Talk:Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

text incorected

The statement changed by Malke to "Personal Marian devotions among Roman Catholics sometimes use the terms "consecration" or "entrustment." has actually made the previous correct sentence incorrect. Consecration takes place also for groups and locations. And that is just the beginning of the errors. Please revert to the correct version, and then discuss. The original text:

For centuries, Marian devotions among Roman Catholics have included many examples of personal or collective acts of consecration and entrustment to the Virgin Mary, with the Latin terms oblatio, servitus, commendatio and dedicatio having been used in this context

was correct and as stated above came from the Vatican website. This Malke edit was just taking correct Vatican text and making it incorrect. And we are again having long discussions on small and obvious points. But first address the issue of the initial WP:OR claim being comletely incorrect. History2007 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic views on Mary

The article Catholic views on Mary should not be redirected here.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should. You created the page to try and make a point. It's useless. We already have a page on the BVM (RC) here as well as Marian dogmas. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem redundant. Dylan Flaherty 19:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a proper perspective to cover, but essentially a POV fork. The traditional & liberal perspectives should be merged into a single article, which will obviously be a tricky thing to negotiate. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Can we give this article an infobox to clean it up a bit? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, provided you can keep the quote below the image, because that telegrams the message from the Catechism and is referenced. Can an infobox handle a message? And let us get other opinions, of course. History2007 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a minor point: Santa Maria Maggiore is one major shrine, but these days Guadalupe is the biggest, so that may need a mention in the infobox, given that it is so large. In fact Guadalupe and Aparecida are in discussion as to who is the biggest, but Guadalupe seems to have more visitors, etc. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Or do you think I should just add a link to Marian shrines? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if it makes a big difference. Whichever way you prefer. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Query: Are "remote mountains" an intrinsic element of all valid Marian apparitions???? This seems to imply that mountain top apparitions will continue to be approved, but desert or sea shore -- not so much.Mannanan51 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

The Catechism does not stipulate mountain tops. However, there seem to be no apparitions on Copacabana beach to date. And of course, the Transfiguration, etc. were all on mountain tops. So statistically mountains are some part of some equation, but the article does not seem to imply that they are a requirement. History2007 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Other ancient Churches

Protestantism is the only Christian group that has by and large rejected the veneration of Mary. Why does this article just cover Roman Catholicism? Why does "Blessed Virgin Mary" redirect to an article about Catholic views of Mary? This should be expanded to cover the Marian theology of the various ancient churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental, Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.208.23 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Galatians 4:4 -- born of a virgin, or born of a woman?

Regarding the opening of the article:

Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is based on Holy Scripture: In the fullness of time, God sent his son, born of a virgin. (Reference: Gal. 4:4)

This is not what the verse says.

Galatians 4:4 reads in the TR, γενομενον εκ γυναικος, "born [lit. 'made', 'came into being'] of a woman," so too Jerome, "factum ex muliere." The Virgin birth is not found here, else we would read γενομενον εκ παρθένος. All versions that I have consuled, including the Rheims, have "woman," and not virgin. This is not a verse to cite in favor of the Virgin Birth. I do not deny the Virgin Birth (God forbid), but this is not an appropriate use of the verse. To reference Scripture on this point, why not use the salutation of the angel in Lk. 1:27f? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.20.38 (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Co-redemptrix

Since this is not Roman Catholic dogma, is it appropriate to list this as one of her titles? Aside from being highly questionable, the doctrine has been explicitly and consciously left out of all papal documents referring to the Virgin even by so devoted a follower of the Pietas Mariana as John Paul II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.180.192 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Are Biblical references really appropriate

