethnicity, parents, and, most importantly, about her son. Multi-religious entries are not (and cannot be) properly represented by any infobox, let alone by an infobox designed for articles about Christian saints. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The infobox person should be used, since wikipedia is NPOV; the historical figure of Mary was only canonised centuries after her death; and the discussion of canonisation is adequately covered by the article below: it need not be inserted into the infobox, which represents our editorial NPOV stance. Avaya1 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Mary was never canonized by the church. Her veneration started from tradition, since marian veneration began in the early church. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The infobox should be returned to the saint infobox. One cannot argue that she cannot have a saint box since this is about the "historical" Mary, since all saint's articles are also about the "historic" person. She is venerated in so many different churches (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran..) she deserves a saint box. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Willthacheerleader18. Let us consider some contemporaries, say Saint Peter, Saint Paul, etc. They all have yellow/saint boxes, because they are inherently religious historical figures, not artists, soldiers or politicians. The Virgin Mary is also an inherently religious figure, as they are, hence a yellow/saint box is appropriate. History2007 (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Umm Isa

Can someone explain what's wrong with including one title given to Mary in Islam? Isn't this supposed to be a neutral article? If nobody responds, I will reinsert it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, calm down. English Wikipedia is pretty much all about consensus. What's the hurry? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it seems (and I am no expert in Islam) that Umm Isa is not even a title, but a simple translation of "mother of Jesus". Hence not applicable as a title anyway. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is just as applicable as is "Mother of God". I believe you are getting too upset over the issue; so upset that you revert my attempts to improve the article's grammar. Please calm down and see what's the edit about. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Me? Upset? You must be kidding... But mother of God has a different connotation, for sure. That was what the Coun. of Trent was about... Now I must go. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to the person who was calming me down. I am waiting for your response in the section above, History. I'd also appreciate your response, Antique Rose. Surtsicna (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I must apologize to Surtsicna for incorrectly labeling my deletion of "Umm Isa" as Vandalism. Now that I understand what it means in Islam, it certainly wasn't Vandalism. I hope you will accept my apology. My opinion is that since this is English language Wikipedia, it is not appropriate simply to list the title transliterated into English. I realize that Mary Mother of Jesus is revered in Islam. Hopefully you/we can figure out another way to make that point--better perhaps in the article where it can be explained, instead of in the Template. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for politeness and civility, Afaprof01! Politeness and civility are always appreciated, especially by those who don't get politeness and civility from others. I agree with your last sentence. As I argued in the section above, the infobox designed for a Christian saint is not capable of representing multi-religious entries; it cannot even represent all Christian views of Mary. It is simply not practical. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Solid wood?

The image of the assumption statue from Malta has now been added to several Marian pages, including this one. It is a nice statue and I even added it to my own article on Marian art once I saw it. But please stop re-asserting that it is solid wood, etc. Wood or other material has no relevance here at all. It is irrelevant text that distracts from the article. And it keeps getting added without regard to other text, and damages the format in several articles, so I have to clean up after that. Please show respect for the article as a whole. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2009 (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)

"Christians and Muslims believe that she conceived her son miraculously by the agency of the Holy Spirit"

Technically, that's not really true. Muslims-not unlike Jews- don't even believe in the trinity. They do believe it was "virgin birth" through the "will of God", and NOT through the so-called "Holy Spirit"

So, if someone is willing to change it, please go ahead. Otherwise, I'll do it.

Cheers! 140.247.237.197 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to sign in! That's me above.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest. History2007 (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox Beliefs

Orthodox do believe in the immaculate conseption, its the origin of Mary that they differ from the Catholics, Catholics believe that Mary was herself concieved without sin while Orthhdox believe she was a regular person who with gods gift was able to birth Jesus as a virgin. Really not sure about the last part but am sure that the Orthodox do believe in the emmaculate conception. Anne Feledichuk Nov 3, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.190.251 (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Orthodox Church does not hold to the "Immaculate Conception" as understood by the RC church. -- JALatimer 03:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Queen Mother"?

Unless someone can find ancient ("early Christianity") uses of the title "Queen Mother" for Mary, the paragraph beginning "The title, Queen Mother, was given to Mary in early Christianity" should be dropped. The reference provided in the footnote talks about how Mary should be understood in the context of Old Testament queen mothers, but DOES NOT SAY that she was ever given that title in antiquity. I can't find, or recall, any such ancient use of the title. Frjwoolley (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Image

I also prefer the image that Yorksirian added. So 2 votes for that. Unless someone else sides with the person who reverted Yorksirian in a day or so, I will put it back. History2007 (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put the one that you like back into the article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this pic better, which is by the same artist. [5] Flash 05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

