Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Saints Blessed Virgin Mary is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Saints Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Question about merging

Is there any reason why this can't be simply merged with Mary, the mother of Jesus? Eclecticology 00:33 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Yes. Mary, the Mother of Jesus is a universally recognised person throughout christendom. The Blessed Virgin Mary is a catholic concept accepted by many Anglicans but rejected by more fundamentalist Protestants. They are two fundamentally different visions of the same person, both in terms of their history and in terms of how they are perceived in terms of their roles within different strands of religion. In some ways, while the person may be the same, the concept relating to issues like the virgin birth or the Immaculate Conception are fundamentally different. JTD 01:19 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

The above argument is terribly flawed - if the reasoning were valid, for example, we would have a different Wikipedia article for the prophet Muhammad from the viewpoint of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc. - or even particular Muslims, particular Jews, etc. I accept that a reference to a single person could have multiple senses; "Alexander the Great" could refer to the youth, the man, the prince, his position as King of Macedon, the victorious military figure, etc. But what would be the point of having our knowledge of the person in all his forms scattered in fragments around the encyclopedia under different and possibly inconsistent headings? Incidentally, I've been following the Manual of Style discussion around an appropriate epithet for the prophet Muhammad. I would recommend, not only that this article be consolidated with the article Mary, the mother of Jesus, but also that the epithets in use, especially for religious figures, be addressed. Looksharp 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The separate existence of this article is an absurdity whose real purpose is to deny the identity of the Mary venerated by Catholics with the Mary of the Bible, and thereby deny that Catholics are Christians.

This is extremely POV! Just the title. Comeon. -- Zoe

I'll admit that this stuff is quite stomach wrenching, but religious dogma is like that. You must believe what you are told to believe. Lucifer is literally the bringer of light, and any attempt to expose the subject to the light of reason may be viewed as heretical. ☮ Eclecticology 22:50 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
The title of the article reflects the title given to her by Rome. It's the same reason that we call the Pope 'His Holiness' or the Queen 'Her Majesty', and shouldn't be taken too seriously. --Spudtater 00:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Leandrod has replaced some, but not all, occurrences of "(Roman) Catholic" to "Roman" or "Romanist". I assume this is an attempt to get a more NPOV (which is a very delicate problem in matters concerning religion).

However, the term "Romanist" is obscure to me. It is not linked, and in fact there is no wikipedia page "Romanist" at the moment; I assume that if there were one, it would point to Catholicism. Is "Romanist" or even "Roman" a generally accepted term? As far as I know, members of the Roman Catholic Church refer to themselves as "Roman Catholics"; is this term offensive?

Aleph4 10:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

"Romanist" --don't we all really call them Papists when they aren't around? Wetman 10:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Um, no. We don't call them Papists. If they do in the U.S. or some other countries I don't know but in Asia they don't. Never heard of the term and I make this claim because I am a lecturer on Christian ecumenism and history and have not come across this term except in very rare cases.Anthony Permal 19:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Papist was fairly common in the US, although not so much any more. I'm pretty sure I've heard Romanist as well. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Romanist, or simply Roman, is a shortend to Roman Catholic. I substituted it for Catholic, since Catholic also encompasses Protestants and specially Eastern Orthodox Catholics.User:Leandrod

Actually Romanist is a POV term, in so far as it is used as a perjorative term implying an agenda behind the use of the term. In Ireland, for example, the term is used by 0% of main stream crhirtsian and non-christian religions. It is only used by the fiercely anti-catholic (and anti-jewish, homophobic politically far right) Free Presbyterian CHurch. It is used in the same context in the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany and in South America by fundamentalist protestant groups. As a result, however genuine the original user may have been in including it, it is linguistically alkward and laiden with POV implication in much of the planet, making it unusuable in an NPOV encyclopaedia article. For tha reason I have removed the term. FearÉIREANN 17:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes. My big unabridged dictionary (a Random House) flags it as often disparaging and offensive. Indeed. –Hajor 17:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I find it odd, to say the least, that anyone could consider petitioning the Pope to proclaim something infallibly. How could something become inerrantly so just because millions of people would like it to be so? I always, as an admitted outsider, just assumed that such "ex cathedra" proclaimations were made by a Pope based upon his belief that he had been led to an inevitable conclusion by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, not by the petitioning of the masses, regardless of the sincerity of their devotion. If such a thing were to happen, would not this give even more creedence to Old Catholics and others who reject the First Vatican Council and the whole concept of Papal Infallibilty?

P.S. This article is for the most part well-written, well-researched, and scholarly, but it is very much from a devout Catholic POV in my opinion.

User:Rlquall 22:29, 11 June 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Third Secret of Fatima

The description of the official third secred of Fátima is missing.

I added the text about the 3rd secret. (That section tended to be very "ultra-conservative" Catholic, i.e. more Catholic than the Pope, and I tried to balance it some.

I wouldn't object to combining the information in this page with Mary, the mother of Jesus and putting a relocation here. Obviously there is a huge problem with how to maintain a neutral POV, since various statements are not accepted by various groups. I'd be willing to give it a stab. Mpolo (sorry about the empty bio...)

Absolutely not. It would be absurd to try to blurr different religious concepts of Mary in the one article, as so many of those concepts are mutually contradictory. It would also produce endless edit wars as each side thought the other side's view was getting priority. The separate concepts of Mary are best dealt with on separate linked pages. For a start, any mention of the Blessed Virgin Mary would infuriate many protestants, and any playing down of that title would infuriate many Catholics. So a single page is a non-starter. FearÉIREANN\(talk) 00:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who the "Protestants" who would be offended are. Perhaps the Presbyterians might be, but I'm not qualified to speak on their behalf. However, as a member of the Church of Ireland, I can assure you that Anglicans use the phrase the Blessed Virgin Mary, and honour her: with very good reason. Millbanks 09:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Three Secrets of Fatima have their own page now. As does Marian apparitions, for that matter. --Spudtater 00:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary as a patron saint

In the article on Patron saint, Mary was listed in several different capacities. This recent edit removed all of them and substituted this comment: "The Blessed Virgin Mary is only a Patron of a place in the sense that she is the Patron of All Things blessed and good. Her virginity is famed." That new comment obviously has POV problems, but more important is that the deletion is removing quite a bit of information. If "patron saint" isn't the appropriate place for what's been removed, should that information be inserted somewhere in this article? JamesMLane 14:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree with the comment given. The Immaculate Conception is most certainly the patron feast day of the United States (and most countries of the New World have Mary as patron in some capacity). I think the information belongs in Patron saint Mpolo

[edit] "Catholic" vs "Roman Catholic" vs "Christian"

The word "catholic", like most words, has various meanings. For instance, "Catholic" can mean

1. Pertaining to the faith or practice of the ancient undivided Church, especially as regards its universality.

2. Roman Catholic.

3. Pertaining to the faith or practice of the part of Western Christianity (including Roman Catholicism) that 1) identifies itself as "Catholic" (usually as opposed to or contrasted with "Protestant"), 2) regards itself as historically and organizationally continuous with the ancient Church, and 3) is characterized by belief in things like baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the intercession of Saints, the indissolubility of marriage, the Apostolic Succession, prayers for the dead, the use of statues and icons and medals, the use of the "Apocrypha" as part of the Bible, appeal to the ancient Ecumenical Councils as theologically authoritative, etc. (Yes, I know, not all Protestants deny all these things.)

4. Christian in general.

Roman Catholics generally use "Catholic" in sense #2 (which of course they consider equivalent to #1), unless they're distinguishing between sense #2 and sense #3, in which case they usually say "Roman Catholic" for sense #2. Old Catholics, Anglo-Catholics, etc., use it mostly in sense #3 when talking about modern things, or sense #1 when talking about ancient things (and use "Roman Catholic" for sense #2). Protestants usually use "Catholic" in sense #2 (or in sense #3 if they think about the distinction at all), and very occasionally in sense #4.

There isn't a single right way to use "Catholic", just ways that are more or less useful in various contexts.