for the statement Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary (the mother of Jesus) is based on dogma as well as Scripture.?? I think we should have some secondary sources (preferably not written by Catholic clergy) that support the opening sentence of the article, rather than a string of three Bible quotes that could only support this statement in the eyes of devout Roman Catholics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, Isaiah (the second one) is a mistranslation. I'm removing it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't having any trouble finding them. What else is it based on? The interpretation may not be everyone's today, but was accepted by the universal church for centuries. Unless of course you're one of those who think it's all based on the worship of Isis. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, nice personal attack. I'm one of those who actually studies history and wants the Wikipedia text to be based on scholarly consensus, not on one particular religion's theological viewpoint, and an interpretation of ancient mistranslation that almost all right-minded historians take as historically problematic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, every statement on Wikipedia that is likely to be challenged (and I'd be willing to bet a LOT of people would challenge that Roman Catholic veneration of Mary is based less on tradition than on the same scriptures that Protestants and Jews use) needs a good source, and primary sources that are interpreted by other religions in other ways are not good sources for this purpose. You can give the Bible quotation as well, but you also need a secondary or tertiary source, preferably not written by someone with an agenda, that links this with Roman Catholic veneration. I'm not saying there are none, I'm saying they need to be found and used to replace the inappropriate Bible citations. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to wait about a week to see if anyone had a problem with me just deleting the refs and requesting secondary sources, but now I really want to take the knife to the Genesis reference straight away because, well, that passage doesn't mention Mary, or Jesus, or Catholic doctrine, or anything. It's just about snakes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

article title

Why is the "blessed" in the title? nothing indicates such a name more than synthesis of editors. and per WP:Honorific the article should be preceded with titles.(Lihaas (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)).

I guess that is what Catholics call her, and a discussion per WP:Common could take place, but may not even be necessary, as be;low. I also saw that you added a pov tag. Are you saying the title is pov or the content, if so where in the content specifically. In either case, please clarify, thanks. But the title does need discussion anyway, else it will be discussed again in 6 months. There was a discussion above here, and on Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Requested_move_2010 there were search results for WP:Common were discussed. Above here, user:Xandar suggested a couple of titles and the one that I would support, would be a variation of his suggestion, namely: Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism given that this article does not address issues for Eastern Catholic Churches. That would avoid the parentheses and the honorific, and also avoid future debates. But suggestions for alternative names will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that no rationale for the NPOV tag is provided, I am removing it. Before adding a tag to the whole article, please discuss there. Discussion about the title is not handled by a NPOV tag. So please discuss first. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that "Blessed" should be removed from the title, that is the Offical Title that Catholics give her. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and think that discussion has for all practical purposes ended now. So let us leave it as is. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Revisited

Since this article purports to be not just about Mary herself (whose biography is covered at Mary (mother of Jesus)), but about Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, shouldn't it be titled, well, Roman Catholic veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree, the blessed part is the veneration, the article should remain as-is.Frmorrison (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism. The discussion was somewhat heated, but everyone seemed to agree that the scope of this article is specifically on the veneration of Mary by Roman Catholics, and I saw no other consensus. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) → Mary in Roman CatholicismVirgin Mary in Roman Catholicism – This page really needs a title change. Otherwise why not "Sri Krishna", "The Prophet Muhammad, Peace be Upon Him", "His Majesty the Shōwa Emperor" or, hey, even "Jesus Christ, Lord of Heaven and Earth?? Relisted.MikeLynch (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The current set of titles for articles about Mary were arrived at after a great deal of discussion (not in the archives for this page - it will be on one or more of the others) and work fine; I don't think anything is to be gained by reopening the issue. Johnbod (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Which other articles follow this convention? The main article's title is basically the polar opposite of this in its going out of its way to not be as encyclopedic and non-theological as possible, and I can't find any other articles in Category:Mary (mother of Jesus) that look like this except where "Our Lady of ..." is in the official name of a church, shrine, hospital or something. If broad consensus was established in favour of naming this article "Blessed Virgin Mary" on some other page, then which other page was it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, even if you don't like my proposed title, why does this article currently have the parenthesized disambiguator "Roman Catholic"? Is "Catholic" here an adjective or a noun? I don't know a whole lot of articles that have a parenthesized adjective in their titles, and if it's a noun, then is it meant to be implying that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Roman Catholic? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It prevents giving the impression that this is the main biography. Mary, mother of Jesus is hardly a standard title either, but no one in the endless furious debates over Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) brought it up that I can recall. See the history and talk history at Blessed Virgin Mary (now a redirect) etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about whether the title is "standard", since there are so few instances non-nobility/kings/emperors with no family names and who we can't just call "Saint [whatever]" that there's simply no need to create a standard (same as Sugawara no Takasue no musume). But "Blessed Virgin Mary" is somewhat POV/theological. What exactly is wrong with my proposed to title? Or, hey, Roman Catholic view of Mary? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is far less likely as a search term than the current title, and fails WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what redirects are for. Also, see the current ongoing discussion on the WT:TITLE: hardly anyone thinks COMMONNAME is the most important criterion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a gross distortion of that discussion, which is about what sort of usage COMMONNAME should be looking at. It remains the primary policy for article naming, as hundreds of discussions show. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