That is already used here: Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), and is also very nice but just to be different this one should probably stay. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, returning after a few days' break. Have restored the featured picture to the article. Durova³⁹⁴ 05:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, please respond. It's very odd to see a featured picture get booted from an article with the edit summary "higher quality image", and then booted again without response to the invitation for discussion. The replacement image is not featured and does not have the minimum technical parameters to qualify for featured candidacy. Durova³⁹⁴ 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Durova, I really liked the images on your user page. But, but, but exactly who said "featured" gets priority anywhere except on the front page? I also agree with Yorkshirian. Not that this is a big deal. But this image just looks better, while the other has a lot less color... anyway... History2007 (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of deleting, why not include both? I mean, that doesn't solve the issue of which image gets to be at the top of the article, but at least it's somewhat of a compromise. No reason not to include a FP, even if it isn't the top image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - a very good idea Andrew. If you would like to select a spot as an independent observer, please just add it. There is still space for it in the article. But after 2 more images, we will just have to say: so many images, which do we select... Cheers History2007 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned this discussion at an ongoing conversation on featured pictures talk. There needs to be better communication between the site's media editors and text editors. Durova³⁹⁷ 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation: Called an ambulance. History2007 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Durova³⁹⁷ 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not a picture is a featured picture is 100% irrelevant to deciding whether or not to use it in an article. Editors should choose whichever pictures best illustrate the article. If a certain picture isn't among the best pictures available to illustrate an article, it probably shouldn't be a featured picture. Making decisions based upon the existing status of the image is backwards. Also, editors who are associated with a particular file, in this case Durova, should not be involved in discussions on whether or not that file should be used, as they have a conflict of interest. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can tell FPC talk isn't the place to go for political support (if that was the implication). Fortunately it wasn't an attempt at political maneuvering. Today during an unrelated discussion on portraiture I also happened to notice that Wikipedia's only featured portrait of Barack Obama has been removed from nearly every article where it used to appear. The site has had an ongoing problem for a couple of years now of featured media getting removed somewhat randomly because, unlike articles and lists and portals that all display a featured star in mainspace, the media featured designation is noted only on an image hosting page. So it's possible to browse the article space and Commons subject galleries in good faith and never notice which images are featured. Hence the dilemma of "so many images, which do we select..." I have no objection to replacing a featured picture with something else if there's a good editorial reason for doing so, but past experience has shown that more often than not the alteration really is haphazard. On one occasion Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of featured sounds accidentally removed a Wikisource link to a featured sound's lyrics. Durova³⁹⁷ 23:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the decision of which images to use in an article is ever "haphazard". People choose the images that they believe best illustrate the article. If those images also happen to be high quality and high resolution, they can become featured images. Choosing to use images solely because they are featured pictures is putting the cart before the horse. Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If that were the contention then the snappish response would be more understandable. The reason given for removing this image was purely esthetic, not encyclopedic. A surprising number of editors don't realize when or why an image is featured. Many don't even understand filesize. I recently spotted a featured article that used a 5KB image at the lead when three 150MB public domain alternatives were available, all of which had good esthetics. If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion then featured article contributors would be ethically constrained from correcting bad copyediting after an article passes FAC, because no alteration is ever haphazard. ;) Durova³⁹⁷ 00:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with with Kaldari's "cart before the horse" comment, however I agree strongly with Durova on the issue that FPs are not explicitly labeled as such in articles. I don't remember seeing the argument that FPs are being removed randomly from articles unbeknownst to editors or FP regulars on that RFC. Maybe we should reinvigorate that again, using this (or better yet the Obama article) as Exhibit A? upstateNYer 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I guess this discussion is to find consensus about the choice for the leading image. And there are two candidates being in dispute. Let's analyze the two images coldly with respect to a desirable characteristics for the leading picture. There is a strategy for doing this, when the decision gets complicated that goes this way: First we choose the characteristics that we are going to look at. Suppose they are 10. We give them values from 1 to 10 according to the importance of the characteristic in the decision. Then we give values 1 or 2 to the pictures in each category and multiply the value of the category by the value of the picture in that category and add all of that. The picture with highest value will be the one. We can recur to this as ultimate resource since it is rather long to actually do it. For the moment lest expose the reasons why The madonna in sorrow is desirable and the reasons why the Coriolano woodcut is desirable. For sure there are are reasons for this last one that are those considered in the FP process. And there are reasons why the other is desirable too, maybe that it is more colorful, maybe that is only Maria and not Maria with the baby. But I would really want to hear the ones who proposed it why they think it is better for that possition. Let's say that for the moment I vote for the FP but I am very willing to change it. Unfortunately the two pictures are by artists more or less from the same time, and from reading the articles I can not recognize if there is a marked difference in popularity among them. Definitely a leading image is desirable to be one that msot people identify with. And a well known author will provide a well known image that if the copy has a fairly nice quality I would happily support. If info can be provided to compare the authors in this direction it will be very welcomed. There is a Rubens there in the article, unfortunatelly the copy doesn't look very good. Again I think the reasons to replace should be exposed. The editors experienced in the FPC process can educate others in evaluate the technical quality of an image and the exclusive editors of this article should/can teach them some other reasons the they may be seing. FPC people can show things like size, resolution, composition (coming here things like framing, rhythm, contrast..). Mary (mother of Jesus)'s editor can wield reasons like symbolism, historic reasons, popularity, ... to give some examples. But please do expose them. No featured picture will be imposed. But a "I like it better" with a quick pseudo democratic vote is not enough because the person liking it may or may not be well educated in appreciating a work of art and/or a media and in no time the picture will be changed again.  franklin  01:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I think the woodcut makes a much better lead image. Not so much because it's higher quality, although that's nice, but because it shows Mary with the baby Jesus. The Madonna in Sorrow doesn't really tell me anything about Mary. It just makes sense to have the lead image in the article about the mother of Jesus show her being a mother. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Good, now the discussion is getting more concrete. OK, now, some of the proposers of the other one, please give some reasons so there are weight in both sides of the balance and so we can see why do you really prefer that one. (also, explaining to others, usually one get a better understanding of our own ideas)  franklin  04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want one that is by a better artist and has a child and a better color scheme, just select one from here. History2007 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