Now, when we're talking about devotion to Mary, sense #3 is the obvious one to use to distinguish Catholics (and Orthodox) from other Christians (in general, Protestants). If you write "Roman Catholics honour Mary, but other Christians don't", you're wrong, because you're claiming that Anglican Catholics, for instance, don't honour Mary, which they do. If you write "Catholics honour Mary but Protestants in general don't", you're being (fairly) clear, and using "Catholic" (fairly) obviously in contradistinction to "Protestant".

Sure, I know that some people use "catholic" (generally with a lower-case c) to mean "Christian". But if you ask them "Are you a Catholic?", they'll understand what you're asking; and if they're, for instance, Lutheran or Baptist or Seventh-Day Adventist, they'll say "No, I'm not a Catholic."

All of which means that to use "Catholic" to mean "Christian" (sense #4) 1) can be pretty confusing, 2) is often inaccurate, 3) is not standard English usage, 4) leaves us with no word or phrase for sense #3, and 5) seems kind of POV.

So I'm remaking my edits, which Sunborn reverted. If there's a problem here, let's discuss it; but don't just say "Catholic means Christian" as if that's the final word. It isn't. Frjwoolley 21:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A) Every single one of the "old world" churches believe in the creeds (This includes many of the protestant denominations)
B) Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed proclaim belief in the one holy catholic Church.
C)For this reason wikipedia has consistently the word catholic has always been used in the holy catholic church sense. See your own link on Catholicism.
--metta, The Sunborn 03:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is definitely not true that Wikipedia "consistently" uses "Catholic" in the sense of "Christian". (Does Wikipedia do anything consistently?) You yourself, on User:Sunborn, use "Catholic" in the more usual sense, when you write

It would be like the Catholics calling the Protestants "weak" Christians, no one would stand for it, except the Catholics.

(Of course, you also say "I take religion as something to be laughed at", so maybe I'm missing something of your point.)

If we use "Catholic" to mean "Christian", what word or phrase are we going to use for "Catholic" in my sense #3? "Roman Catholic or other non-Roman Catholic non-Protestant Western sacramentalist traditionalist Conciliar Creedal Church"? Simpler, and far more accurate, just to say "Catholic".

Yes, Protestants explain the word in the Creeds differently than Catholics do. Still, though, if you ask Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, "Are you a Catholic?", 99 out of 100 will say "No, I'm a Methodist" (or whatever), not "Yes, I'm a Methodist". Frjwoolley 14:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition to what Frjwolley wrote, let me add that not all chruches that use the Apostles' Creed would accept the term Catholic. Some translate it into their particular language as "universal" to avoid the term, while at least the mainline protestant churches in Germany do replace "Holy Catholic Church" with the idiosyncrasy "Holy Christian Church". Str1977 (smile back) 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of facts that might help since I noticed some opinions that seem to differ above. The term "Eastern Orthodox" is only used in the "West" and the people of the religion to whom that term refers actually refer to themselves as "Christian", meaning the original Christian religion. Keep in mind that they haven't changed nor branched off of any other religion. The "Roman Catholic Church" was at one time a part of that original religion, but due to differences and changes became a religion of its own. There isn't any such thing as an "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". In the west, the term "Christian" refers to practically any religion that centers around Jesus being Christ and is used as an adjective. The "Orthodox" Christians, on the other hand, do not recognize any of those religions whatsoever and to them the word "Christian" is a proper noun. It is not a two-way street. So, even though the Catholic church will recognize an "Orthodox" Christian, the reverse is not true and even the term "Orthodox" itself is looked upon by the original religion rather like a tool of propaganda to give some validity to the existence of other religions that have stemmed from it. To them, it is not just a matter of naming, or of proprietary rights, or such, but they feel that the existence of the Romans Catholic church has dissuaded a great many people from life after death. This rift is very, very old, but seldom in the "West" is the other side of the coin given any respect whatsoever. Metrax 05:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Co-Redemptrix" - clarify?

I would suggest that the Co-Redemptrix section needs to contain an explanation of what is meant by 'Co-Redemptrix', since this doctrine is so frequently misunderstood.

EDIT: I made some slight alterations in Co-Redemptrix section to make it accurate. Added link to full explanation of the term.

The explanation of the literal Latin meaning of "coredemptrix" was just plain wrong, so I backed it out. Whoever wrote it at http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian14.html was badly in error. The Latin prefix co- (or con-) derives from cum (with), but it means "with" in the sense of acting-together-with — just as it does in English. There are dozens of common examples in ecclesiastical Latin &mdash coepiscopus, an associate bishop, not someone accompanying the bishop; cohaeres, a fellow-heir, not someone with the heir; concivis, fellow-citizen, not someone acting alongside the citizen. And the ending -trix is just the feminine form of -tor, and turns redemptor, a male redeemer, into redemptrix, a female redeemer. To argue that coredemptrix means "woman with the redeemer" is wrong in almost exactly the same way as it would be wrong in English to say that a "co-authoress" didn't help write the book, but is merely the "woman with the author". Frjwoolley 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] boldface & caps in the opening sentence

It seems silly to me to have to bring this here, but since my initial, extremely minor copyedit to bring the opening sentence of the article into conformity with basic rules of English grammar was summarily reverted without even the courtesy of an explanation, I'm going to mention it here before restoring the edit.

At present the opening sentence begins with "The Blessed Virgin Mary" and then goes on to point out that she is also called "The Blessed Virgin". The use of the second name has two issues: capitalisation and boldface; it should actually appear as "the Blessed Virgin".

The is not part of her name. This is pretty obviously displayed within the very sentence we're talking about, not to mention in the article's title. Because The is not part of her name, it is not included in the article's title and is not boldfaced at the beginning of the opening sentence ("The Blessed Virgin Mary", where it's only even capitalised because it's the first word of the sentence). Nor is it capitalised at any other point in the article when she is referred to by a name or title preceded by a definite article ("the Virgin Mary" or "the Blessed Virgin").

I'd also point out that, if it was part of her name, it would be included in direct address. (Would a child pray, "If you help me with this, Blessed Virgin, I'll never ask you for anything again", or would they pray, "If you help me with this, The Blessed Virgin, I'll never ask you for anything again"?)

I'm going to restore my original edit now, as well as post what I've written here to User:Jtdirl's talkpage, since they're the one who reverted me in the first place. I can't possibly imagine what argument anyone could bring against the edit, but if they have one, I implore them to bring it here, rather than summarily reverting the edit. Binabik80 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It has been explained to you on your talk page. (BTW I could not do an edit summary. WP is screwing around right now and requiring multiple saves, as it keeping treating saves as previews. The only save that finally worked was the one where the previous edit summary had been lost.) In formal title usage, the The is used, in general usage it is not. As per standard, as the opening paragraph was mentioning formal title, the formal title include The was used. That is standard on WP. Monarchs usually are described in their opening paragraph as The King in the opening paragraph, then the King (ie grammatical, not formal) in the body text. WP only uses the definite article as part of a title on those rare occasions where it is part of a title (eg. The Guardian). In most cases it follows the simple rule of strictly formal title in the opening paragraph, standard grammatical usage in the rest of the body of the text. Blessed Virgin Mary uses the in the grammatical, not title, form (hence BVM, not TBVM.) but The Blessed Virgin is used in a formal sense with the definite article. It relates to the existence of other honoured virgins who came to be called blessed virgins (lower casing and no definite article) in the early mediæval period. Though such titling for the other women died out as early as the reformation period, the use of the is still used with regard to Mary as a hangover from the time when it was thought necessary to distinguish between a blessed virgin and The Blessed Virgin, of which in religious terms there was just one, Mary. FearÉIREANN 22:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perpetual Virginity

Need help. I added the Perpetual Virginity section because the article did not make it clear that this is a fundamental teaching of Catholicism.