But you are saying "Blessed Virgin Mary" is more common than either "Mary" or "Virgin Mary". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No of course not. I'm saying they are more common than Roman Catholic view of Mary, and also that "Virgin Mary", with or without "Blessed" (which I'm not bothered about), is more common in Catholicism than "Mary". Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - the dab is cumbersome and, "Blessed" isn't needed at least, The Blackwell Companion to Catholicism has "Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism" In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be preferable to anything so far. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Mary in Roman Catholicism" (not specific enough) but Support "Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism". Including "Blessed" in the article title seems to go against the MOS. The fact that Mary is often called the BVM can be made clear in the article. Anglicanus (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment Okay, wow. There seems to have been some serious assumption of bad faith going on here, perhaps resulting from the unrelated thread I started immediately above this. I meant "Mary in Roman Catholicism" to be a placeholder title, which is why I said the current title needs to be changed but made no argument whatsoever in favour of my placeholder title. Honestly I can't think of any other Mary in Roman Catholicism who would have her own article, and "Virgin Mary" without "the" before it just sounds a little weird to me, as though "Virgin" is an adjective and it's like some nickname. But I have no problem with that title either. I also really wish Johnbod or someone else would have actually attempted to engage me on the issues and work this out before IIO was forced to come in on his white horse and single-handedly solve the problem. Notice how I expressed my concern that the current disambiguator could stand to be improved, and Johnbod completely ignored my argument to make an unrelated point about why we need a disambiguator at all? Anyway, let by-gones be by-gones as they say, and let's get on with this RM to Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, calm down. It's not about you. You made a proposal, which people opposed. I'm still opposed to a change (except to drop "Blessed"), and note the fact that no one (including me) has bothered to dig up and link the very extensive previous discussions. I'm also concerned that none of the commenters so far are (forgive me if I'm wrong here) committed Catholics, and this viewpoint is missing in the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm an ex-Roman Catholic and spent 14 years in effective Catholic school, if that means anything. But why would that matter? Is "(Roman Catholic)" more agreeable to Catholics than "in Roman Catholicism"? I can't possibly imagine why. And you still haven't addressed why you think the disambiguator "Roman Catholic" isn't cumbersome, despite doubling down that you disagree on changing it. (Also, you said just above that "That would be preferable to anything so far" in response to IIO -- did you mean to say "except for the current title"?) Hijiri88 (聖やや) 15:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with Virgin Mary (Roman Catholicism)? You do understand my problem with the current disambiguator, right? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To confirm my comments above, I would support Virgin Mary (Roman Catholicism). Johnbod (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is most awkward. Pity we can't make it something even simplier, like "Catholic views on Mary". Antonio Hazard (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC) BLOCKED

