Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The translation of Mary as a Virgin actually means something else?

I read that the translation actually means "a Young Woman" and not "a virgin." Can somebody explain this to me please--68.48.8.84 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is mentioned in the article. It does not matter whether the bible called her a virgin or a young women, because in the bible she says "I know not man" --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a confused misconception. What you may be thinking about is a prophecy in the Old Testament which has been variously translated as virgin or young woman. There is no doubt that the New Testament calls Mary a virgin. PatGallacher (talk) 00:31, 29 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)

Thank you and amen! --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 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)

I propose the article should just start "Mary" since there's no justification for using "of Nazareth" as if it were part of her name or a title. I also propose to remove the dates, for which there is no biblical or other reliable justification. If there's some source for these hypothetical dates it could be mentioned somewhere in the text, but certainly not in the lead section. --rossb (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

She is not best known as Mary (mother of Jesus). We do not call other people "Person (Parent of Person)" She should either be Virgin Mary or Mary of Nazareth/Mary the Nazarene as she was from Nazareth. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Lutherans

Some Lutherans DO pray to Mary and venerate her, see [1] --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Er - they "accept the writings of Father Martin Luther insofar as they are compatible with the Tradition of the Church" and require acceptance of the docrtine of the Real Presence from all members. Lutheran? LINO? you decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

They branched off from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and still confess the Ausburg Confession. They have Lutheran heritage and declare themselves Lutherans, valid through Apostolic Succession. They are part of the Evangelical Catholic tradition of Lutheranism. And as for Real Presence, all Lutherans believe in Real Presence (not necessarily transubstantiation, but consubstantiation and other ways). Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans also hold beleifs in a non-physical real presence. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:32, 20 November 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)

Nonetheless, Malke, it was a reliable source, and was not used to bash catholics. You can use criticism from sources to go either way on a view. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 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)

Judaism's view would not be more important. In fact, most Jews pay no attention to Mary or Jesus. The only views they have could be assumed from what the Talmud says about Jesus. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 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)

Collyridian Goddess

Should it be mentioned that Mary was worshipped as a goddess by the followers of Collyridianism? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Really obscure little group, so probably not. There are thousands of these small groups and can not put one and not others etc. History2007 (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

True, but perhaps a small section on different pagan views, where Mary was worshipped as a goddess? Should she be put in the category of "goddesses"? I had thought about it, but I decided not to since that may confuse people, and make them think Christians (Catholics in particular) worship Mary when they really do not. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not in big opposition, so if you want to add a sentence or two, the section "other views" that is already there may be the place. The fact that this group is no longer in existence actually reduces the risk of adding it. The problem for Wikipedia is that there are over 1,000 groups (of 30-300 people each) that believe 900 different things and if the door opens to the addition of the 21st century groups they add themselves as a form of free advertising, and it will soon clutter everything. In the end what does it cost them to add themselves? So given that this is purely historical, it will not be viewed as spam. History2007 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. We don't want any of that happening here. I will think about adding it. If I do it will be purely historical, and with refferences. It will probably also mention how the group is disolved and how it was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2010 (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)

I have changed the infobox back to a saint infobox. do not remove. (see discussion lower on page). --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia:Other stuff exists from Peter and Paul et al, is not a legitimate form of argument. This article is for the historical Mary, who was mother of the historical Jesus. We have a separate article for Mariology, where you can post the saint infobox (with festival days etc). The above argument where you imply that Mary was a saint in the same way that politicians are politicians, is NPOV, as the historical Mary was only canonised (or "accepted as canonical" if you prefer) centuries after her birth, by a church/religion that only started to come into existence decades if not centuries after her birth (and, moreover, she begins to be celebrated only from around the time of the Gospel of James ~150AD onwards). We could similarly argue for a Islamic prophet infobox for Jesus. However, we opted for a neutral person-infox.

Religious claims are not held as NPOV on wikipedia. The source that claims her to be a saint also holds all the other implications (virgin birth etc). These are historical figures, and we have to carefully separate the historical facts from the later cultic claims made about them (in this case beginning at least circa 170 years after her birth).

Even aside from the NPOV issues, the person-infobox is simply more informative and relevant, since it includes information on her nationality, her parents, her son and her husband. The saint infobox only includes information relevant to Marian veneration (festival days), which is a separate topic to the historical figure, and is discussed in its own section further down the article, and currently even has its own articles (including Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)). Avaya1 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mary was never canonized. Her veneration has existed since the Early Church. She is venerated in much more than just Catholicism, and is a major figure in Christianity. In that sense, none of the saints should have saint infoboxes, since all refer to a historical person. Mariology is about beliefs of the Virgin, not the saint herself, so a saint infobox would not work. If Blessed Virgin Mary had not been redirected to this page (a decision I opposed), then the BMV could have the saint box, and this article a person infobox. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We could possibly put the saint infox under the Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Christian_devotion subsection of the article. That would allow us to separate the biblical figure, from later Church veneration of her. But we already have a mariology infobox there, which links to all the relevant articles. I'll try and put it under the titles section, although all the information on festivals etc might seem redundant in this article, since we still have all the other articles on her. Avaya1 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved it under the Christian perspectives, because there's more space there. Avaya1 (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That works! Thanks! --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Change the Infobox

Give her a saint infobox! She is viewed as the highest among saints by the Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans. She is the Mother of God in Christian tradition. If we still had the article Blessed Virgin Mary before it was merged with this, then we could keep this infobox and give BMV the saint box.. but now there is just this page and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).. which is only the Catholic view, and does not discuss other churches which venerate her. Do not use the argument that this is the "historical" Mary, because ALL the saints articles are about the "historic" person, as they were all people! I say we give her the saint infobox. She is venerated in the Catholic Church (Latin Rite and Eastern), Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, the Anglican Communion, and Continuing Anglicanism. She deserves it, and it is rubish that she no longer has one. Any objections? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Saint Peter, Saint Paul etc. so it would be consistent. History2007 (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we change it back? Or wait for more opinions? I think it has been removed unjustly and needs to be returned. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure. My suggestion: let us wait one more day and if no one objects then the box becomes like Saint Paul. But adding the title "Saint Mary" may invite debate, so just Mary may be less of an issue. History2007 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, we will wait a day. Could we at least put Virgin Mary, as that is what she is venerated as in Christianity, and honored as in Islam? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out "Virgin Mary" would be a problem here, because there was a "requested move" to that title a short while ago, and it was not agreed to. I supported that move, but no consensus was reached and so it would not work out on this page.History2007 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember that. I supported the move too. Well, I guess it will have to be just Mary for now. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox back to a saint infobox. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Have I got the right page?

I am a bit confused by the images. Should this page be merged with White Madonna? Harrypotter (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable comment. I therefore added the Black Madonna of Częstochowa, which is one of the best known examples. Now, let us see if we can get you to do some free work here. I have been looking to get images from: Stanislaw Chojnacki's book: Ethiopian Icons: Catalogue of the Collection of the Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University (Milan: Skira, 2000), which has dozens of examples of the Ethiopian version of well known Madonna icons. If you can get that and add to Wikimedia that would be great, and they can then be used. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Disambig page

There we go again. I wish we did not have to discuss this. There is a minor issue with disambiguation on Talk:Virgin_Mary_(disambiguation). Deleting the disambig is just asking for future discussion. It is a non-controversial page. Comments will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Errors in article. Opportunity for improvement.