  • I don't know whether perpetual is a teaching of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.
  • I don't know the technical terminology, whether that is a "dogma" or a "doctrine".
  • Regarding "brothers", I don't know the Greek words and how to put Greek into the text. That would help.
  • Regarding "brothers", I have heard those two explanations but don't have sources. I don't know if there is an official explanation or if there are others.
  • I don't know if there is a special theological term for "perpetual virginity".
Charles Ulysses Farley 00:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
There are now two sections on this, which seems odd. One would be sufficient? Could be combined? I like the final sentence in the first. Springnuts (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

There isn't really any mention of historic development in this article. It makes it look like the entire iconography, concepts, etc. of the BVM suddenly appeared exactly as it is now out of thin air in early Christianity. I suspect that not even the Roman Catholic Church itself would advocate such a view of the history of Marian devotions; does anyone know anything about this, and if so could it be added to the article? Clinkophonist 19:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Dogma

Why is co redemptrix and mediatrix included as a fifth dogma? It has never been proclaimed a dogma, and catholics can dissent from it without been outside of the doctrine of the Church... hence it is not a fifth official dogma. I think it should be renamed Cjrs 79 03:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is widely proposed as a candidate for dogmatic declaration, because of the fact that nowadays some people deny it. It is expected to happen within the next 50 years (which is very fast in church history). Stijn Calle 15:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly not a sure bet that it will become church dogma. Many in the Eastern churches have reservations; thus, it could be a major impediment to communion with the Orthodox. Given the Holy See's emphasis on improving relations with the Eastern churches, this whole movement may stall. Majoreditor 20:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't an actual dogma at this time. When/if it is declaired a dogma, it'll be fine to put it in it's place, but now it's just a belief about Our Lady, even though it would seem to be a widely held one. Anthropax 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not change the heading to 'Proposed Fifth Marian Dogma' - or, better still, change all the headings to The Assumption, etc, instead of Fourth Marian Dogma, etc ?

[edit] Marianism?

"Marianism" describes the excessive veneration of Mary, as opposed to Jesus. The term was first used in the 19th century to condemn the "perversion of Christianity into Marianism".

Passive voice makes it impossible to determine whether this was a term of internal or external criticism. I have little idea what the sentence means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freder1ck (talk • contribs) 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Do (nearly) all the pictures in the article have to be Victorian?

Johnbod 04:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Actually an original photo would be good ...! Failing that whatever is most commonly in use - there is probably some good iconography, if it could be used. Or perhpas what is in use is indeed be the Victorian stuff in the article. Springnuts (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Queries

i) Does the Eastern Orthodox Church go along with the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption?

ii) Does the Immaculate Conception mean that not only was the Blessed Virgin born without sin, but never sinned once in her life?

iii) I once heard (from a high church Anglican) that Roman Catholics believed that the Blessed Virgin was herself the product of a virgin birth. Is that so?

Millbanks 22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(i) (a) Regarding the Immaculate Conception: Short answer: No. Longer answer: The Eastern Church does not have the same doctrine of Original Sin as the Catholics, so they never have posed and pondered the doctrinal question that the Immaculate Conception answers.
(i) (b) Regarding the Assumption: There is a similar, but not exactly identical, belief in both the Eastern and Western Churches. For more details, see Dormition and Munificentissimus Deus.
(ii) It is Catholic (and, I think, Orthodox) doctrine that she never sinned. This is not a direct consequence of her lack of Original Sin (though it helps), since Adam & Eve also were without Original Sin, yet sinned.
(iii) No, this is not at all true, but it is a very common misunderstanding. Catholic doctrine is that she was conceived in the usual way from human parents. Mlouns 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a speedy and clear reply: much appreciated. Being Protestant (Church of Ireland), I have a somewhat different "take" on the above, as you'd expect, but there's no doubt that the Immaculate Conception was, and I imagine still is, most important to Roman Catholics. For example, Manning Clark's "A Short History of Australia" records that, "when the news reached Melbourne that...Pius IX had proclaimed it as a dogma of the Catholic faith...the Catholic community sent a medal struck from Victorian gold to His Holiness to commemorate what was to them a momentous event in human history."

Be that as it may, a less comfortable aspect was (?is) that if you didn't believe in it, you weren't eligible for eternal salvation. Of course by the standards of the time, we Proddies were hell-bound anyhow! Millbanks 09:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent "Semiramis" stuff

I loathe revert wars, so I won't re-revert today's edits by 69.29.253.82 . I think they're poor encyclopedia quality, regardless of one's opinion on their factuality. Does anyone else want to comment on them? Mlouns 07:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just in this article; it's been spammed into over a dozen articles, from at least a half-dozen IP addresses. Check my edit history, especially the edit just before this one. -- 70.171.52.50 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

WELL WELL WELL The Jesuits are playing games again protecting Fairy tales obscuring The LORD Jesus Christ to their own damnation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.29.48 (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2007

We aren't Jesuits (at least, I'm not Jesuit) and reverting vandalism isn't a game. You just need to make sure your content is verifiable, and put it in the right place. In this case the right place is in the Hislop article, or better yet on the Hislop article's discussion page. -- 70.171.8.250 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, I'm not Jesuit either. Your problem is not Jesuits, Masons, and the Trilateral Commission, it's your lack of good citations. Here's a tip for you: you are making some pretty extravagant claims. That's fine, provided you can verify them, but the more extravagant they are, the better your verification has to be. In particular, someone doubting your claims has to be able to actually look them up for himself and find a specific passage in a specific source that verifies them. Vaguely citing "some ante-Nicene Fathers" just won't cut it -- Which author? In which passage? You mention Augustine, yes, but even there, you don't get specific enough that anyone who has his complete library can actually find the sentence that says what you claim. Also, Hislop is simply not a good resource. He is writing 1900 years after the fact, and himself doesn't cite sources in a strong enough way either. So citing him won't convince anyone. If your facts are as pervasive as you suggest, you should have no trouble finding them all over the place in ancient sources. Mlouns 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy it, you two are guarding some fanasty version of Semiramis that defames Mary. As for sitations they are many and you can do your own research like I had to, anyway I am convinced your questions are insincere. The burden of proof is on you, how was Mr. Hislop in error, at what points do you have solid historical evidence he was mistaken or misrepresenting history? You know lying is a sin, calling valuable contributions vandelism is wicked, as for vandelism would you think it right if I followed up on all of your contributions and undid them? If you two keep harasing me I will gather a team to set up fort at the Blessed Virgin link, and set every section straight, and press it until we come to the end of a fair resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.11.17 (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2007

Actually, you are the one posting extravagant claims in wikipedia, so according to standard wikipedia rules, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't like wikipedia's rules, you are free to operate your own website with whatever theories you like. Anyway, the Jesuits haven't been running the world since 1965. These days, all the trendy conspiracists know that it's Opus Dei. Mlouns 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "you can do your own research like I had to" -- That isn't how Wikipedia works. People need to be able to verify your sources, without doing their own extensive research. Re: "The burden of proof is on you" -- That isn't how Wikipedia works; see WP:VERIFY#Burden of evidence. Re: "how was Mr. Hislop in error, at what points do you have solid historical evidence he was mistaken or misrepresenting history?" -- Ralph Woodrow was Hislop's biggest supporter. His book Babylon Mystery Religion is the reason Hislop's ideas achieved some popularity in the 20th century. When he learned that Hislop's book was fiction, Woodrow decided to stop printing and selling his own book, even though it was his biggest source of profit. Read about it here. -- 70.171.14.133 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen here, I love people that GOD died for, even Catholics, I am close to several. YET because this perversity that divides, we should honestly examine this so we can find unity Psalm 133, I really think it is fair to put this up. Lets look hypothically that all of these men fabricated this information in some kind conspiracy they made up, to pick on catholics. Why would you have to defend this woman if she is god? Just like the Bible with Gideon, let Baal deal with me, and stop earsing my articals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.11.17 (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2007 Do you live near Tacoma? I'm in Gig Harbor, I'll meet you for coffee, and we can discuss it cordually, I'll bring some books, in the Spirit of peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.11.17 (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2007