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.).

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

Merge proposal

Since Blessed Virgin Mary has already been merged here, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) should be merged as well, since the Catholic view is already heavily represented in this article and the current separate BVM article is a POV content fork with extraneous materials not relevant to the topic of Mary, Mother of Jesus.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Catholic view is a WP:Content fork, is the Protestant view a content fork? Is the Lutheran view a content fork? Is the Islamic view a content fork? Should they all be merged into this article? History2007 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Theotokos! Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Those articles have nothing to do with the issues being addressed here.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That did not answer the question. Please be specific in your answer. Do you agree that in general, topic views such as the "Islamic view" or the "Protestant view" can be summarized in this article and further expanded via a Main, without being a WP:Content fork? Please be specific in your answer. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is already an article explaining the Catholic view of Mary: Roman Catholic Mariology. If Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) was changed to Roman Catholic veneration of Mary, and its content tightened up accordingly then the whole topic would make a lot more sense. At the moment, as Malke and others have been pointing out, there is a whole load of duplication between different articles. That is a problem because it naturally leads to POV forks and other problems. Quantpole (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is a copy of statement from other page that I wrote before the discussion pages were linked. Catholic views on Mary are different enough from mainline "low-order" Protestant communities that a separate article is needed. Whether other Catholic Mary articles can be merged is a possibility with appropriate redirects, but that is not the topic of this merge request. Claims of POV, etc. are based on a misunderstanding of Catholic belief. Marauder40 (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The differences can be covered in one paragraph, and the article here is already top heavy with Catholic views that could easily be trimmed by removing the redundancies that are sufficiently covered in other articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Marauder40 has said it well. Catholic views are extremely unique (see Mariology). I agree with the hatnotes that the Lead is too wordy, and that the article comes across as very predominantly Catholic. I think that happens because Catholic, Orthodox, and high-Anglican views are so very unique and specific, making all other views pale by comparison in number of words and in descriptions of extra-biblical traditions that have no parallel in Protestant views. Mary occupies a particularly unique place of honor and worship in catholicism, making Catholic Mary articles deserving of their own place on Wiki. To be honored as the "Mother of God" with salvific powers, even when properly understood, makes her almost a different person than other Christians know. If the Catholic Mary text in the present general article were to be significantly trimmed or summarized in one section and necessary subsections, I think that would reduce the complaints. IMO, there is no attempt in this article to elevate the Catholic Mary above other views; it's just that the other views can relate only to biblical descriptions of Mary, not to the many traditions that have developed over the centuries and do not appear in the NT canons. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic views differ only in their view of the Immaculate Conception. There is already an article on that, and all the differences can be covered in one paragraph. This article is already heavy with Catholic views.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not true at all. Also unique in dogma are the Perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, her status as Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Woman of the Apocalypse, and hyperdulian veneration. Although Orthodox and some Anglicans DO venerate Mary, they do not see her as the Mother of the Church (specifically Roman Catholic Church). Devotions such as the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Rosary, etc are unique to Catholicism. The devotions and beliefs of the Blessed Virgin Mary in this sense are very unique to Catholicism, and therefore should have their own article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with both Marauder and the Prof. The merger makes no sense given that Catholic Marian views are quite distinct, and a large body of literature on them exists. As it was said above, it is clear that the Catholic extra-biblical traditions have no parallel in Protestant views - and I would also point out that Catholic venerative traditions, artistic portrayals, shrines and societies (e.g. see Roman Catholic Marian movements and societies) make the Catholic approach to the Virgin Mary very distinct. I see no logic in an attempt to merge. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - The article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a POV content fork that is poorly written, with citations that do not support the content, and is largely filled with trivial, extraneous sections that are covered in other articles, such as the rosary, the scapular, etc. The rest of the article is consumed with the veneration of Mary, etc. The other Blessed Virgin Mary article, which was also heavy on Catholic views, has already been merged here without any problem.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think since you have nominated it, you cannot support yourself. I think that was pointed out to you on the Afd you started before, if you recall. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The merger would not make sense, and would be damaging to wikipedia. The page on the Catholic views is very distinct, and takes up a whole article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the "whole" article is nothing but redundancy. And how does this merger 'damage' Wikipedia?Malke 2010 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Though the Catholic version is a whole article, a lot is redundant and covered here. This article would need to have all Catholic beliefs removed and persons redirected to the Catholic version, otherwise it defeats the purpose to have a separate articles when Catholic beliefs are introduced and covered here in length, as well as in the Mariology article. This may also cause issues with other branches of Christianity, where the Lutherans demand there own version, Protestants one, Evangelicals another and so on. And then why not separate articles for Jesus, God, Moses and so on? It would cause more issues than solve, and does not benefit readers at all when they are forced to read two articles to understand one subject. On a bit of a tangent, this article is poorly named; if Virgin Mary or Blessed Virgin Mary were unacceptable, at least move this to Mary and have the disambiguation moved to Mary (disambiguation).[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "This may also cause issues with other branches of Christianity, where the Lutherans demand there own version, Protestants one..." it seems that the Lutherans did get their own general version as Lutheranism, as did the Protestants, i.e. Protestantism, etc. As for views that relate to Mary, they also have Lutheran Marian theology and Protestant views on Mary that have links in this article. History2007 (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How is it that you had no problem merging the other article, Blessed Virgin Mary with this article here? That was an entirely separate article, that was also heavily Catholic. Yet, you had no problem merging it with this one. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is nothing but redundancies of other articles on the rosary, the scapular, etc. The article is almost entirely taken up with the veneration of Mary which can be adequately covered in one sentence.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Xanderliptak, I believe the other option you list within your Support is actually what should be what takes place. The differences between "low order" Protestant beliefs and the Catholic beliefs is pretty large. A summary of those beliefs should be in this article and it should point to the Catholic version. Whatever name that version has (as long as it is appropriate) doesn't matter. Marauder40 (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this WP:Reliable link (previously provided to Malke) clearly shows that there are multiple differences between Catholics and Protestants far beyond the single issue of Immaculate Conception that Malke claims. AfaProf also stated the same facts very clearly and it shows that he has read the literature. So until literature is studied by the participants herein, those issues will remain hanging. History2007 (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