I'm not even sure why this article is needed in the first place since there is another substantial article covering essentially the same things at Roman Catholic Mariology which doesn't have an article name which might suggest that the BVM was a Roman Catholic . Anglicanus (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That is much more theological, and already the result of a triple merge - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roman_Catholic_Mariology. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so but that's not really the point. I still don't see any need for another article without any necessary difference. According to the MOS there ought to be only one article on any topic and "Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism" and "Roman Catholic Mariology" are essentially the same thing. So I would suggest a quadruple merge. Anglicanus (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Anglicanus, the reason this page exists at all is that when it was AFDed it was not the right time. The perfectly valid content fork argument failed because at that time there was an ongoing content dispute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we getting anywhere with this discussion? It seem to me that there are some good MOS reasons to support the proposed article name change ~ and no good MOS reasons to oppose it ~ and that the consensus so far is in favour of changing it. Anglicanus (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not about Mary herself. On that account, if for no other reason, "Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)" is inappropriate. Even "Virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism" may not be quite appropriate. What the article is about (as the opening hatnote says) is "Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism" or "Veneration of Mary (Catholic Church)".

(Add "the Virgin", if you insist; but I don't think it is needed after "Veneration". If I may be permitted a light remark rather than a serious argument, we speak of "Mariology" not of "Parthenomariology".) Esoglou (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to Virgin Mary in Catholicism or the like (no need for "Roman"). The current title is unacceptable since the base title Blessed Virgin Mary already links here; the parentheses aren't necessary. The article also deals with more than just the title, so there's not a pressing need to keep that particular form in the title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: The definition of "Catholicism" is, correctly, not restricted to the Roman Catholic Church on Wikipedia. Therefore the article's title should be something like "Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism" or "Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church" (or "Roman Catholic Church"). Anglicanus (talk) 05:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what the word "Catholic" means in different contexts, thank you. In this one, there's no way the word would be mistaken for meaning anything other than the Catholic Church.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems, in fact, that you are not well aware of what "Catholic" and "Catholicism" mean in different contexts. Anglicanus (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, and you can stop bludgeoning the discussion any time now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop making such patronising and sarcastic comments. As an administrator you should know better than to act in this kind of abusive manner. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're offended, but if you're concerned about a "patronizing" tone you should check your own comments. And you do not need to respond to every post that disagrees with you.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the reason I have mentioned above, the proposed move to a title beginning "Virgin Mary ..." Anglicanus too seems to agree that the article is not about the Virgin Mary but about veneration of her in one faith community. Esoglou (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Weak support I agree with the need to get rid of the WP:HONORIFIC "Blessed." Cuchullain's alternative is appealing, and while it's true that we have Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism is its own article and not exactly coterminous (compare to Mormonism and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Roman Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church, however. So I'd prefer Virgin Mary (Catholic Church) or Virgin Mary (Roman Catholicism). WP:NATURAL has its limitations; I'd really prefer parenthetical disambiguation here. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• I have no real cares for any alternative offered but when I saw the current title I automatically assumed it to be the name of a school. DeistCosmos (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I also note that Blessed Virgin Mary already redirects here, so (Roman Catholic) is unnecessary disambiguation. It could fairly be moved there if this RM doesn't decide on a new name. I wonder how many editors would like that. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Roman Catholic" is ok term