Whether or not Mary died has nothing to do with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That doctrine does not REQUIRE her physical body to be absent of decay (although it does seem to be a logical extension of the doctrine). The Catholic Church is SILENT on whether she died or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsjpk5 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

REDIRECT of canonical gospels link to article of apocryphal gospels

Editors of this article may wish to note that the wikilink to canonical gospels now links to a new article. A return to the original link is being discussed atTalk:canonical gospels. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed nonsensical categories

At the bottom were the categories listed "Mother goddesses" and "Arabian goddesses". No mainstream denomination of Christianity or Islam reveres here as such, and I doubt any cult or new age sect that might is of any notable size or influence. In fact, I'm fairly certain more people believe Jesus was an extraterrestrial than believe Mary to be a goddess. I'm not even sure where the "Arabian" part comes from, except possibly for the apocryphal legend of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) leaving only a hodigitria in the Kaaba after destroying the rest of the idols and images, and even then it is quite obvious that our Muslim brothers and sisters do not worship anyone or anything but the One God of Abraham. In conclusion, this was probably just some Seventh Day Adventist or other fundamentalist Protestant looking to stir up trouble. I am new to wikipedia (the editing part at least), so if I've done anything contrary to standard procedure please let me know! Cheers. PenitentWhaler (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. History2007 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

She was listed in those categories because in a feminist christian sect that was condemned heretical by the Catholic Church (this is in the article) worshipped her as a mother goddess. The sect was from Arabia. Islam's views on the Christian perspective of Mary (worshipping her) came from this cult. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the question then becomes, how big was the sect? If very small then probably does not apply, if larger does. In fact Freud thought of her as the equiv. of Greek mythological figure. Does that category come in? In any case, let us see what others may say. But either way, I see categories as not a big deal, so will really make little difference to the article either way in my view. History2007 (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@Willthacheerleeder18: I know that what you're saying is one possible explanation for the treatment of Mary/Mariam in the Qur'an, but there are other explanations, such as a misunderstanding by Muhammad, or a wilful distortion, or simply a disagreement between him and the Christians about what was worship and what was not. Do you have any external proof for what you're saying? I.e. any proof from somewhere else than the Qur'an? -- 77.189.92.102 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I checked, and it seems like you're right insofar as Epiphanius of Salamis wrote about such a cult. Still, are there any more sources? After all Epiphanius might not have been above false or exaggerated charges, or charges based on mere hearsay. -- 77.189.92.102 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article does not comment on the motives of Epiphanius 2000 years ago - and that would have been speculation. And for a small sect, how many references can there be? I doubt the sect ever made it to the NY Times while they were active. History2007 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Name form in New Testament

Quote from Article: "The English name "Mary" comes from the Greek Μαρία, which is a shortened form of Μαριάμ." I think it should be mentioned that both forms appear in manuscripts of the New Testament. With the current wording, a reader of this article might incorrectly infer that only the short form Μαρία appears.

Also I think that the Greek form, which IMHO is the most original form we have of the name for this Mary/Maria/Mariam/Miriam, since the NT scriptures were originally written in Greek, should be mentioned in the first line of the Article together with the Hebrew and Arabic forms. I'd do it myself but the article is locked. -- 77.189.92.102 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also Mary (given name). The editor who maintains that page seems to be an expert on names, and they have it both, so I will make the fix. And that has a source there too. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Conception via Holy Spirit in Christianity AND in Islam

This article states that the Christian view of the Birth of Christ holds the agency of the Holy Spirit accountable whilst the Muslim view holds only the command of God accountable. In fact, BOTH Christianity AND Islam believe that Christ was conceived by the command of God through the agency of the Holy Spirit (which, in extra-scriptural writings, Islam identifies as the Angel Gabriel). The Koran plainly states, "We breathed into her [womb] of our Spirit." Hierosolimitanum (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Intuitively speaking you are right. But technically if you look at Holy Spirit the Christian and Muslim issues have differences. So it is a theological discussion on Spirit of God vs Holy Spirit, etc. that belongs on that page and was discussed there at some length. So it is that issue that should be discussed there rather than here. If we say they are equal approaches someone else will later say that Islam and Christianity have differences on what the "Spirit" is. So what there is here is teh best we can do, I think. History2007 (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Muslims would reject that the Spirit of God is personal, as Christians believe. However, we might want to mention Gabriel in this context. Both Christians and Muslims believe that he was present in some way at the birth of Jesus.Hierosolimitanum (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Again there are minor differences, in that in Christianit Gabriel was just the announcer. And I am not sure if Gabriel has the same meaning in both cases, so we are opening the door to further debate there. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Biased Content

As a Christian that does not believe that Mary is significant to Christianity I find the tone of this article disturbing for being in a encyclopedia. How about some neutral content and the other side of the coin about other Christians beliefs & unbelief about Mary? Kilowattradio (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to give specific examples. The various Christian denominationss do have differences on this and many other issues, so this article needs to address those in specific sections, e.g. Eastern Orthodox vs Lutheran etc. And some of teh items referred to here need help, e.g. Protestant views on Mary has had a flag on it for 2 years now, and needs attention. The various sections of this article should summarize those other longer articles that it references.History2007 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Mary and Islam (In the Introduction)

If the article can't get the Muslim view of Mary even half-right, it should be removed from the article completely. It refers to "Christians and Muslims believing Mary conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost." There is no concept of the Holy Ghost or anything equivalent in Islam. I have changed this to two sentences, leaving the Christian view unchanged, and adding, "Muslims believe Mary conceived by the Word (command) of God" - and for some reason got that reverted.

The last sentences of the introduction, which I also attempted to edit (mainly for grammar and terminology) are poorly written and factually incorrect: Surah Maryam isn't about Mary, it's about Jesus and John the Baptist, and mentions Mary insofar as the Annunciation and birth of Jesus; she's not close to "one of the most referred to characters in the Qur'an" (which would be Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, John, Idris, Dhul-Kifl, Dhul-Qarnayn - almost everyone). The name of a Surah often has little bearing on its contents, but is extracted from the first words of the book, or a moral lesson therein (such as the second Surah, "The Cow", referring to the Golden Calf, which is mentioned only twice in the entire Surah, which is almost 1/15 the entire length of the Qur'an).

Get the facts right, or eliminate the misleading at best, outright falsehood at worst "Muslim perspective" from the article altogether, and make it a purely Christian view, because the Christian views written seem to be on-the-spot correct, contrasted with the wrongness of those ascribed to Muslims - such as trying to shoehorn the Holy Spirit in to Islam for some reason. I ask that good-faith, factual edits (with intra-Wiki links: if the references must be dragged from the linked articles in to this one, tell me not be reversed in favour of incorrect (factually and in one case gramatically) existing constructs.

I apologise if my English is not perfect.75.179.176.190 (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First, try not to have a heart attack my friend. Second step: read Holy_Spirit#Islam. That may clarify the terminology. Third, do not use the term "The Word" in that way for that sense for it can not get it "even half-right" from the Christian view. So maybe you should read some of the Holy Spirit article. I will not bother with the Islamic section for now, but I fixed the lede. History2007 (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

Islamic theology would state that Mary conceived at the command of God, through God's word. Actually, in the Qur'an, Jesus himself is God's word, and this word was bestowed unto Mary through the Holy Spirit. The Qur'an states clearly that the manifestation of the word occurred through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the Ruhullah (whom Muslims identify as Gabriel, even though there is no explicit mention of the angel in this context). So, being honest to the text of the Qur'an ("We breathed into her [womb] of Our Spirit"), we can say that both Christianity and Islam teach that Mary conceived as a direct result of the intervention of the Spirit of God. This article should simply state that the Islamic position holds that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit. This would avoid confusion. Regardless, the Spirit is explicitly mentioned in the text and should not be ignored.