All differences can be sufficiently handled in one section of this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Marian intercession" already redirects to this page. "Marian veneration" redirects to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) because that's all that article is really, and that can be handled in one sentence. There is no need for the additional sections on saints, and scapulars, and the rosary, and all the other bloat in the article. It has no purpose other than to make it appear, that Catholics are worshipping Mary. They do no such thing.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See also this part of the merge discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary_%28Roman_Catholic%29#Merge.2Ftags_for_original_research.2C_bad_citations.2C_non-neutral_POV Malke 2010 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Still support. Protestant has its own article? And so does Lutheran? Oh my, what is going on here? Actually, that was nothing near what I was saying. Of course each religion has its own article, but religious figures do not need there own article based on their separate denomination's beliefs. We do not need a Blessed Virgin Mary (Lutheran), Blessed Virgin Mary (Evangelical), Blessed Virgin Mary (Anglican), Blessed Virgin Mary (Presbyterian) and so on. This could lead to separate articles for Jesus, Jesus (Roman Catholic), Jesus (Lutheran), Jesus (Evangelical), Jesus (Anglican), Jesus (Presbyterian). For God, God (Roman Catholic), God (Lutheran), God (Evangelical), God (Anglican), God (Presbyterian), God (Judaism), God (Islam), God (Zoroastrian), God (Shinto) and so forth. What is not covered here can be placed in the Mariology, not a sub-article. We do not need to cause divisions along religious lines here, where zealots can hijack their respective article and prevent outsiders from editing it in a neutral point. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice also that the entirety of the article is merely duplication of other articles. For example, the section on the saints: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary_%28Roman_Catholic%29#Catholic_Saints_and_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary. This is entirely unnecessary. It links to the article on the saints which was started by History2007. The same is true with the rosary, scapular, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Below are all main articles that are all nearly duplicated in Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).