I looked at the reliable sources and find "Roman Catholic" is used without any problems as a standard term. I browsed the titles in some self-identified Catholic scholarly journals to demonstrate this: pertaining to this article is "Mary, star of hope: Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary in the United States from 1854 to 2010, as seen through the lens of Roman Catholic Marian congregational song." American Catholic Studies (Spring 2013); other examples: 1) "Faith and Leadership: The Papacy and the Roman Catholic Church" in Catholic Historical Review. (Autumn 2015); 2) "The Feast Of Corpus Christi In Mikulov, Moravia: Strategies Of Roman Catholic Counter-Reform (1579-86)" in Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2010); 3) "Divided Friends: Portraits of the Roman Catholic Modernist Crisis in the United States." in U.S. Catholic Historian (Fall 2013); 4) "The church and the seer: Veronica Lueken, the Bayside movement, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy" in American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 5) "Incompatible with God's Design: A History of the Women's Ordination Movement in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church." Catholic Historical Review (Oct 2013); 6) "The Rise and Fall of Triumph: The History of a Radical Roman Catholic Magazine, 1966-1976." Catholic Historical Review (Spring 2015); 8) "Gender, Catholicism, and Spirituality: Women and the Roman Catholic Church in Britain and Europe, 1200-1900." American Catholic Studies (Fall 2012); 9) "Master's Theses And Doctoral Dissertations On Roman Catholic History In The United States: A Selected Bibliography" U.S. Catholic Historian (Jan 1987). Rjensen (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move per unanimous consensus. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 19:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism → Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church – Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this has nothing to do with the "Roman" in the title. Several similar articles' titles are formatted <main topic> in <organization>; e.g., Dogma in the Catholic Church, Ordination of women in the Catholic Church, Marriage in the Catholic Church. To meet WP:CONSISTENCY, this article's title should be no different. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support as per above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Proposed by a sock of banned editor Esoglou. 16:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Anything contributed to Wikipedia by a banned user can be removed without discussion. I suggest that, unless someone else wants to add his/her name to the proposal (sign after the banned user's signature), the proposal is null and void. Unblocked. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Correction to my prev comment: The proposer has been blocked for socking but not as a sock of the banned editor. My apologies for the mistake. I believe the proposal can stand since the master account was not blocked when the proposal was made. Meters (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And now unblocked, so definitely moot. Meters (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Since my name's been dragged through the mud quite enough already, and I've been unblocked/cleared of the sockpuppetry charge, would anyone be opposed to deleting this threat about the blocking? Jujutsuan (formerly Crusadestudent) (talk | contribs) 21:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no "threat". Per WP:REDACTED I corrected myself and left the comment rather than deleting it because someone had already responded to it. Meters (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Whoa, big typo on my part! I meant "thread", not "threat"!! Sorry! Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of "'Roman' Catholic" in this particular article

Following the recent name-change, it seems unnecessary to continually say "Roman Catholic", "Roman Catholicism", etc. in this article. Given the title and lead, it's clear that "Catholic" refers to the "Roman" Catholic Church alone. Would anyone be opposed to simplifying the wording in this article to remove the unnecessary and controversial descriptor? Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 11:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

No, feel free. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Image rationale

I have replaced the image in the infobox with a different one. My reasoning for this is as follows: the previous image was of a specific title of Mary, "Immaculate Heart", which seems overly specific for an article which seeks to encompass all types of Marian devotions. Therefore I sought one which would be emblematic of the topic. The Russian Byzantine one has been selected for two reasons: first, it depicts Mary bearing a prayer, which is exactly the topic of this article and illustrates exactly what we are trying to convey. Secondly, there is a paucity of Eastern art represented in the other images, so it is altogether appropriate that some space be devoted to it. Such icons have a distinctly noble and honorable tradition reaching back for hundreds and hundreds of years. I welcome any comments or suggestions on this decision. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The only problem is that this article is "Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church" and it is not a Catholic image! That is why "there is a paucity of Eastern art represented in the other images". I've added a nice Madonna & Child, which has been the most common type of Catholic image, and was not well represented. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Queen of Angels Foundation

This material [1] has been repeatedly added and removed. I agree with the original deletion edit summary "too much weight". The addition is about one particular organization in Los Angeles and its activities and does not belong in this article. Meters (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And added by the same user for a fourth time. Waiting a year and one-half does not change anything,. The material still does not belong. Removed again. Meters (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Meters: looks like that editor may have a COI. He's never taken part in any discussions either. I've given him a warning. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: They stopped editing for 18 months after the COI warning and pointer to EW, but there they are again with the same edit. I agree with your comment on the user's page. This SPA has had enough rope. Meters (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 March 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) — KB3035583^talk 00:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church → Mary in the Catholic Church – Would this do, while broadening the scope slightly? There seems to be no such article preexistingly. Not sure, though, please c.f. Catholic Mariology. PPEMES (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the subject isn't the historical lady, it is the veneration. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Read the first sentence of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.