Thank you. Hierosolimitanum (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

distinguish necessary (?) --Merovigla (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem sentence

This kind of bothers me: "She is identified in the New Testament and in Islam as the mother of Jesus through divine intervention." What is says is true. However to my ear it is a very awkward sentence since it parallels the New Testament and Islam when the two are not members of the same class. Is it possible to say "the New Testament and the Koran" or "Christianity and Islam" or "the beliefs of Christians and Muslims"? BigJim707 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've changed it to the Koran. --carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mary's children

Coogan, Michael (2010). God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved May 5, 2011. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) affirms the following: Saint Paul thought that Saint Joseph has fathered Jesus (Coogan, 2010:38), "Joseph 'did not know' Mary 'until she has given birth to a son'" (she did not remain virgin, according to Saint Matthew, Coogan 2010:39).

Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned in the New Testament, i.e. Jude, brother of Jesus, Simon (brother of Jesus), Joses, James the Just and some sisters (not named and not counted). See Desposyni for details. The New Testament does not name their parents but neither does it mention another wife of Saint Joseph. Translations which used the words "half-brothers" are inaccurate, since the New Testament does not use such words. The issue is hotly debated, I have to admit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is "hotly debated" as you said. Not a slam dunk decision either way, with multiple variations on multiple arguments and heated debates. Not a trivial issue by any measure. History2007 (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this comes about because of a recent edit of mine, adding some extra children for Mary. Is there debate on this? That depends on the angle you approach it from: if from the theological point of view, then the older two of the three major branches of Christianity (Orthodoxy and Catholicism) both hold that Mary had no other children; the third branch, Protestantism, doesn't regard it as a matter of any importance is quite prepared to accept extra children. If from a purely literary point of view, then one can trace the doctrine of Mary's virginity as it develops over the centuries, from simple virginity in Matthew and Luke, then perpetual virginity in the next century. That's a non-theological approach. Please note that it isn't a historical approach - for history to be written there have to be fairly reliable sources available, and there aren't any. As the gentleman said in his edit summary, there are no birth certificates. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

So many breakout subarticles, and so many editors not using them

A lot of overweight (for an overview article) could/should be sent down a step to the Anglican views of Mary, Ecumenical views of Mary, Lutheran views of Mary, Protestant views on Mary, and Roman Catholic views of Mary, Latter Day Saints' views of Mary, Orthodox views of Mary and Islamic views on Mary articles. (wow.. is there any other subject that has so many POVforks?) In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

On one hand, you are right that some sections can become shorter, and the material can be farmed out to sub-articles. On the other hand, being pragmatic, there is an old engineering saying: "it works, don't touch it". And the article, as is falls within length guidelines.

About 18 months ago, this article used to have many edits every month, with everyone and his brother adding something about Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic views etc. And most of the edits were unsourced and some had 100% copyvio problems as I discovered when I went to fix it. After the clean up about a year ago, everything got WP:RS sources and there have been very few major additions because everyone's view was by and large represented.

As is, this article gets over 50 thousand page views a month and no major additions - it has been rather stable. I am pretty sure that if items are farmed out, people will come back and add them anyway (often with less than good sources), and the situation will go back to what it was 2 years ago. In my experience once an article reaches a point of stability, from a pragmatic view, if there are no copyvio problems, and the refs areWP:RS, and the major perspectives have been represented, it is best left that way as stable.

Another element that makes this article "work" so o speak is that the Orthodox have roughly the same amount of real estate as the Lutherans and the Catholics. That type of semi-equitable distribution of space avoids volatility, because if it is not maintained people of diverging perspectives add to their favorite section anyway - again often without WP:RS sources. So I think the stability is partly based on space distribution as well.

And of course, there are so many other articles that need help (say Salvation (Christianity)) that we just do not have the luxury of "extra effort" to clean those up anyway. So I do not see an advantage in farming things out, but a large maintenance problem and a gradual reduction in quality, as well as debates as people add the same things again, if we do. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough History2007, you've done a lot of work here (as elsewhere) so I'll listen to that. I have however broken out LDS (they didn't have one), and properly linked Orthodox (they did already have one). My attention was only drawn by the recent addition of Mary's grandmother in a Toronto newspaper (cough), that really doesn't belong in the main article, though I moved it up to a footnote in the medieval section. The Middle Ages usually is worth its own paragraph in any religion article.In ictu oculi (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for fixing those. As always, there are 10 times as many articles to fix as we have time. The salvation articles are specially in dire shape, so I wish I had time to fix those, instead of looking back at this one every week. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Islamic perspective

Is not the Islamic perspective the same as the Christian perspective? Islam is 700 years after Mary lived. --Quarrymanny (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are similarities, as indicated, but "same" is not the word to apply. And in any case, there is no total agreement even among Christian denominations, let alone inter-faith agreement. History2007 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Coogan - notability? recent edits/reverts

Coogan doesn't particularly look like a very notable source. I would have thought bunch him together with more notable other Joseph-father traditions, such as whole churches - Ebionites? Also Coogan's reading "seed of David" as related to Joseph needs a counter ref for NPOV balance since most commentators, religious or secular, take this as Paul viewing Mary (not just Joseph) as a descendant of David. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a way off interpretation, and Paul is not in general known as a big time commentator on Virgin birth anyway. But unless we explicitly reject the "Coogan-like" claim now, we will have to address it in 3 month from another editor who reads that book - the title seems ready made for a trip to the bank. But this is in fact a topic for the Virgin birth article more than this one anyway. History2007 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine - can you fix and wikilink thru to virgin birth?. You're one step short of 3RR limit in reverting those edits (of TGeorgescu an editor who is quite sensible btw) but if you fix now won't go over. "he revealed nothing about the identity of the parents of Jesus" needs a strike as OR given that "born of a woman born under the law" indicates Paul believed Jesus' mother to be Jesus, and in any case pointless when all mainstream scholarship regards GLuke as Pauline-group-literature. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed it anway, but Bockmuehl did say that Paul reveals nothing about the identities of the parents. Anyway, I am 2 steps from crossing 3RR, not one,, because grouped edits count as one. In any case, it looks ok now. History2007 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Coogan mentions on p. 38: "Even Matthew and Luke are inconsistent: when they give Jesus's genealogy, although differing in some details, they agree in establishing his ancestral connection with King David through Joseph, who would have to have been Jesus's father for the genealogical link to be valid." Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure Coogan says that. But Coogan is just one perspective (and often out to lunch). That topic has been debated by scholars for long, as In ictu oculi can tell you better than myself. There are multiple theories there (e.g. levirate marriage regarding Joseph's father, legal inheritance, etc.) with multiple explanations and Coogan is usually just cherry picking one item. I will wait for In ictu oculi to clarify that more, because I have not looked at that topic for a while, although I do remember that it is not cut and dry by any measure. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, granted, Coogan is not the only scholar. There are other theories than his. However, speaking of what text of the gospels says and what it does not say, he has a point: one could very well speculate that the Davidic descent happened through Mary, but the text does not say it (except as seen through the eyes of a minority standpoint, who speculate about the Gospel of Matthew being originally written in Aramaic). There are different questions: how would theologians explain it? and how would historians explain it? The theologians are committed to the right belief for their church, while historians are committed to empirical proof. (This does not say that theologians cannot be historians.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the field of theology is an extended debate about what the gospels say, in fact, e.g. successors to Peter, Trinity, etc. But the use of genealogical reasoning to determine the father of Jesus as Joseph is a topic for the page Virgin birth of Jesus. It has a secondary impact here, at best. As for Coogan, think of it this way, you could read a book by Joseph Stiglitz and add quotes about what causes economic improvements, then those statements will certainly contradict most of what Milton Freedman wrote. And these two people got Nobel Prizes, but never agreed on anything except the weather conditions on any given day, even if that. And the paternity of Jesus is even more contested than that. But in any case, it is certainly a more appropriate topic for the Virgin birth of Jesus talk page, rather than here. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What is needed is the statement that this character has no real historical validity, but is a fiction. All reliable historical sources of the time and son afterwards do not even mention this phantom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.201.140.130 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And your reliable source which affirms it is...? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But 165.201.140.130 did not say who "this character" refers to. Jesus or Mary? In either case, that was a personal opinion. History2007 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Lutheran and Anglican over-emphasis; not enough history