Anon, actually it is you who are posting "some fanasty version of Semiramis that defames Mary", all this based on no of references. The burden of proof is on you to give specific refernce as to said this and where. So spare us your nonsense about "many (Ante-nicene fathers [which, where], Josephus [where, a book called Sacred Writings does not exist], Augustine in City of God [book? verse?])". And please learn how to spell. Str1977 (smile back) 08:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Anon: You speak of love and peace. When I love people, I show it by making sure I know the facts before I accuse them of defending perversity, or making wild allegations about them being in league with some Jesuit conspiracy, or telling them they are damned. If your allegations are based in truth, I expect you can find some real citations that pass wikipedia's standard: How about 3 specific passages in ante-Nicene Fathers that compare Mary with Semiramis? (Even one would be interesting!) If you can't find them, your love should lead to you apologizing for false witness. You also might want to read the above link to Woodrow, author of "Babylon Mystery Religion,". Mlouns 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Mary isn't the only one being defamed; now even the Statue of Liberty stands accused of complicity in the Great Babylonian Religious Conspiracy. I wonder if there is a preacher somewhere who just can't bear to see any woman being honored in any way, and teaches his flock to react accordingly, seeing Babylonian goddess worship everywhere. -- 70.171.36.101 23:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I moved the controversy section further down, so that the flow of actual information remains intact. However, that particular section is of a very questionable quality, as the controversy is not properly stated nor the facts properly given (that almah can very well encompass the meaning "virgin", that basing the concept of the "Blessed Virgin" solely on this quote is already contentious). IMHO, the "almah" issue is already well enough covered in Mary (mother of Jesus) and Virgin Birth. Str1977 (smile back) 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(The controversy section was moved back up, by the vandal.)
That section doesn't make any sense at all. If "the Virgin Mary arose from a single mistranslation" when a translator accidentally changed "young girl" to "virgin," then you could change the story into a normal birth story just by changing every occurrence of "virgin" to "young girl."
I don't see how such a one-word change could affect the meaning of "before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" or "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" or "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"
Obviously, the meaning of those sentences doesn't depend on the translation of a single word "young girl" or "virgin." -- 128.227.142.209 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I propose removing the controversy section alltogether. This issue is already covered elsewhere. Str1977 (smile back) 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977. The controversy section does not add anything to the article on the BVM. I have brought this up several times in Christian article discussions -- does it really need to be stated why atheists don't believe? Wikipedia is not a forum to disprove belief. Instead, it is a place to gather information that can be supported by legitimite and unbiased source material. The links to atheist websites refuting the BVM have no place here. Discussion about why atheists don't believe in the BVM belong in a section on atheism. Without objection, the section on 'Controversy' will be removed as some of its issues have been metnioned previously. Hecman111 16:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As to not remove entirely the section since some users believe this maintains NPOV, I will instead remove the discussion and links of "prominent atheists." It does not make sense to state that non-believers don't believe and then link to it. Hecman111 20:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She is called Our Lady

In the intro paragraph we mention she's called our lady and then translations into French and Tagalog are given. I feel that those are unnecessary. I'm deleting them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.21.96.49 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sources

"although most Reformers regarded Mary as ever virgin." Where is the source for this? Sounds like personal opinion to me. Removed until sourced... Anapologetos (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extraneous External Links Removed

I have removed the following links which are extraneous, not external links 'per se', or unrelated to the topic of the BVM, proper:

--Derek 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Cult of the Virgin" vs. "History of Devotion"

The term cult may be technically accurate, but not only does it have a negative connotation, but the alternative title that has been used here, "History of Devotion" is much more apparent in its meaning to English speakers. I think it's a better section header. Thoughts? MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

'Cult' may have negative connotations to a layman, but it really is the most precise term. It means much more than merely a devotion. You may wish to have a look at Cult (religious practice). The 'negative connotation' is generally foremost in the minds of those not familiar with the technical vocabulary of religion, and placing a link to Cult (religious practice) is, I feel, the best option. There is no way to avoid jargon in Encyclopaedic writing. If we have to restrict ourselves to the inadequate vocabulary of the average American, we might as well convert the rest of Wikipedia to the Simple English Wikipedia. Particularly since this page is solely about Roman Catholic devotion, there should be no hesitance in using terms which the Roman Catholic Church herself uses, duly explained of course. InfernoXV 01:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Worship of Mary has its origin in fertility goddess worship,vestal virgins etc etc.Should there be a paragraph on origins/inspirations ? Gerfinch 20:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to write material of that sort, you will need to have some pretty good references. There was someone a few months ago who tried to use material from Hislop, but this did not meet wikipedia reference standards. See the section entitled "Recent Semiramis stuff" below for a play-by-play. Mlouns 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't easy to provide specific references, and the subject is a sensitive one, but it is argued by some that the cult of the Blessed Virgin replaced various popular goddesses, such as Aphrodite, Isis and, not least, the Norse Frigga. If you see the Wikipedia entry on the third of these, you will see that she had a Queen of Heaven role. As I say, this is sensitive, but Christianity has adapted various pre-Christian themes, the most obvious of which is replacing Saturnalia by Christmas. Millbanks 09:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protestants

The Anglican standpoint is referred to in the main article, but readers might be interested in a book recently published by SPCK: "The Real Mary", by Scot McKnight. This seeks to redress Protestant neglect of Mary. 86.41.149.8 14:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (Millbanks)

I'm Millbanks, and I didn't write the above. What seems to have happened is that someone altered the script but kept my name. Having said that, I've no objection to what's been written, nor to the changes that have been made to the piece I wrote in the main article, which I took largely from a Church of Ireland article.Millbanks 09:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

--- I declare a Protestant background, which disqualifies me from editing but qualifies me to express the following concern.

I hope that the above statement is not, even by implication, attributed to me. Yes, I am a Protestant, but no, I am not disqualified from editing. My church recognises the unique position of the Blessed Virgin and honours her accordingly. Millbanks 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please review the NPOV of this article, which appears to be a Catholic text with added qualifications - cf unqualified phrases like "Later, the belief that Mary intercedes for us with her Divine Son...", as Protestants in general refute this, principally on the grounds that "No-one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6). Protestants, particularly on the evangelical wing, believe in a direct relationship with God, while in classical Roman creed the Church Heirarchy intervenes, extending into the Marian intervention described here, particularly in Confession.

Similarly, the Protestant views in this Article are subordinated to the Catholic doctrinal structure, and there is no reference to the discussion concerning the confusion between the Marys.

I might also have expected a mention of the Gospel of Mary, appropriately qualified by the general thinking that the text is from a much later date.

I accept that there is a qualification in the opening paragraph, but I feel a fair balance should give Catholic, Protestant and agnostic-atheist views as separate heads, not intermingled as they are.

Jel 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Please read the disclaimer at the VERY TOP of the article: "This article is about the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of Mary; for other views, see Mary (mother of Jesus)" MamaGeek (talk/

I've added Anglican. We are a church in the catholic tradition. Millbanks 22:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)contrib) 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most Common English Name

People call her the Virgin Mary, not the Blessed Virgin Mary. Shouldn't it just be Virgin Mary, as per the wikipedia naming policy? Titanium Dragon 03:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the purpose behind removing my edit. I also don't understand the strange little section on Protestant critiques of Catholic doctrine. Patiently awaiting explanation. Catholic monarchist 03:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "strange little section" refers to, but if you tell me precisely what you don't understand, I'll at least try to help. Please remember though that there is no such thing as "The Protestant Church". I speak as an Anglican (Church of Ireland). Millbanks 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my original change, if others agree that it was unconstructive I shall not restore it again. But I am still having difficulty understanding the appropriateness of the idolatry section. I've done some looking I don't see anything comparable anywhere else.Catholic monarchist 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparitions

As a Protestant (Church of Ireland) I'm aware of apparitions of the Blessed Virgin at Lourdes, Fatima and elsewhere. My question is, are apparitions confined to the Blessed Virgin? Are there pilgrimage visits for example, to where other saints appeared? And have there been formally recognised (by the Vatican, that is) apparitions of Lord Jesus himself (after the Ascension). Millbanks 09:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Church doesn't really "recognise" apparitions, no Catholic is bound to believe any apparition. There have been apparitions of Our Lord (quite a few of the Marian Apparitions involve Christ appearing as child/baby with the Virgin). I don't think there are any major pilgrimage sites associated with Apparitions of God the Son. There are some major devotions that trace back to these apparitions, ex: Devotion to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, St Gertrud's prayer (I think it was Gertie) for the Holy Souls, etc.Catholic monarchist 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks: helpful. The only point you don't answer is whether there have been apparitions of other saints, but since you make the valid point that your church doesn't really recognise apparitions, I suppose the answer could be that people might claim to have seen, say, St Paul, but this would not be "official". A cousin of mine in Australia, by no means conformist in her beliefs and not a Roman Catholic, claims to have seen an angel. Millbanks 08:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The possible Theophany at Knock involved the Virgin and several other New Testament saints (as well as a possible apparition of Christ as a lamb floating above an altar). There have been others I'm not certain who. I (unable to conceal the shocking scarlet Papism of my nature anymore) saw what I believe to have been the Resurrected Christ and St Paul in a vision at Walsingham (the Anglican Shrine, not the Catholic, oddly enough) last year.Catholic monarchist 23:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, after putting the above question to you, I looked at the Wikipedia entry for Apparitions, and specifically Marian apparitions, and it was very helpful. There's nothing shocking about "scarlet Papism", of course. I speak as a Church of Ireland member from the Republic and I'm happy to live in a town which is overwhelmingly RC. I suppose I could be called "Protestant Republican"! Millbanks 07:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] theological impossibility

Just wanted to note that I reverted the recent edit by Catholic Monarchist:

--this is a theological impossibility in Catholicism as women and men are not regarded as the parents of "natures," but rather of persons.

which I thought breaks up the flow of the paragraph and doesn't seem to add much beyond what is contained in the next sentence,

Catholics do not believe Mary is the source of Jesus' Divine nature, but the source of his human nature. Yet as a person he is truly God and truly man, thus making her His mother.The.helping.people.tick 04:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused article structure

It seems to me that the article's structure is both confused and confusing. I mean, in particular, sections 4–6:

 4 Four Marian dogmas
 4.1 The Mother of God
 4.2 The Perpetual Virginity
 4.3 The Immaculate Conception
 4.4 The Assumption of Mary
 
 5 Other Held Beliefs
 5.1 Co-Redemptrix
 5.2 Queen of Heaven
 5.3 Mediatrix of all Graces and Advocate for the People of God
 
 6 See also
 6.1 Perpetual virginity
 6.2 Immaculate Conception
 6.3 Assumption
 6.4 Co-Redemptrix

Later, there's the usual "See also" section with links to other wiki articles. I'm sure the material in section 6 ought to be merged into 4 and 5, but don't have time to do that myself just now…. Casper Gutman (talk • contributions) 10:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Co-Redemptrix?

Hmm, is there a valid reason for two separate sections on the Co-Redemptrix doctrine? Aren't they kind of redundant? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Icone marie mere misericord-4.jpg

Image:Icone marie mere misericord-4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ark of the New Covenant

Ark of the Covenant contains a section about Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Personally, I think the section makes more sense as part of this article and perhaps ought to be moved here. Thoughts anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It certainly should not be removed wholesale from there, and seems more appropriate there in fact - it is not about "Mary as the Ark", but the Ark as a type of Mary, which is rather different. Johnbod (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not the way I read it. Sentences like "so the new Ark of the Covenant (Our Lady) is superior to the old." sound like Mary as the Ark to me, but perhaps I don't understand the theology.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Try the linked article above (type). Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of making my comments more complete, I'll mention that there is a brief mention of this in this article at Blessed_Virgin_Mary#The_Immaculate_Conception. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added the link there too, though I'm not sure the argument is much relied on today. Johnbod (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Virgin"

I don't see how Mary can be called a "Virgin". Firstly, how did she give birth? You have to have sexual intercourse before you can conceive, unless IVF treatment was used, which, is possible, but the odds are stacked against such an advanced treatment being borught into the world at this time. So I wouldn't mind knowing how she is still a "virgin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocky9 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Mary found it difficult to understand at the time ("How can this be ...?"), but God seems to occasionally use highly improbable events (miracles), and that wasn't the only one. I'm sure He was aware of the invention of IVF 2000 years later, but I don't think He used that technique. To Someone who created our highly improbable universe, such a simple "miracle" must have been very easy. In another 200 years, we will possibly understand how an egg cell can spontaneously begin to divide, however unlikely this is to happen "by chance" without fertilization. User:dbfirs 08:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Easy, you don't mix science and religion together. You'd just get confused.

Image:smiley.svg

By the way, how do you adjust the size of the picture? Punkymonkey987 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dogmas & Doctrines

I am slightly confused about the difference between dogmas and doctrines. Are there four or five dogmas of the Virgin Mary? The article states four, then gives five. Is "Mother of the Church" a dogma or a doctrine? Perhaps an expert can clarify the article. dbfirs 08:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you turn your colours off at the end please. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I turned their colors off John, it was just a simple deletion. History2007 (talk) 06:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Thxs. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you like colours? I thought mine were very subdued compared with those of many Wikipedians! User:dbfirs 16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
They alter the color of the regular text as well, and some editors have difficulty seeing the text clearly if all the comments are in random colors. Personally, that's one of the reasons (the other being, well, laziness), that I've never done anything with my sig. And they don't necessarily add to the discussion. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
They turn all entries below orange or blue, because you have installed them incompetently. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(after two edit conflicts where I was correcting the error) Oops! I see what the problem is, but I don't see why it is happening. Sorry to mess things up! I'll turn off my own colours until I find out what the problem is! Sorry! dbfirs
  • Thanks for clarifying the article. Dbfirs (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Widening the scope

I'm extremely dubious about these recent attempts to broaden the scope of this article to include Anglicans/Anglo-catholics and the Othodox. For example the present first sentence "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ..." is certainly not true as far as the Orthodox are concerned. Again, to say that "The Assumption of Mary -- meaning that, at the end of her earthly life, Mary was taken directly into Heaven -- is held infallibly by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches." is pretty misleading, especially with no link to Dormition of the Theotokos. Nor am I sure what "infallibly" means in an Orthodox context.