• Main articles: Mariology and Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church duplicates of themselves

• Main article: Mariology of the saints---duplicated word for word

• Main article: Mariology of the popes---duplicated word for word - not even doctrine

• Main article: Marian feast days So do the Anglicans

• Main article: Roman Catholic Marian music what does that have to do with anything?

• Main article: Titles of Mary So do the Anglicans

• See also Hymns to Mary and Marian litanies So do the Anglicans

• See also: Marian devotions which is itself duplicated here Catholic devotions

• Main articles: Scapular and Rosary and Scapular

• Main article: Marian apparitions People see Mary in pizza slices, too.

• Main article: Roman Catholic Marian art Who doesn't have Marian art?

• Main article: Roman Catholic Marian Movements and Societies

• Main article: Marian shrines And this is related to the four dogmas of Mary, how?

• See also: Roman Catholic Marian churches There are no separate churches for Mary

• Main article: House of the Virgin Mary Do the Catholics own the house?

And this listing is JUST the articles duplicated. The rest of it is veneration which can be handled in one sentence.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way Marauder before you get worked up on that, in the interest of disclosure, you should be aware that Malke, Mr Litpak and myself have had prior interactions (with the two of them on one side) myself on the other, in which roses were not exchanged, and Malke was eventually blocked for WP:Wikihounding me. So the context must be clarified. And this merge may or may not be a run around an Afd for the Catholic Marian article (who knows what the intentions may be, so we will just assume good faith) which would not have succeeded. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

When you say, prior interactions "in which roses were not exchanged," I see you're referring to your uncivil comments and your refactoring of editors' comments on the talk page?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I already saw those things. I always assume good faith. It is pretty hard to actually work me up. I guess it is my Franciscan nature ;) This looks like a perfect example of trying to win an argument any way you can. Marauder40 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we all assume good faith, and can not be sure of anyone's motives at any time, I just thought the previous WP:Wikihounding context needed to be clarified. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I will have to assume good faith as well that you're not attempting to sway opinion based on your comments in light of your obvious failure to show any Wikipolicy why this article should not be merged? And I will mention also that apparently ArbCom has commented that casting aspersions on other editors for that purpose is not allowed. See here: Casting apsersions: "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users involved, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all."

And also, you've still not responded to my question. Were you the one to merge Blessed Virgin Mary? Can you tell us why you saw fit to do that?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the merge tag was placed by Malke, i.e. yourself. The merge was your idea, if you recall. There was zero opposition and there was support for the merge. So that merge had no opposition, as stated therein. And there was significant (you said 80% overlap somewhere) so it was an easy merge, and no one opposed it. But this merge has opposition and little overlap. It is easy to see. History2007 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and please explain why YOU had no opposition and completed the merger? I didn't see any 'vote' being taken. It seems to have happened instantly? Why would you not object to that when you and Marauder claim there are so many differences between Catholics and Protestants, yet you have no problem merging that article here. Please explain your rationale. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not what this has to do with this merge proposal. And we are really getting off topic. It would be good to put this effort to adding references, so the tags can be removed, not just talk for ever. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is exactly on topic. It appears that as if you saw an opportunity to keep a POV content fork. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary#merging Getting rid of Blessed Virgin Mary would mean that that article couldn't be merged with the Catholic "version" you created. Without Blessed Virgin Mary as an option would mean editors looking at this merger proposal would not have the option of merging both articles under the simple title Blessed Virgin Mary, thus keeping intact a clearly invented POV content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, not at all, and you placed the merge flag on this page afterwards. And again, I do not share your logic. Anyway, enough talk. History2007 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you should have no objection to merging Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) here.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I see is that there are too many similar articles about Mary in different aspects without any oversight. They should be brought together and made uniform. It would appear that each article was started to find an outlet to an editor's personal bias, if they could not include or exclude certain edits here, then they would start a competing article elsewhere were no one would notice. This is all one and singular person. We do not have a Barack Obama (Republican views) and Barack Obama (Democratic views) article because the differing views should be presented all at once in the same forum to balance the pros and cons. Same here, we should have one article with all views presented to be neutral. Articles are for readers, not editors. We need to give readers an overview of each denomination, not fragment them to make editors with their religious biases happy. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Especially given that since Vatican II in 1962, there has been a concerted effort by the Church to deemphasize Mary. There is far more interest in finding common ground with non-Catholics. The Church has always been uneasy with Marian devotion by the laity, even the Popes who favor Mary have been keen to remind the faithful that she is not the same as her son and her humanity is what we celebrate and nothing more. And the Marian scholar, Rene Laurentin said in 1972, "The Marian movement is finished." Another scholar, Stephano De Flores, called the decade after Vatican II, "the decade without Mary." Collecting all the ancient bits of Marian notions and cloaking them in quotes from Popes and saints and songs and bundling them up here Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a POV content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The devotions and beliefs of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sense described in the article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) are very unique to Catholicism, and therefore should have their own article. The Catholic traditions and devotions are unique and are worthy of their own article. Protestant views tend to be more similar, simple, and irrelevant, wherest Catholic belief on Mary is very in-depth and important to the faith. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