It is remarkable that Anglican and Lutheran sections on Marian devotion are as long and detailed as the Catholic and Orthodox. I think both of these sections should concentrate on the relatively recent re-discovery of Mary in both of these traditions. From the sixteenth century through the 19th, Marian veneration in both Anglicanism and Lutheranism were considered by the mainstream of clergy in both traditions to be "popish" if expressed beyond recognition of her special role as mother of Christ and her rank as one among many saints worth of emulation by Christians. Traditional Lutheranism especially left little room for Marian devotion, and it is only very recently, as Anglo-Catholicism as found a home in Lutheran quarters (as evangelical Catholicism), that she has made a come back. In Anglican history the fierce resistance to saint's devotion and veneration of Mary during the English Reformation (not limited to Puritans but including the mainstream of the Church establishment) should not be downplayed. Indeed excessive veneration of Mary in the Church of England was proscribed by law into the late 19th century. It is only as ritualists and Anglico-Catholics began to expand in the Church of England in the late 19th century (at the expense of Victorian Evangelicalism) that significant numbers began picking up rosaries and saying hail mary's etc (Cranmer no doubt rolling in his grave!).

Yes, probably so. But 2nd part of your addition needs a WP:RS reference and should probably be more brief. The 1st assertion about "rediscovery" needs a few solid WP:RS references else it will get objections from various editors in 3 months for sure. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks. will look for some sound references and then maybe merely propose some edits (I'm reluctant to make unilateral change on these sections which people have no doubt spent a lot of work on). stand by...

Swedenborg significance

With all due respect, I do not think any objective observer would refer to Swedenborg as a minor philosopher. He has influenced a wide variety of important cultural figures, including Johnny Appleseed, William Blake, Jorge Luis Borges, Daniel Burnham, Arthur Conan Doyle,[21] Ralph Waldo Emerson,[22] John Flaxman, George Inness, Henry James Sr., Carl Jung,[23] Immanuel Kant,[24] Honoré de Balzac, Helen Keller, Czesław Miłosz, August Strindberg, D.T. Suzuki, and W.B. Yeats. I am not aware of the Latter Day Saints, to use your example, having such an impact. (For links to individuals listed above, see Swedenborg Wiki page.)Future777 (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Latter Day Saints are a "denomination" with 14 million members. The sections are based on denominations such as LDS, Eastern Orthodox, etc. not based on individual philosophers. Swedenborg or any other philosophers have no comparison to a denomination with millions of followers. As I said on the edit summary there are 1,000 minor philosophers with 1,000 minor views and each can not take space next to Latter day Saints, Orthodox, Protestants etc. else the article will be overwhelmed with 1,000 minor views. I did, however, get a chuckle out of your comment that Swedenborg has influenced Arthur Conan Doyle... thank you, but that does not fly - unless there is a mystery built into it. Views of someone like Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. are major issues. These smaller time players are not, unless one wants to "drive traffic" to their page - not a reason for inclusion. I can think of 50 other 3rd or 4th rate philosophers like him I could add this week, but that can not happen per WP:Undue. I will bring this up on the relevant project page for comment. In the mean time, stop reverting and wait for project comments. History2007 (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You write "I did, however, get a chuckle out of your comment that Swedenborg has influenced Arthur Conan Doyle... thank you, but that does not fly.” I think you may find it pertinent to look at the opening chapter of Doyle’s multi-volume History of Spiritism.(http://www.archive.org/details/historyofspiritu015638mbp) It’s about Swedenborg.Future777 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what is certain is that Conan Doyle's claim to fame is Sherlock Holmes, not his standing as an expert in theology. And that chuckle aside, I was just at a loss what to say about Johnny Appleseed's theological significance. If you have to ask readers to "go and dig" (Appleseed pun intended) to find information about these people, you have already made the point about obscurity. Mention Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anselm, Aquinas or Augustine and you do not need to ask people to read a mystery writer's musings to ascertain his standing. If one has to do that, the case for relative obscurity has already been made. History2007 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully with every point History has made here. I'll think of something to add immediately after he thinks of something new and I read it. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and as above I should again say that even trying to compare him to any denomination with millions of members just does not make sense. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we have an apple and oranges situation here. History 2007 writes “I should again say that even trying to compare him to any denomination with millions of members just does not make sense.” That’s true if you buy the proposition that numbers of adherents is the only adequate criteria for Wiki inclusion. I am making the case that the criteria of pertinence here is ideational significance and influence, or what Wiki would call encyclopedic and notability. And I think it fair to say that a theology that has been around for more than two centuries would fall in the “established and recognized” categories. Finally, the verifiability requirement is also met, given the list of publications produced by Swedenborg and his various commentators, biographers, etc. (e.g. see his Wiki entry).

In closing, let me mention that I have a problem with your lumping Swedenborg with “1,000 minor philosophers with 1,000 minor view” and characterizing him as one of “50 other 3rd or 4th rate philosophers.” Aside from that fact that these comments sound unkind, they are also inaccurate. If Swedenborg was nothing else, he has long been recognized as one of history’s great geniuses (e.g. http://emersoncentral.com/swedenborg.htm, http://www.archive.org/details/flaxmanblakecole00morruoft, http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Index.htm)

Another criteria for inclusion?Future777 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think what he means, if I may speak for him, is that mere age doesn't make an idea notable. His ideas on Mary should go in his article (as he is notable enough to have an article) or the article on Swedenborgianism, but not in the "Mary" article, as he is not an important, even marginally important, figure in Mariology (or philosophy). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I am at a loss what to tell Future777 here. Future777, are you saying that his views are in the "established and recognized" category? Buddy, what this fellow is established and recognized as is WP:Fringe. His theology states that the Last judgement took place in 1757! And he seems to have thought that he had a frequent flier card for visiting both Heaven and Hell a few times a week, whenever needed. To say that his views are on the "far side of WP:Fringe" is being low key. I can not agree with you at all, and it seems that John Chrysostom does not agree with you either. And as he said the age of an idea does not buy it anything. The fact that his views are "far out fringe theology" is obvious. I am beginning to question the wisdom of this discussion altogether. History2007 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I. think it only fair to point out the following:

I. The Wiki goal (from top of Talk page):

Be polite, and welcoming to new users

Assume good faith

Avoid personal attacks

From WP:Fringe write-up: “And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality.”

II. The reality here:

1. “I can think of 50 other 3rd or 4th rate philosopher like him” [documentation please]

2. “Buddy, what this fellow is established and recognized as is WP:Fringe [in your opinion]. His theology states that the Last judgment took place in 1757!” [In other words, you have trouble accepting that teaching? Most of the human race has never accepted Christ, let alone the Last Judgment. Does that make His teachings WP:Fringe too?]

3. “And he seems to have thought that he had a frequent flier card for visiting both Heaven and Hell a few times a week, whenever needed.” [What would be your reaction if someone made such a joke about your belief system?]