The article is equally misleading as to "Anglican", or at least average Anglican, beliefs at various points - again in the first sentence for example. There is a pretty full article on the Theotokos which covers the Orthodox view. The old versions, with an Anglican section which could be expanded, were much more satisfactory. Johnbod (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered a disambiguation page for Mary that would say something like: For the Orthodox view see Theotokos, for the Roman Catholic view see Blessed Virgin Mary, for the general view see Mary (mother of Jesus)? I am not sure how to place the Anglican views, but I am sure someone who is more familiar with them can find a suitable format for those as well. Then there are 4 branches thereoff: Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and general. That may also avoid a lot of debate and re-edits that would take place within those pages. If someone wants to add a page called "comparative views" that discusses the differences that would be interesting reading then as well. I do not know enough about all 4 views to be able to do that page right. Yet, that page may be a good way of clarifying the differences if several people work on it. History2007 (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Mary is already a disam page, although there this page is claimed to be the Orthodox view, Theotokos is not mentioned, and nor are the Anglicans, but Islamic view of Virgin Mary is. I think broad comparative views belong at M,m of J, this article should be, as always intended, the RC view, but of course covering differences with EO & Anglicans. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I think Johnbod (talk · contribs) has nailed the problem and the proper WP:NPOV is RC with appropriate comparisons to some Orthodox and Anglican views. This article should not be a portmanteau of similar beliefs. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that the term BVM is pretty much a Catholic term, and that Theotokos is probably the best place to put content regarding the Eastern Orthodox tradition. I'm not personally entirely sure where to place material relevant to the Anglican and Oriental Orthodox traditions though, and as far as I know she is prominent in both traditions, including a recent apparition in Cairo to a Copt. Any suggestions? John Carter (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought earlier versions of this article handled it ok, with "Anglo-Catholics" rather than "Anglicans" in the lead, and various other mentions of Anglican views, as well as the separate section. Separate articles could be written on both Anglican and OO views, I suppose, otherwise there is Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Anglican_recognition_of_the_Blessed_Virgin_Mary and OO views are included in the "Eastern Christian" section above that - a separate section might be added. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Having just checked my bookshelves, I can report that the official liturgies of the Anglican provinces of Scotland, Wales, Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand, as well as the Church of England, all agree in using the term "Blessed Virgin Mary". It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that this is particularly an Anglo-Catholic thing, and I must dispute the assertion that the NPOV approach is to treat it as basically an RC term which is occasionally used by others. Having said that, there is a problem in lumping together into one article some very disparate theologies of the Mother of Christ (indeed, when changing the reference in the lead from "Anglo-Catholics" to "Anglicans", I felt obliged to move one of the sentences of the lead into a more specific section, as it was no longer true as a general statement.) The idea that there is a single "understanding of Mary" common to all three traditions is too simplistic by half, no matter how many overlaps there may be. Vilĉjo (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; hence having different articles is better. Also we know that "Blessed Virgin Mary" are not words that trip easily off the tongue of many Anglicans. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
What "we know" in that regard is dependent on individual experience (I don't think that anyone with more than a very limited and partisan knowledge of Anglicanism would think that the term "B.V.M." was at all outré), and thus - as WP:OR - should not influence our decisions. What we do know (and, as I have indicated, can be readily demonstrated from the source materials) is that "B.V.M." is for all liturgical and other official purposes (e.g. Canon law) the accepted standard term throughout Anglicanism. This article's first sentence (which you criticised as "misleading" as to Anglican belief) is in fact, and demonstrably, entirely accurate. If there is to continue to be a "Blessed Virgin Mary" article at all, there should be no suggestion that it is specifically Anglo-Catholic rather than mainstream Anglican (though of course certain specific beliefs or devotional practices may in the Anglican context be restricted to the Catholic wing), or that it is essentially an RC term.
Though not necessarily opposed to the idea of separate articles, I would be concerned if the result were a loss of perspective on how much the various traditions hold in common. A beefed-up, "compare and contrast" article on Mariology might be the way to go. At the moment I get the feeling that there are too many articles in this subject area already, each written basically from one perspective, with no proper overview of how they all relate. Vilĉjo (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
But that just doesn't work - I now notice that the "and Anglicans" bit was only added to the lead last September, and though some differences between RC and Anglican views are noticed, most are not. See the sections on The Immaculate Conception and The Perpetual Virginity, which both mention "Protestant" views, but do not refer at all to Anglicanism. Nor do many (most) other sections, for example the lengthy "Marian shrines". By someone just adding "and Anglicans" at the top of the article, and apparently making hardly any other changes, a wholly misleading impression is given to the reader new to the subject. Nor is it feasible, or worth it, to go through every section attempting the necessary fine distinctions between Anglicans, some Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics and so on. The section here dealing specifically with "The Blessed Virgin Mary in Anglicanism" is fine and could be expanded considerably, and more could be added to the Anglican references at M, m of J, and no doubt elsewhere. I hesitate to suggest another article, although a historical survey of the nuances of Anglican attitudes here would actually be a very interesting topic. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Merge or Not?

Why on earth not merge this with Mary? Everything important here is already there or should be. Alternatively, we should have a page Mariology which Mary can link to, and then put the doctrinal stuff from Mary and here on the Mariology page. Likewise, the Theotokos page should be unified. Four pages about one subject under different names--and each name generally accepted by all!--is needlessly confusing. Tb (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First point: Mariology in itself is a pretty much Catholic subject which deserves a separate page. As it happens, another editor and myself have already mapped out a strategy for expanding it and will be elaborating its history, origin, etc. during May 2008. Our main concern was not to make that page too long after we have worked on it. And it will be too much to have all the material here mixed with Mariology which is a topic unto itself. Mariology is indeed "a field of study", which is very strong among Roman Catholic theologians.
Second point: I had for long thought that whoever separated the two pages Blessed Virgin Mary and Mary made a very clever political move that avoided a large series of debates and re-edits and reverts among Roman Catholics and others. Do you remember all your frustration Tb about someone who used to re-edit things on the page Good Friday forever? I think any suggestion of the merger of these pages will invite much debate that will achieve very little as people with Roman Catholic and other views argue over minor issues. There is a fundamental reason for separating these pages: that precious quality called peace. So please let us aim for peace and let them live peacefully side by side. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; the section above is highly pertinent to this. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. No merge. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Splitting articles is not an acceptible way to deal with the difficulty of reaching agreement. It's a POV fork it seems to me. Tb (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to preserve a POV fork if you only matain sepatae pages out of to avoid edits you do not like. That is not how Wikipedia works. --Carlaude (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that is where it sometimes fails to work. If you look at Pope John Paul II's page over a period of time, you will see that it has to be locked something like 70% of the time because of unending re-edits and fights. It is not a question of the edits one "likes" or not, but people get emotional on these issues and they have very different viewpoints. If you create a war zone, the result will be conflict. A suitable title page may may then be: "Cathloic viewpoint on the Virgin Mary" to which Blessed Virgin Mary directs and a page "Orthodox viewpoint on the Virgin Mary" etc. And there is certainly a need for those pages anyway. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There are already whole series of articles relating to several other individuals in wikipedia. This one person is probably counted among the three or four most important people within most of the various branches of Christianity. And they probably have even more disparate opinions regarding her than they do about Jesus himself. As such, in a sense, she is for our purposes not a 2000 year old girl from Israel, but a mythic figure about whom 2000 years worth of tradition, commentary, and speculation has accumulated, with much of that material branching radically from the rest. Trying to keep it all in a single article would probably do an injustice to the material, because there is a lot of divergent material here, and also make the article itself, as indicated, a battleground. I can't see any reason why we should both restrict the amount of information we present to only one article length and at the same time ensure that there be a neverending battle about what content is included in that one article. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. New articles linking to "Mary (mother of Jesus)" and each other, etc with names like "Roman Catholic view of Mary," "Eastern Orthodox view of Mary" etc.

By the way I think these are better names. "Virgin" as a title is not really encyclopedic style.