All differences can be handled in one section with scholarly citations. I can easily show this. The excessive sections on saints, and popes, and Liturgy of the Hours, etc., all these things have their own articles already. Separating out Catholics is POV content forking.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Then do you suggest merging the Lutheran Marian views and Anglican marian views pages with this article? Why would they be allowed to have their own articles yet the catholic views could not, especially when the Catholic perspective is very different than the protestant. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually Willthacheerleader the way things have shaped up, there is very little chance that this merger will happen. The opposition present to the merger, and the rationale provided by the opposing parties, will make a "consensus to merge" very hard to achieve. The handwriting is already on the wall, it is just a question of waiting a little more, then the merge proposal will be formally declared as dead. History2007 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Willthacheerleader18 above. BartłomiejB (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• • The articles on other religions are not duplicate articles, but sub articles. There could be a "Catholic views on Mary" article, but to have two separate article on the same person seem a bit odd. Like having a Republican and Democratic article for every American political figure. It might benefit to have each article retitled so they are all similar and uniform. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 03:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the articles on the other religions are sub-articles. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is clearly a POV content fork which is not allowed. The other solution would be to restore the Blessed Virgin Mary and merge the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) with it. In this way, all views could be presented and the question of POV content forking would be eliminated. I will ask Moonriddengirl about this possibility.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia needs to be comprehensive and informative and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) provides accessible information in one spot on the many facets and varieties of Marian devotion and practice in the Catholic Church. Detail that cannot be put into a portmanteaus article like "Mary (mother of Jesus)". Some of Malke's comments above seem to indicate a belief that the Catholic Church wishes to de-emphasise Mary, which (if ever true) seems to be out of date following the Marian emphasis of both Popes John Paul II and Benedect XVI. Either way Marian belief and practice need to be properly discussed in an article such as BVM (RC). Xandar 22:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think we should be quite careful to separate the historical figure, from her later religious significance - and her Catholic significance is such a large topic that it's probably best to give it a separate page. Avaya1 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • So all religious information should be removed? This should only be about the historical facts? That would be a very short article... [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

This article Blessed Virgin Mary was merged here with this article not long ago. As Blessed Virgin Mary is a unique title recognized by other religions, not just Catholics, I propose a compromise: rather than merge Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) here, that the original article, Blessed Virgin Mary be restored and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) be merged with it. This way, the POV content fork can be eliminated and by deleting all the redundant sections in this article, plenty of space will be freed up for the other religious views of the BVM.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we should merge Catholic-specific perspectives (re: blessedness) to some page created at, or moved to, Roman Catholic views on Mary. This would exist in balance to Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc. without implying undue weight. ―cobaltcigs 21:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That might work as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this might work well, and it appears Xandar would concur. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with merging BVM (RC) with information on other religious groups. That is the job of the central "Mary" page. We need a core page detailing Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary. It is certainly notable. I would not be averse to renaming the BVM RC page, but major content changes should not be made without consensus for each one. Xandar 22:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This sound slike a Catholic views on Mary page is acceptable then? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree for the same reasons as my previous vote on the merge. Whether some denominations use the term Blessed Virgin Mary just clouds the issue. It is one of many terms. Whether the article be called Blessed Virgin Mary (RC), Virgin Mary (RC), Mary (mother of God) (RC) doesn't matter as much as there being a specific (RC) version due to the number of differences.Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Your idea seems very biased, as Catholics are not the only ones to believe Mary is blessed or a virgin. The Catholics should not own an article that others use as well. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what I am saying is wrong. Blessed Virgin Mary is one term among many that lots of groups use. To say that the article name can't be that because others use the term is clouding the issue is what I meant. No matter what name you use some other group will claim they use that term also. Different names different groups use can be on a terminology page. Even using the term Catholic will get people complaining. All I was trying to say is that there needs to be a Catholic version of the Mary page. The ultimate name doesn't matter (as long as it is appropriate) but due to the number of differences in belief between Catholics and non-"high order" Protestants there needs to be a page that shows the Catholic viewpoint.Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The compromise suggestion is in effect an acceptance of the fact that the merge proposal is dead. I see no logic to this new suggestion, which in effect is an attempt at a resurrection of the dead even before a funeral date for the merge proposal has been set. I see no logic here. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It does look that way, no merger. It sounds like a Catholic views on Mary should be created and and pertinent information here be placed there and this made a redirect or deleted. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seems a good way to go, and this would open it up to the teachings and doctrine so it could be very clear, in the same way Protestant views on Mary makes the Protestant dogma clear. And we could do without all the saints and the rosary and the art as it wouldn't be relevant as they have their own articles any way.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• I would support renaming Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) as Blessed Virgin Mary, which is basically the same thing. Although other churches may recognise the title in some fashion it is sufficiently identified with Catholicism to stand alone as the title of an RC article, just as Theotokos is for the Orthodox. The odd new sentence might be needed. I hate weaselly "Fooian view of Foo" titles, which should be avoided wherever possible. Just on grounds of length a merge with Mary (mother of Jesus) is impossible, even if BVM has duplication with other articles. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree I don't care for "Fooian view of Foo" titles either. The point is, other faiths recognize Mary as Blessed. That title/honorifc can be handled in this article as well as in a new article called Catholic views on Mary. This will fit right in with how the other views on Mary are being handled by the other faiths, such as Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc. This will make things more consistent and eliminate any POV content forking. Lots of people think of Mary as either just Mary, or the Virgin Mary. The Blessed isn't unique to Catholics, but there are unique Catholic views on Mary, just as there are unique Protestant views, and Islamic views, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This does not eliminate the POV forking per se, simply presents it on equal terms (foremostly, giving the article about each particular viewpoint a title which identifies it is an article about a particular viewpoint). We ought to avoid spiritually charged zingers like Mary (blessed virgin), Mary (holiest woman ever), etc. because even while some religious groups hold exactly these views, expressing them as statements of fact makes us look both deeply biased and silly. Similarly we’ll use Rastafari views of Haile Selassie when the time comes to split his article—and not 1892 reincarnation of Jesus—because again we want to identify a religious viewpoint rather than to express it summarily. ―cobaltcigs 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I got things going on Catholic views on Mary as there had been several suggestions of that as a title, and it does seem the least controversial as using Roman Catholic can have problems, especially as the Church is commonly known as the Catholic Church. I filled in the basic dogmas to give it some content and did it by using the extant articles on the dogmas to fill it in.