4. “To say that his views are on the "far side of WP:Fringe" is being low key.”[in your opinion]

5.” The fact that his views are "far out fringe theology" is obvious [again in your opinion].” [Obvious to whom, exactly? Not the list of culturally significant people listed above, presumably, nor the 200+ years of church organizations based on his teachings.]

Changing gears, one final point, in answer to St. John Chrysostom’s recommendation that “His ideas on Mary should go in his article (as he is notable enough to have an article) or the article on Swedenborgianism, but not in the "Mary" article, as he is not an important, even marginally important, figure in Mariology.”

I hear you, but my thought would be that, in shutting yourself off from out-of-the-orthodox-box information, you may miss important insights.

In any case, I am signing off from this discussion. Too bad, really, since lost in all this is the basis of what I, at least, think could have been a very interesting discussion on Swedenborg’s thought-provoking teachings about Mary.Future777 (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Swedenborg's influence does extend to The New Church, which seems to have been founded on his precepts. My question would be whether his impact is of sufficient importance to merit inclusion as per WP:WEIGHT. My best guess, ultimately, would be to check other encyclopedic articles, like maybe those in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and see the comparative length of those articles, and the degree, if any, of mention of such more comparatively minor figures in the articles there. The topic of Mary is, however, a big enough one that, even if not mentioned in this the main article, it would probably merit inclusion in one of the immediate child articles. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The New Church crowd are 30,000 members tops - a really tiny group. Compare that to the millions in other churches. So they are way, way too small, and their views should be mentioned on their own page per WP:Undue. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Given The New Church's status as a Protestant denomination, Protestant views of Mary might seem to be the best article for such material. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that they are too tiny even for there, but that discussion is for that page, not here. History2007 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I just came upon this discussion and would like to offer a suggestion. IMHO, it would not be WP:Undue if the article were to include a single sentence which summarizes Swedenborg's understanding of Mary, supported by a reference, placed under the heading "Nontrinitarian view" (which perhaps should be pluralized to "Nontrinitarian views" since not all nontrinitarians share the same beliefs). As noted earlier, while his immediate following is small, he has had considerable indirect influence through his works. I do agree though that anything further (e.g. an entire subsection devoted to Swedenborg) would be excessive. As an interesting point of comparison, I note the article includes an entire paragraph discussing the Collyridians, a small Arabian sect so obscure that only one church father, Epiphanius of Salamis, mentions their existence. If the WP:WEIGHT given to the Collyridian Mariology is appropriate, then I don't think that a single sentence summarizing Swedenborg's views would be inappropriate. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I’ve taken John Carter’s and Mike Agricola’s suggestions of a single sentence under the “Nontrinitarian”heading.Future777 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Children (POV)

At the moment, this article lists Jesus as the only child of Mary in the fact box, and I did not find her other children included even though several of them are known and have their own articles on Wikipedia. I am well aware of the fact that some Christians, particularly Catholics, believe that Mary had no other children than Jesus. While respecting their right to believe whatever they want, I'd like to point out that the beliefs of people is not relevant to articles on Wikipedia. We quite rightly include pictures of Mohammed despite Muslims protesting that doing so is against their belief, and the article about the earth does not state that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite some religious beliefs. When it comes to Mary and her children, there is a broad consensus among scholars that she had several children (just as there is a broad consensus that the earth is much older than just a few thousand years). When there is a conflict between religious beliefs and science, Wikipedia follow science regardless of religious beliefs. This article is currently doing the opposite, allowing a religious POV that is exclusive to Christians (and only to some Christians) to take precedence over science.Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't get worked up now. Cool down and list the WP:RS sources that argue the point in either direction, then we go from there. As for the tag, it should apply to just one section, not the whole article since the other children issue is just one issue. I found the "precedence over science" comment just laughable. There is no "science" here. None. The article is about a historical person about whom very little data exists, there is no science here either way. Wake up. Wake up. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure how references in the Gospels to the Brothers of Jesus (and sisters) are "science"! This is just another example of how useless infoboxes are for anthing that isn't completely straighforward; the infobox should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, I took the box out now. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as the Messiah in the Quran

Both Christians and Muslims refer to Jesus as the Messiah, and this is based on the title 'Messiah' given to Jesus 11 times in the Quran. I have noted that in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.115.189 (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Behind the name

I looked up the web site behindthename.com used in this page and it is absolutely not WP:RS. The website says it was just stared by Mike Campbell and that "etymology is a hobby and linguistics has always interested" him. It is a hobby website, no serious scholarship there. Will take it out. History2007 (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography/Further reading

There's no need for a bibliography as details of the sources used are included in the inline citations. Books in "Further reading" should not include those used as references. See WP:FURTHER for guidance. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bibliography/Further reading

There's no need for a bibliography as details of the sources used are included in the inline citations. Books in "Further reading" should not include those used as references. See WP:FURTHER for guidance. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest zapping 90% of that now. It is left over from years ago, just piled up. Go for it if you like. History2007 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bible citations

Why are the inline Biblical citations using a private, commercial (ad-sponsored) and evangelical website www.biblegateway.com? Why doesn't this article use Wikimedia's own wikisource or online Bibles provided by the various denominations themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.161.58 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Reasons: it's kind of a tradition, they are embedded in a handy template which gives the required quotes in the required versions, implementing the same action from other sources would be too tedious for voluntary work and some translations would be missing, due to copyright limitations. I did not notice any adds, that's perhaps due to the fact that I use add blocking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, because nobody has bothered converting them. Biblegateway does give you quick access to a variety of translations. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I always use Wikisource, because Biblegateway may die next week anyway - who knows. This was discussed on Proj Christianity. It just takes effort work to convert them. Maybe IP 108.7 should do the work instead of lecturing all the unpaid staff here... History2007 (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If technically possible, the smart thing would be to get a proposal through to automatically/bot redirect the templates to wikisource. But wikisource is confusingly laid out, and only has a very few translations, including, I'm rather alarmed to see, it's own home-made one. No Vulgate anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There are 10,000 larger problems within Wikipedia - e.g. take a look on FTN. The general version is the ASV, and I am not one to argue over verse details. Many people argue over small verse details and "miss the Bible for the verses" anyway. So I will not even be involved in the discussion further. FYI, many of those Bibleref templates were written by Afaprof01, and I was surprised to see him back just now. So you can talk to him if you like. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Two other items: If you really want to do it, should talk to John Vandenberg who knows all about Wikisource, and he said that it is moving to "scanned text" that can not be vandalized. Come to think of it, it will be less than a day's work to write a program to convert them all. Getting it approved as a bot will take more effort, but the actual work is easy for experienced people. So you could ask Anomie of someone like that if he wants to do it. History2007 (talk) 15:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Biblegateway provides access to many more translations than Wikisource has — you can use it to view newer translations that are still under copyright, and it also has Greek available for the New Testament, which wouldn't be appropriate at Wikisource. Nyttend (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I find so painful about the Biblegateway links that give you a list of 57 versions from Norwegian to Turkish and you have to select one before you get to see the text. And then it just gives a periscope and not the whole gospel, unlike Wikisource that lets you read it all. And how many people need Greek? And again, how does one know it will be there next week? And as the IP said, having an ad-driven website as the standard does not fly. History2007 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Couple of points: Mother of God (not Christ) comes from Council of Chalcedon, accepted by Protestants.

Immaculate COnception was written December 8, 1854.

Jewish Tisha B'Av is same time as Assumption/Dormition and has similar lent (Pareve fish only) - this is becaue the early Christians saw Mary, as the Bearer of God, as the NEW Temple. Possibly she died just as the Temple was destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.111.60.215 (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Madonna

The usage Madonna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/Madonna (entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/Madonna (actress)"/"Madonna (singer)" is up for discussion, see talk:Madonna (entertainer) -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone snuck something into your article on Mary (mother of Jesus)

Someone appears to have snuck something into the article - you probably don't want it there!