Maybe, but at least for the Roman Catholics, it is probably the best title as per WP:NAME, because it is the way she is most frequently referred to by members of that church. John Carter (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously other common names must be redirects. But splitting, one article per Christian group, is a silly approach, and confusing. Consider the tremendous overlap and duplication such a split would have. Tb (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If it were done well, very little overlap or duplication. Also, no one suggested one article per Christian group. What is being discussed here is a few separate articles to represent the different major traditions of Christianity. I doubt very seriously we would ever get to the point of having a Mary according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, because there honestly isn't that much material there. However, the Eastern Orthodox and Western churches, and to an extent the Oriental Orthodox churches, have all developed widely divergent opinions on several matters over time. My guess is that there would be one central article relating to Mary in Christianity, with an opening section containing the most essential data on each of the major disparate traditions and a few summary sections to the other articles, and then have the content in those articles include not only the theological opinions of that body, but also the other accoutrements if any that church has given Mary over the years, which also vary dramatically from church to church. There is a question regarding Anglicanism as a separate entity because of the unique nature of the Anglican Communion, which is such that there really isn't a single unified opinion on her there. Whether that would necessarily be an entirely separate article, however, is another question entirely, and it could easily be included as a section of some other article about the differences of opinion within that body. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
To take up the point above, it is not a POV fork because it does not deal with the same subject. Mary (mother of Jesus) is the biographical article, and summarizes attitudes to Mary among various religious groups, Christian and otherwise. The Catholic view of Mary, as it has developed in the 2,000 years since her lifetime, is easily distinct enough to deserve the several articles (in fact whole categories) that it has. The Islamic view of Virgin Mary is equally distinct, and the Baptist view of Mary would be an interesting read if anyone got round to writing it - I can assure you it would have little "overlap" with this one. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe my worry is not clear. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholics agree, for example, about perpetual virginity; and many more agree about the title "Theotokos". Will those matters be in the main article, or the separate articles, or both? If in the main article, then the separate articles fail in their purpose of documenting their topic; if in both, then we have needless duplication, and the text will diverge, and we have produce the POV fork again. By contrast, I envision one article like the current Mary, and another on Mariology, which can easily discuss the principal dogmas and doctrines of all the various groups. This is harder work, but it produces something which is much more encyclopedic. It is not the Wikipedia Way to fork the articles so that each theological group can have their own turf free from interference, especially when they are about exactly the same subject. We have Christology which does a good job, and I see no reason Mariology can't do the same good job. The Catholic view of Mary is not all that different from the Orthodox view of Mary. If you can guarantee no substantial overlap (for example, each doctrine is discussed in one and only one article, no matter how many groups assert it) then I have no objection. Please begin by explaining which article will discuss the sinlessness of Mary and the title Theotokos. Tb (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary is hardly the only point regarding her to either the EOs and RCs, however. There are numerous icons of varying importance in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, many/most of which have comparatively little attention in the western tradition, and there are numerous apparitions and titles given to Mary in the western church which are somewhat unique to them. In short, while on those two points you mentioned most of the churches are basically agreed, those two points are hardly all that she is noted for in those churches. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec again) Mary (mother of Jesus) is the main article, which more or less summarizes everything. Theotokos has its own article, and you will find there a much clearer account of the many differences between Catholic and Orthodox views than here. Each main tradition is sufficiently distinct to deserve its own full article; even where the core doctrines are the same their development has often been rather different in emphasis in practice, as comparison between the articles will show. All the doctrines in fact have their own main articles. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both Johnbod and JohnCarter. As they on Wall Street: "mergers always look good at the beginning"... then reality sets in (do any of you remember the big smiles and handshakes when AOL merged with Time Warner? Look at them now, the merger was later internally named disaster on line). This page merger does not even look good at the beginning, so no need to start it.
Second Point. And as a user who also likes to learn things, let me point out that all of this still has not helped me understand the differences in the 4 or 5 main schools of thought, given that I do not know the Orthodox views, etc. Since there is so much discussion, I think I should start a page called "comparative views of Mary" and type a few paragraphs there. They will be mostly stub-like, but it may get that page started. If you are an expert on that topic Tb (or others who know the differences), would you agree to expand that page so we have a good comparative view to start with? There is so much energy going into this talk page, why not use it to create something useful. That would help me learn something new anyway - which should be the ultimate goal of Wikipedia. And it will probably be useful to other users as well. History2007 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I looked at the page on Christology and I must say that although it looks comprehensive, personally I can not agree that it does a good job for me as a user. It is one of those pages with so much text and so many items that the general reader may feel overwhelmed (like a variant of the Stendhal syndrome) and will just click away. I sometimes wonder if there is a "Vatican archives syndrome" (like the Jerusalem syndrome) of people walking into a really large library in Rome and getting overwhelmed. I think the approach of piling up all info onto one page guarantees that a few experts will like it, but the average user will be overwhelmed. History2007 (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, brrr, that is certainly a theological article, which this is not. Actually the proliferation of articles on Christ is way, way worse than on Mary - Christian views of Jesus is a title I enjoy, then there is New Testament view on Jesus' life, Religious perspectives on Jesus, Jesus, Christ and plenty of others. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is not a theological article then what kind of article is it?

If this article is about the RC and EO view then why is it not given a name like "Cathlic and Othodox view of Mary." The current name is invites and desribes a content fork. Renaming this article "Cathlic and Othodox view of Mary" (instead of leaving it or calling it "RC view of Mary") would also aid in the editing it to make the article better (it would focus editors on the need to contrast and desribe EO views).

Protestants do not have detailed veiws on Mary. Rather than an article, even for all Protestants together, they need only need a summery of such view in "Mary (Mother of Jesus)". --Carlaude (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the renaming (whatever the new name may be) approach (and rationale) suggested by Carlaude makes sense to me and will also avoid the re-edit wars that were discussed above. And Blessed Virgin Mary (which is the Roman Catholic term) may get redirected there either via a disambiguation page, or otherwise. I think Carlaude is right that a typical Protestant reader does not usually wish to read through a lot of Roman Catholic dogmas (and if they do, they can look at the RC page). This point is similar to the fact that I was not interested in reading all the text on the page Christology which would have been of interest to others. I think this route may be approaching a possible solution. History2007 (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Most links, searches, and redirects go to Mary (mother of Jesus) and the hat notes here and there make the function of the articles clear. These articles have been largely stable, so talk of edit warring is not really appropriate. "Protestants do not have detailed veiws on Mary." seems an odd statement to me, when I'm sure there are shelf-fulls of books on the subject. In any case I'm not sure why that is relevant here? To answer his point, this is not a theological article, but an overall one covering the place of Mary in Catholic religion; is it in a theology category? No. The POV/content fork issue I have dealt with above. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where you seem to have "dealt with" the "POV/content fork issue," you fail to indicate what this article should be named in your plan so, etc., at best, you can only be said to have dealt with half of it.--Carlaude (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against any merge of this article with the Mary (mother of Jesus). The extended points of view regarding the virgin are expressing Roman Catholics as well as eastern and oriental orthodox and eastern catholics with some minor differences. nonetheless blessed virgin mary (in Greek kecharitomene Parthenos Maria ) expresses views of more than 1.5 billion people who follow with a more or less strictly manner this doctrine. So I m strongly against any such merge. Melathron (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move, Please clarify content but do not merge

Sorry for intruding, but it seems to me, that while there is indeed some overlap in the questioned articles, there are very distinctive differences, which would get lost or hidden in a merger.

Mariology is a mainly Catholic ecclesiogical movement within theology, which centers on the relation of Mary and the Church, in which, for example, she is seen as the original image of the Church, or, as Vatican II states, "mother of the Church".[1]. Mariology is an ongoing, and includes dogmas, traditions, confirmed and hypothetical theological positions on Mary, contemporary as well as historical.

Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church refers to confirmed theological results of Mariology: the many teachings and doctrines regarding her life and role.

Blessed Virgin Mary deals in summary form with the "practical results" of mariology: the cult of the Virgin Mary (Origins, accusations of idolatry, controversy), Marian prayers (Holy Rosary, reparations to the Blessed Virgin, other prayers), Marian apparitions Marian titles, Marian Feast days, Marian shrines. Blessed Virgin Mary should ideally not include theological doctrines and teachings (such as Co-Redemptrix Perpetual virginity Immaculate Conception Assumption) as they belong to doctrines and mariology.

Mary is a very useful non-denominational overview which includes Ancient sources, Mary in the Qur'and denominational views of Mary (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican etc)