Also, as cobaltcigs mentioned about the honorifics to Mary such as Blessed, I kept those out of the article title, but of course, the article would have a section on her titles. It does seem best in terms of keeping it all neutral POV to keep to the style of the other articles Protestant views on Mary and Islamic views on Mary, etc. The redundant materials in Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) on the saints, and the art can be eliminated, as they already have full articles anyway and doctrine on Mary isn't dependent on art, etc.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the name of the Roman Catholic article is probably not a topic for this page, but for that page, and I have started a section called Name of this article, on that page where it belongs. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's best to keep the discussion all in one place as it is still on going. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But the "naming discussion" is not about the name of this page is about the name of that page so it relates to that page, not to this page. History2007 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion of the merge proposal

The only people who supported the merge, have now indicated in the discussion above that the merge proposal is unlikely to succeed. Hence, we should declare the merge discussion as hereby concluded, and remove the merge flag as of the end of today, so other issues can be addressed. The name of the Roman Catholic article, is however, not a topic for this page, but for that page, and I have started a section called Name of this article, on that page where it belongs. History2007 (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is on going as to what to do.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What to do is conclude it, since the only one supporting it, XanderLiptak said above that it looks like it is not going to merge. There is no overall support for the merger at all. The merge proposal goes through a specific formal process, it either succeeds or fails. In this case, it is clear that it has strong opposition and has failed as a merge proposal. The resurrection of the dead approach is not applicable to it. History2007 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Picture gallery

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)

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.

• Orthodox Christians venerate icons, i.e. two dimensional religious paintings.

• The Sunday of Orthodoxy directly links the Virgin Mary's identity as

Mother of God with icon veneration.

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

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).

Tags

Every single paragraph in every single section of this article has now been checked and fixed for missing citations, WP:OR or WP:NPOV issues. The lists above have provided a clear and structured format for clarifying what is uncited, what is WP:OR or NPOV. No concrete complaints regarding these issues have been received. Not one single concrete case of a missing citation, WP:OR etc. has been provided in the lists. I may have missed something somewhere, of course, but as is this article is extremely well referenced by Wikipedia standards now, compared to Anglican Marian theology or Islamic views on Mary which have very few references and no tags. At this point the tags on this article are clearly unjustified. If there are issues in specific sections, or with specific paragraphs then that sentence can be flagged. But as is, there is no reason to have all these tags atop this article. History2007 (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It will take some time to check through all the citations you've added. The sections above don't involve other editors, as they don't seem to be a request for editor participation as much as a place for each section to be declared 'fixed.' You might want to allow other editors the time to read and search for other sources and edit the article as they are able, rather than setting these arbitrary time limits just to remove the tags. This will give room to other editors who might have their own reliable sources they wish to use in editing the article.