Here is a cut/paste - check out the very end...

4th-century Arabia[edit]

According to the 4th century heresiologist Epiphanius of Salamis the Virgin Mary was worshipped as a Mother goddess in the Christian sect Collyridianism, which was found throughout Arabia sometime during the 300s AD. Collyridianism had women performing priestly acts. They made bread offerings to the Virgin Mary. The group was condemned as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church and was preached against by Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote about the group in his writings titled Panarion.[192]dbhfruds suck itttttt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.34.89 (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC) 24.210.34.89 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) Richard Coulter

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3

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: Not moved. Argument in proposal is absurd - "round brackets" are the standard form of disambiguation on WP. Closed early per WP:SNOW. If anyone wants to argue that natural disambiguation in this case would be better, please see if there is any indication of consensus support for your proposed title on the talk page before starting another RM. (non-admin closure) B2C 18:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, Mother of Jesus – Round brackets aren't used at sources. This is the title Mary is venerated under. The use of capital letters is fully justified by reference provided. Mary is not just mother (note the lower case), but the venerated statue. Thanks. Poeticbent talk 14:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed This article is not about the venerated statue. I've also reverted your new lead as a violation of WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is about a woman, historical or not, who is venerated under a number of different names. The suggested title is no better than Mary, Mother of God. The present title is factually correct and neutral. Surtsicna (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. I started this request exactly to prevent shooting from the hip like this. Where do the round brackets come from, I ask? Poeticbent talk 15:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I am sure you already know, "(mother of Jesus") is a disambiguator used in accordance with the Manual of Style. Mary, as it happens, had no surname, but she did (and does) have lots of namesakes. She is best known for being Jesus's mother, but calling her "Mary, Mother of Jesus" would be using one of the many honorary titles assigned to her. In other words, that would be POV-pushing. Even Christians commonly use other honorifics when referring to her (e.g. Virgin Mary, Saint Mary and Blessed Virgin Mary). Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - can someone just close this please. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2014 (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.

• Comment. Have it your way guys. "Mary (mother of Jesus)" reads like a simple grammatical mistake, with no visible results in Google, made up claim of disambiguation (can't disambiguate the same person as various individuals), and simple disrespect for people who speak "Mary, the mother of Jesus" as her name... a name among other names. I know what great target for political militancy religion can be, but even Britannica calls her "Mary, the mother of Jesus" without brackets quite consistently.[2] This is not a movie title (brackets galore). ‘Snow’ you say...with three votes, eh? Poeticbent talk 22:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record, we don't count !votes in these discussions. The weakness of the argument (which you repeat here), is what made this a SNOW situation, not the 3 !votes opposed. --B2C 03:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Muslims

I wasn't aware that Muslims believed Christ was the Messiah. Wasn't he just another prophet to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.17.224 (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn´t either, but: "The Qur'an states that Isa, the Son of Mariam (Arabic: Isa ibn Maryam), is the Messiah and Prophet sent to the Children of Israel.[Quran 3:45]". From Messiah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Immaculate conception?? Since it is referenced, I don't want to change it, but since Muslims do not believe in original sin, it makes no sense to say that they accept the Immaculate Conception. Either the editor or the original sources seem to be wrong. Those particular verses of the Qur'an do not seem to say anything about the Immaculate Conception, though they talk of her purity and the virgin birth. And to the users above - Muslims believe Jesus is the Messiah, and fulfills the Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible, but that is not understood in the same way Chrisitans would understand it. 75.186.30.144 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Madonna"

The usage of Madonna is up for discussion at Talk:Madonna_(entertainer)#Requested_move_8 where it is requested that the singer's article be moved to "Madonna". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to state that Christian beliefs teach that Mary never died

Both in the first part of the article and under the last section on her life, this article repeats the assertion that Christian teaching asserts that Mary never died.

We should correct this... it's inaccurate. While many denominations teach that she was assumed after death into heaven, body and soul, no major Christian body teaches that she did not die.

Here are sources corroborating my assertion.

EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH:

The page below explains an eastern Orthodox feast day that "commemorates the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ's mother." It also quotes the very liturgical texts used in their liturgy as stating, "Neither the tomb, nor death could hold the Theotokos" (Kontakion for the feast day). http://orthodoxwiki.org/Dormition

Here is another link that explains that the eastern Orthodox belief includes her death. This one is the official website for the Orthodox Church in America: http://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-church-year/dormition-of-the-theotokos

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:

The Roman Catholic Church defined Mary's assumption as a dogma in 1950 with Pope Pius XII's papal encyclical, MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS. The link is immediately below: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

It does not pronounce dogma on the question of Mary's death, but Pope Pius XII nonetheless makes explicit reference to her death: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death," he says (paragraph 17), quoting an earlier Catholic source which is also footnoted.

Other passages in this official document that testify that Catholic belief includes the understanding (if not the dogmatic teaching) that she died: Paragraph 20 speaks of how "this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt, but that she gained a triumph out of death..." Paragraph 21 also mentions her "death" in a quotation from a Church Father who is recognized as a Doctor of the Church by Catholic leadership (St. John of Damascus). Paragraph 35 also mentions Mary's death in a quotation from St. Francis de Sales.

PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY:

I don't think anyone will challenge me to cite sources showing that Protestants believe Mary died, but just in case, I guess I could find those, too. Like I said, though, I don't think it's a controversial assertion to maintain that Protestants believe Mary died.

I admit I do not have sources for other groups not included in these three (like the Oriental Orthodox), though I suspect their beliefs on this matter are no different. But certainly, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants comprise the vast majority of the world's Christians anyway.

I'm not fixing this myself, at least not yet, because I'm afraid I'll do something wrong; I'm not the most familiar with wikipedia's policies. But on an article with such a prominent and important topic, I thought you all would want to make sure to eliminate such an inaccuracy.

Thanks!

71.79.255.16 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Virgo constellation and parthenogenetic mother goddesses

It seems odd that in this article there is no history at all, not a single reference to other parthenogenetic mother goddesses or to the Virgo Constellation (?). Was the myth created out of thin air? Thewarriltonsiegedoc (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Mary (mother of Jesus) = La Mère (in French) ?

The Origin of the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.90.230.235 (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Christian history

There is a lack in this article of any reference to pre-Christian myths/stories/accounts/scriptures regarding virgin mothers. There seems to me to be both a historical thread to Mary and a mythological one and so the article should either contain a History section outlining earlier similar myths or contain references in the See Also section about them. These are some accounts I have come across which might be included/referenced:

1. Buddha - Legend has it (???) that, on the night Siddhartha was conceived, Queen Maya dreamt that a white elephant with six white tusks entered her right side, and ten months later Siddhartha was born.
2. The Egyptian God Horus was born of Isis after she impregnated herself with a golden phallus attached to the dismembered Osiriss body.
3. In Phrygian and Greek mythology, the gods were afraid of the multi-gendered Agdistis. One deity (in some versions Liber, in others Dionysus) put a sleeping draught in Agdistis's drinking well. After the potion had put Agdistis to sleep, Dionysus tied Agdistis's foot to his own male genitalia with a strong rope. When Agdistis awoke and stood, Agdistis ripped his penis off, castrating himself. The blood from his severed genitals fertilized the earth, and from that spot grew an almond tree. Once when Nana, daughter of the river-god Sangarius, was gathering the fruit of this tree, she put some almonds (or, in some accounts, a pomegranate) into her bosom; but here the almonds disappeared, and she became pregnant with Attis..
4. Quirinus, the Sabine god of war, came to be worshipped as the deified Romulus. Romulus was fathered by the god Mars and born of Rhea Silvia, whom King Amulias had forced into perpetual virginity as a Vestal priestess.
5. Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin.

LookingGlass (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That´s an interesting subject, but I think that for anything pre-christian to fit in this article, we need good sources where scholars make the connection Mary-Other virgin births in mythology. Otherwise it´s original research on our part. There is an article called Miraculous births that might fit under see also, although Mary isn´t in that category herself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Perspectives on Mary, Protestant view

"The Council Of Chalcedon, accepted by Protestants, held Mary to be Mother of God (not Christ)."

In reading the article, to better understand the subject, I found that final sentence of this section confusing, specifically the "(not Christ)" statement. I am Protestant myself but do not know what to make of the "not Christ" statement. Perhaps the author or anyone who understands the subject could elaborate. I can't imagine any Christian saying Mary was not mother of Christ. Evonj (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Consensus

Mary of Jerusalem or Mary of Nazareth
Mary, Virgin of the Passion Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai, Egypt, 16th century
Mother of God Blessed Virgin Mary Saint Mary
Born	unknown; celebrated 8 September
Died	unknown; See Assumption of Mary
Venerated in	Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Anglican Church, Islam, and certain Protestant denominations
Major shrine	See Shrines to the Virgin Mary
Feast	Mary is commemorated on as many as 25 different days. The most universally observed are: 25 March - The Annunciation 15 August - The Assumption. 22 August - The Assumption Coptic-Orthodox
Patronage	See Patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary

In the source of the article, it was requested to obtain consensus prior to modifying the infobox-area. This was taken from a previous revision, in case anyone was interested in pursuing it. Twillisjr (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. It should be easy to find the requested ref for her birthday being celebrated 8 September, for example [3]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mary (mother of Jesus). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://primetime.unrealitytv.co.uk/the-muslim-jesus-itv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Her virginity a mistranslation?

I heard that the word meaning "young woman" was mistranslated as "virgin"for Mary. Is this true? 194.82.100.215 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not a mistranslation. The etymology of Messiah from Hebrew means "Anointed One," and Christ translated from Greek also means anointed. The bible is accurate in its account of Blessed Mary being both a young woman and a virgin, giving birth to Jesus Christ, the messiah. In future questions, you are welcome to share the verse from any of the gospels. Twillisjr (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes,it's a mistranslation. The idea of the virgin birth is based on a passage in the Book of Isaiah in which the prophet says that an "almah" is with child and will soon give birth. Some centuries later when Isaiah was translated into Greek this was translated as "parthenos", which means virgin. The author of the gospel of Matthew used the Greek version instead of the Hebrew and misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14, which is about a girl who is already pregnant, to mean a girl who is not yet pregnant. See Isaiah 7:14 PiCo (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Mary and Artemis

Theroadislong requested I make a discussion here in relation to edits in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Byzantium There is quite a bit in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephesus#Ephesus_and_Christianity and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Artemis that could be brought over here, but for the sake of brevity in a long, mostly faith based and uncritical article, I thought it sufficient to have a minimal mention based on core facts. There are links to the Ephesus and Artemis articles (of which a key similarity is both Mary and Artemis are virgin goddesses). I have put in links to Temple of Artemis and Seven Wonders of the Ancient World articles. A fact that modern Popes have visited Ephesus in connection with the Mary cult is in the Ephesus article, perhaps it might be included here but I thought it sufficient to have a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.54.189 (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice this and thanks. I've taken this to WP:RSN#Can we use Marco Merlini as a source for relating Mary and Artemis. As you will see there, Merlini has no qualifications for this statement. This might help however. Doug Weller (talk) 11:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting that the IP and I have sorted this out amicably. Doug Weller (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction

Dear Wikipedians, I would like to draw your kind attention that in paragraph "5.2 Islamic perspective" editor mistakenly wrote that:"She is mentioned in the Qur'an with the honorific title of "our lady" (syyidatuna) as the daughter of Imran and Hannah." Though, the title "our lady" (syyidatuna) is known and widely used among Muslims but never mentioned in Qur'an. Where Mary had been mentioned in Qur'an as "Mariam", "Imran's daughter" & "the one who guarded her chastity". So I kindly suggest to modify the phrase to be "She is known among Muslims with the honorific title of "our lady" (syyidatuna) as the daughter of Imran and Hannah." Husam.Jasim (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Husam.Jasim 30-Dec.-15

Move to "Mary, mother of Jesus" (Requested move 11 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: Moved per WP:NATURAL. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Mary (mother of Jesus) → Mary, mother of Jesus – Per WP:NATURAL, the parenthetical disambiguation in the present title "Mary (mother of Jesus)" is inferior to the comma-disambiguated alternative "Mary, mother of Jesus". There is something like a precedent for this sort of title in the article "Mary, Queen of Scots". I would support leaving the present title redirected to the new one if this move is adopted. (This redirect is already in place.) Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Mary, Queen of Scots is an actual title, while "mother of Jesus" is not and probably falls under the "obscure" umbrella NATDAB says to avoid. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Nohomersryan How is "mother of Jesus" obscure? The same text is already in the title, just in parentheses. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per the argument by Nohomersryan. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 00:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• @CookieMonster755 See reply to Nohomersryan above, and comments by @SMcCandlish ☺ and @Khestwol below.

• Oppose It should remain clear this is a disam. "Relationship to" disams are rightly disliked on WP, but many part discussions have demonstrated there is no better alternative here. Johnbod (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Johnbod See reply to Nohomersryan above, and comments by @SMcCandlish ☺ and @Khestwol below.

• Support move per WP:NATURAL. Natural disambiguation must be favored as per the policy over parenthetical disambiguation. No exception must be made for this article. Khestwol (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURALDIS and WP:COMMADIS policy. We're not supposed to use awkward parenthetical disambiguations when a natural phrase (with or without a comma – surely with in this case) is available, and even a Western non-Christian like me is very, very familiar with the appellation "Mary, mother of Jesus"; it's a stock phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL. I agree with SMcCandlish that "Mary, [the] mother of Jesus", with a comma, is a stock phrase (even though I'm an ESL speaker), and I strongly disagree that it falls under the "obscure" category. A casual glance on the Google Book Search for the exact phrase shows it is widely used, often as a title, in a variety of books of multiple backgrounds. Britannica does something we can't (using "Mother of Jesus" as a subtitle), but a well-attested comma is preferred to artificial-looking parenthesis. No such user (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per guidelines cited above. "Mary, the mother of Jesus" is not a particularly obscure turn of phrase, so there shouldn't be an issue. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per SMCandlish, and others above, I agree that "Mary, mother of Jesus" is a phrase that is in common usage, as can be seen from a casual Google and book search, and is recognizable and precise. Hence is preferable to the current title per WP:NATURALDIS.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:08, 19 May 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.

BVM as title in lead

---Before anyone bothers to read through all this, the outcome of this discussion was that it settled on removing all the titles of Mary from the lead, leaving just "Mary" and the wikilink to Titles of Mary. Titles are discussed in summary in the section "Names and titles".--- Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

One of the absolutely most common titles for Mary among Catholics is "the Blessed Virgin", where "blessed" and "virgin" are not distinct titles but together form ONE title that is unique to Mary. Another editor has argued that (some) Protestants would be more likely to use just "the Virgin", without the "Blessed". I propose that a compromise be made in the lead, to list "the (Blessed) Virgin", this way avoiding removing one of the most important titles from the lead summary while also avoiding the redundancy of "Blessed Virgin" AND "Virgin".