The tags are there to alert other editors that there are problems with the article. An article with this many issues is difficult to restore to NPOV with only one editor making the changes and adding all the citations. A neutral presentation will require the participation of several editors over time. Also, the lead remains problematic, as other editors have noted. And the problem of Catholic views being compared and contrasted on so many points in a critical manner throughout the article continues to contribute to a lack of neutrality. Catholics views should not carry any more weight, or deserve a higher degree of scrutiny than any other faith.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but headline tags need a strong justification. They can't just stay there indefinitely. Especially on major articles, tolerance of tags has to be limited, otherwise most major articles would be permatagged by someone disagreeing with some part of them. Top tags should only remain while active discussion of significant specific points is ongoing, and each tag needs to be individually justified. Xandar 22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been specific. The tags need to be here until the issues are resolved. Please help with that. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I see no specificity Malke. Exactly, exactly, exactly which sentences are "too critical of Catholics" and hence NPOV as you claim. Unless you point out those sentences, how can that be discussed? I see no indication of which sentences are "too hard on Catholics" as you claim. We can not just chase ghost sentences unless you state which sentences are too hard on Catholics. History2007 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think Malke 2010 thinks she owns the tags. Once concensus agrees the tags can be removed they can be removed. The removal of tags does not prevent others from making changes. Honestly I think she is under the mistaken impression that tags actually bring ANYONE to the article. If that was the case why are there so many pages with tags that have 2007 as the date the tag was put up in the first place. As usual the complaints are just in general and not specific enough for anyone to actually do anything about.Marauder40 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What sentences are too hard on catholics? I am Catholic and I do not take offense by this article.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

So do you support the removal of the tags Willthacheerleader18? History2007 (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That I do History2007. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The tags have since been removed, and I think it is clear that at least 4 editors, namely myself, Marauder40 and Willthacheerleader18 as well as mark nutley (who rightly deleted them) are in favor of not having tags any more. History2007 (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of information based upon reliable sources

User:Malke 2010 has removed information based upon reliable sources, breaking another reference contained by the article. Is this ok? He/she pretends to do it in order to remove biased information. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Tgeorgescu. Those were clearly WP:Reliable sources. I think those Malke removals should be reverted, for they deleted facts that reflect the Protestant view, etc. As for the logic of those edits, please do not ask me. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reliable source compares and criticizes the Catholic belief vis-a-vis the evolved Protestant view. This article is about Mary, and the views of the various faiths. It is not an article about the criticism of the Catholic view of Mary by other faiths. It's about how all the faiths view Mary. As such, the other faiths are not being compared and criticized here, and neither should the Catholic view. To do so makes it POV pushing and the policy is neutral POV. This is one reason the tags are affixed to the top of the article.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

As a Catholic i am shocked to see the carry on`s going on here, shame on you all. You need to step back and think about what is right, ask yourselves, is it to make Catholicism look fecking stupid? Cos that is what i see on this page mark nutley (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Only if the other option is making Wikipedia look stupid. See my comments at #Compromise suggestion above. ―cobaltcigs 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you people insane? Mary is the same for cath`s prod`s and sadly Lutherans :o) you simply give a tad more weight to Catholics as the older religion, then prods, and so on. Really guys how hard is this? mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

By that argument, we would give Jewish views of Mary even greater weight. ―cobaltcigs 23:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I know little of Judaism, is mary as iconic a figure in their religion as it is in Christianity? If not then not as much weight, if so then equal. Easy yes? mark nutley (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cobaltcigs has pointed you to the discussion that has been taking place. Please read it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I am catholic too marknutley. Firstly Mary may be the same figure for Catholics and Protestants, the mother of Our Lord Christ, but our beliefs about the Virgin Mary are extremely different. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

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 WP:COMMONNAME -- as for Mattinbgn's suggestion of "Mary", that was rejected in a previous WP:RM discussion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 10:08, 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 per the nominator. History2007 (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose resolve the fork/merger between this and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) before brining up a requested move. A rename while also having Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a WP:FORK if I have ever seen one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support she is most commonly reffered to as the Virgin Mary by ALL Christians, by Muslims, Jews, and people of non-abrahamic faiths. It is her most common name. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:07, 13 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)

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)

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)

Mary of Nazareth

The article starts by referring to its subject as "Mary of Nazareth". While Jesus is often referred to (including in the Bible) as "of Nazareth", I've never seen Mary so designated before. Surely it's Original Research and therefore prohibited in Wikipedia, to invent terminology in this way? --rossb (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. That is not a common name for her.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, since the opening does not say "The Virgin Mary" and "Mary (Mother of Jesus)" looks funny, it says Mary of Nazareth, as she was a Nazarene. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)