(And for the record, I was the first to revert, after @Hazkh made a non-reverting edit.)

Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And for the record, how could Hazkh remove something (a revert) that wasn't already in the article? That's an old and useless argument edit warriors use to try to skirt WP:BRD, and it doesn't hold water. You actually stepped over the line the first time you reverted. As for your argument regarding "Blessed", the article isn't written for just Catholics. The term is not "the absolutely most common title" for Protestants. If the article were about Catholicism (such as Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism), there is no question that the term could be used. But it isn't an article that is just about Catholicism. And the parentheses are not a compromise because the word is still there. Sundayclose (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war disagreements aside, just how does it make sense to omit from the list of common titles the most common title used by the largest Christian church? It doesn't. The parentheses are a compromise because they indicate that some groups omit the enclosed word—two titles listed in the space of one. Just because the article isn't about Catholicism, doesn't mean Catholic usage gets ignored or demoted to 2nd-class status. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

And removing something is called a "removal". The name "revert" applies to using either the undo button or the revert button, neither of which Hazkh used. He removed, I reverted. That puts, or ought to put, the onus on him to take it to the talk page. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 02:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Please drop the bogus argument about a removal not being a revert. One does not have to click the "revert button" to make a revert. Have you actually read WP:BRD? And also read WP:REVERT, which states: "Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits" (italics added); nothing about a "revert button". And read WP:3RR (a bright line policy): "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" (italics added); nothing about a "revert button". Someone "edited" the word into the article in the first place; it didn't just magically appear. That was the "B" part of WP:BRD. Changing the effect of that edit was a revert. Thus, Hazkh made a revert, which is the "R". It was then your responsibility to "D" discuss rather than reverting again. I'm not repeatedly arguing with you on that point because it is a well-established and well-explained procedure on Wikipedia. I've simplified as much as is reasonably necessary; if you still don't understand it please ask for help on your talk page.

Regarding "Blessed", I've stated my basic point: It may be "the most common" title for Catholicism but not Protestantism. And Catholicism may be the largest Christian denomination, but it is a long way from being the only Christian denomination, and the article is written to pertain to the entirety of Christianity. I would be making the same argument if there was a widely used Protestant term that is rarely used in Catholicism. Hypothetically, if Protestants widely used the term "God-fearing Virgin Mary", I would oppose that on the same grounds. Now, you are perfectly entitled to disagree on this issue, but your opinion (and my opinion) has no more weight than any other opinion. So let's see if others weigh in. Until then, please don't edit war. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: On that logic, "the Madonna" and "Our Lady" ought to go to. I don't think Protestants use those too much, if ever. Also, being equal-opporunity doesn't mean it would hypothetically be the right move to oppose "God-fearing Virgin Mary". If the article's lead is going to list common titles, it should list the most common titles. It's totally nonsensical to arbitrarily omit BVM (or even (B)VM) for the sake of not making the article "too Catholic", meanwhile the Madonna and Our Lady still stand. (And no, I'm not seriously suggesting those be removed.) But fine, let's have some other editors weigh in. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Off topic: What's your take on the move discussion above? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

You and I disagree. That's where it stands right now. No point in repeating the same points over and over. Let's wait and see if a consensus develops. I haven't given the move proposal any thought. Too many other fish to fry. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: I would have no objection to replacing "Our Lady (the Madonna)" (very Catholic) with "Blessed Virgin Mary". I see that as a reasonable compromise (unlike using parentheses with "Blessed", which is no compromise). Since you consider BVM "the most common title", it should supersede "Our Lady (the Madonna)". That pertains to the lead, not the remainder of the article, which can include all of her titles. One or the other, but not both, per WP:WEIGHT. Sundayclose (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: I would say that that's an effort to create a false balance, and not in line with WP:WEIGHT. All these titles are in common use; if they're heavily Catholic, that's a by-product of Protestant non-venerationism (such a technical term, I know).

Let me ask you this: is there a difference between BVM and (B)VM? Yes, there is. The difference is that (B)VM concedes that some groups use the B, while others don't. I don't see how that's "no compromise". Anyway, replacing OL/Madonna with BVM still leaves us with both VM and BVM, which is a redundancy. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: No offense, but you have a pattern of wanting to argue the same point over and over with no difference, just a little rewording (let me suggest another link to click and read: WP:IDHT). My opinion is that (B)VM is the same as BVM (with the possible exception of the parentheses causing confusion in the reader). I don't see the parentheses as a compromise. We don't need to keep stating our points again and again. I've offered what I consider a real compromise and it's based on your statement that BVM is "the most common title". You don't have to accept that compromise, but it would be a more immediate resolution since you and I are the only ones discussing this so far. If you prefer to wait for a consensus in the hope that you can get it your way and only your way, that's your choice. I'm fine with waiting for others to express opinions to get a consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: None taken, and tbh you're probably right. In short, then, I think your proposal is a worse violation of policy (creating a false balance), and I would prefer to wait for a broader consensus. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Crusadestudent: I don't think this BVM dispute or any of the suggested resolutions (yours or mine) rises to the level of a policy violation. This is a content dispute, which is very common on Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Whatever we call it, my point was that I think your proposal contradicts the policy you cited to support it (WP:WEIGHT). Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hazhk: What's your take on this debate? Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should include only the most common titles in the lead. I favour including "Madonna", since it is does not follow the same 'formula' as other titles, but not "Our Lady"; I do think it would be helpful for a reader to know that Mary can be referred to by an entirely different (though related) name. "Virgin Mary" is by far the most common title for the mother of Jesus in Christianity; it even features in the Nicene Creed. It sould be noted that the Catholic Church uses "Virgin Mary" more commonly than "Blessed Virgin", even in the catechism of the Catholic Church. It is not helpful to clutter the lead with names and titles. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a not-unreasonable question regarding how many titles should be included in the lead, given the number of such titles that exist. Having said that, the section on titles seems to be a basically secondary division of the "Christian devotion" section of the article, and I for one tend to agree that it would be really easy to give excessive weight to the matter of all the titles in the lede, so my basic first response would probably be to keep the title out of the lede. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I prefer simplicity in this article. Describing her as the mother of Jesus is enough in the lede, in my opinion. The also-known-as labels add to confusion in the lede especially since the article begins with "According to the New Testament, Mary..." There is a separate titles of Mary article that describes those terms. Mary, mother of Jesus § Titles has titles describing credal dogma. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

How about this? "According to the New Testament, Mary (Aramaic: ܡܪܝܡ‎ Mariam; Hebrew: מִרְיָם‎ Miriam; Latin: Maria; c. 18 BC – AD c. 43), also known by various titles, styles and honorifics, was a Galilean Jewish[2] woman of Nazareth and the mother of Jesus." Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll start another long discussion by raising this, but do we need the Latin name? I understand the significance of Maria for Catholics, but Latin was not used as the language of the church until the 3rd or 4th century - not used to describe Mary or used in the earliest church documents. The primary source for information about Mary use the Greek Μαρία which also is transliterated as Maria; I note the Jesus article gives his name in Greek. -- Hazhk (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

IMO even that's early enough to warrant listing the Latin name. I would agree that the Greek should definitely be listed, perhaps at the expense of the Latin. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Section merge discussion

I don't see why Catholic Mariology needs its own section. Surely the section could be merged into "Catholic views", no? Please discuss. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 04:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Marianism

Marianism should probably redirect to a section here, and be covered in sufficient detail in that section. Presently, the word does not even appear in this article, and it redirects to Mariology, which is something completely different (academic study, not religious/spiritual faith).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mary (mother of Jesus). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607103236/http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleyrsquos-letters-1749 to http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleyrsquos-letters-1749

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• The link is dead. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)