To merge is to loose content. The overlap, where it exists, can be reduced. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this summary, although I think the theology should have the short summaries that it does here. While I think the long-term distribution of subjects between articles (before the points re Anglican and Eastern Orthodox raised above) makes sense, there are many weaknesses in this article, which in sections 3 & 7 manages to overlap itself considerably. These two sets should certainly be merged internally. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I think the summary presented is very logical and yet again provides another rational for not merging. Can we now begin to agree that this discussion is about to conclude that there should be no merger? History2007 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why a merge/split/move would mean loss of content-- unless it is just loss of some POV.
You cannot just say that each article has a use.
1. Each article has to have a purpose that other articles cannot fulfill sufficiently.
2. That purpose has to be reflected in the name of the article-- or the article will not fulfill that purpose well if at all.
Nor do I understand what is meant by the "theological results" of Mariology-- but I will make my standard comment.
The name Blessed Virgin Mary incidates a POV fork and if the article's use is to describe the "X of Mary" then it should be named the "X of Mary."--Carlaude (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm much more open to a rename than a merge, but first we need to confirm the proper scope of the article - see above. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) You are entitled to your opinion. However, the consensus seems to go against that opinion. If you wish to seek additional input on the subject, you are free to do so, presumably through an RfC. However, I personally do not see how such a break would necessarily constitute a content fork, as the proposal is not to deliberately create these articles to avoid neutral point of view, aas per WP:FORK. The material in question would still be presented in a neutral point of view in each instance. It would simply allow more room for the presentation of that information, all of which I believe very clearly qualifies under both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABILITY. Also I note that you made a statement above which I believe is also at least somewhat clearly misleaading yourself, when you said that "Protestants" do not have detailed views on Mary, as I know the Lutherans, who are Protestants, do. As such, I am forced to at least question whether you are yourself approaching this matter from a completely neutral perspective. And you may be interested in the book "La Madonna in Lutero", which is explicitly about Protestant interpretations of the BVM, specifically Martin Luther's views, and the roughly 2 million ghits which "Protestant views of the Virgin Mary" gets here[1]. Based on the above, I personally think that there is probably sufficient material out there for a separate article on Protestant views of Mary, particularly including Luther's views of the subject. John Carter (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems to confirm that very little is held by Lutherans as a group on Mary. --Carlaude (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a link only for the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church, which is a comparatively small part of the entire Lutheran church. It is also the most "conservative" of the Lutheran churches. You might want to check Category:Lutheran denominations for a slightly more accurate idea as to what can be considered the "Lutheran Church". John Carter (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion, but do not see any consensus against a rename-- just against a move. Unless I lost count, only person lately has said they are against a rename, you.
I am happy to assume good faith-- that no one here now intents to have a POV Fork-- even thou I see no consensus in talk on the "real" purpose of the article, and even the article name is simply another name for the same person named in the "main" article-- but I see no reason to assume that other editors in the future will not use Blessed Virgin Mary as a place to present there own point of view in an article that will be read mostly by other with the same point of view on a lot of the issues covered.
Note Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV and I quote:
Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.
--Carlaude (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Each article has to have a purpose that other articles cannot fulfill sufficiently. I agree completely and started clarifying accordingly. Yes, there are some duplications in the intros and texts, but once they are easily cleaned up, it will be clear, that each article has a purpose that other articles cannot fulfill sufficiently.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a merge would be a good idea... the existing articles give a good coverage, without excessive duplication; A merge would either lose content or result in overly long articles or both.
Nor is the proposed move Blessed Virgin Mary -> Roman Catholic view of Mary a good idea IMO. The existing title is the common name for this person in this context. It's not a big deal, either name works, but the existing name works better in terms of Wikipedia:naming conventions. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please Talk about a Move

I see a lot of people trying to "vote" that they do not like the merge (despite efforts to discuss a move) and no one able to give a reason that will stand in the face wikipedia policy. n.b. Despite polls below, Wikipedia is Not a Democracy!

I am will to let go the the idea of a merge IF we focus on a move instead -- and others let go the the idea of a (attacking) merge also.

If you do not like the idea of a move tell me about the policy:

"Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view."

in your view. Is Mary so special it does not apply to her or are we all just too lazy to follow policy.

If are willing to move, tell us what name do you like.--Carlaude (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

--Carlaude (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one different policy which is directly relevant, WP:NAME, which states, and I quote, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." It has clearly been demonstrated by the discussion above that "Blessed Virgin Mary" is the way that the subject is best known within the churches whose views of the subject are included in this article. In fact, I would think that a title such as "Roman Catholic views of Mary, mother of God" would be criticized for not clearly including Old Catholic and similar traditions, "Western Christian views of Mary, mother of God" would be criticized by several Eastern Catholics, and we haven't even remotely addressed the subjects of the Anglicans, Lutherans, and some other churches which hold similar views. As has been established above, in almost all those cases, the name "Blessed Virgin Mary" is probably the single best known, most easily recognized way to meet the requirements of the naming policy cited above. If you can think of any other titles which meet the same criteria as well, please propose them. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep your hair on, Carlaude. Two tags have been placed on this article, one to merge, and one to split - oh now I see you placed them both! You can't blame people for discussing these. A survey is the correct way to go about doing so - see WP:MOVE etc. In view of the discussions above as to whether the article does or does not cover the Anglican (or Anglo-Catholic) and Orthodox view of Mary as its main subject, it seems a little premature to discuss a rename. I am personally less attached to BVM as a title than JC, but we need to confirm the scope. The Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholicism might work. Personally I think the "POV fork" issue has been answered - it isn't one. Johnbod (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I could live with a title change myself, and the one you suggested is workable, although there is some controversy about the exact meaning of Catholicism, as per that page, but once it's decided what the exact content of the article is, changing the title wouldn't necessarily be a problem. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic view of Mary" or "Catholic and Orthodox view of Mary" are the best options to me.

"Catholic views of Mary" is to be avoided because would include Old Catholics and their split from Rome was before or because of the RCC dogmas on Mary. Needless to say their views on Mary are very different than the RCC view.

[edit] Name of Mary

Let us be clear here-- the rename has two separate issues.

  1. What to name the page -- aside from Mary-- to distinguish it from other Mary pages, discussed much above.
  2. What to call Mary herself in the article name-- I propose to be discussed below.

The WP:NAME quote and discussion above fails on two points:

1: The RC's I have talked with have never called her "BVM" to me. They tyicaly call her "Mary." In writen text (by RC's) I also rarely see "BVM" but see the both "Mary" and "Virgin Mary" a lot. (Also note the article should be for non-Roman Catholics to read as well (as Roman Catholics. The first principle of WP:NAME "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.")
2:Other WP policies make the nameing issues more clear than the WP:NAME quote above.
From Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)
Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general.
For example, the page about jazz should simply be called "Jazz", not "Jazz music", because "jazz" refers in almost any context to a genre of music, and the simpler title makes linking easier. Adding the word "music" is redundant.
So "Mary" for an article name is ambiguous but "Roman Catholic view of Mary" is not.
From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes
The inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles has proved controversial on Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Clerical_names
Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick. (See also List of saints.) Make redirects from forms with "St.", "St", and "Saint". Popes who are also saints are given their papal name, with a redirect from the forms with "Saint". For example, Pope Pius X, with redirects from Pope Saint Pius X and other forms.
So will we only recognise what "Roman Catholic view of the Virgin Mary" is about, or will we also recognise what "Roman Catholic view of Mary" is about?

Carlaude forgot to sign here. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think Theotokos is the main Orthodox article (not that much of the Orthodox-related content needs to go). For what it is worth this one is only tagged by the Catholic project, the Orthodox project has tagged the other. I think this article should cover Catholic views, but not limited to Roman Catholic ones, which strictly excludes Eastern Catholics, Anglo-Catholics and Old Catholics. The Old Catholics' differences are I think few enough to be noted easily. Hence my suggested title above. The name most often actually used by Catholics is surely the equivalent of Our Lady in most languages, but BVM is I suppose technically correct. Personally I would happily drop the "Blessed" at least. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Belated count on merge

Since there is now a lot of discussion above, running across three sections, I have summarized those who have expressed a clear preference above for or against a merge (regardless of which merge). I hope no one is misrepresented, or omitted. Please carry on adding your name if you join the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not clear as to whether Carlaude suggested a merge, then was happy with a rename, etc. Could you please clarify that? So maybe we need three categories. Please clarify. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Support merge

  1. Tb
  2. Carlaude - but would a support a rename instead

[edit] Oppose merge

  1. History2007
  2. Wassupwestcoast
  3. John Carter
  4. Johnbod
  5. Ambrosius007
  6. Andrewa
  7. User:Melathron
  8. Dgf32
  9. User:PeterSymonds
  • updated by Dgf32 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the situation

I think the situation can be summarized as follows:

1. The idea of a merge is in an advanced stage of sinking and has very little hope left for it under most conceivable scenarios, unless Pope Benedict XVI suddenly takes time out of his current visit to the US to issue a decree for a merge - I would say an unlikely scenario.
2. The idea of some type of rename/move or a navbar of some form is still somewhat afloat. But the support for it is unclear.

Therefore, given that the length of this discussion is reaching unusual limits, and is getting very circular and repetitive, I suggest that we "face reality", abandon the idea of a merge and focus on a vote for a move or rename or something of the type to see what everyone thinks of that. Is that a realistic and fair suggestion? History2007 (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Still I cannot see any reason whatsoever for a move or rename. The different views are already expressed. One through the more general entry Mary(mother of Jesus) and the doctrinal one through Blessed Virgin Mary. The dogma about the virgin is not simply views. It is part of the belief system of 1.5 billion people on earth and it deserves to have a separate and distict entry as extended as the current one and as clear as the current one under the title Blessed Virgin Mary. As I said the more general view is there under Mary(mother of Jesus) so there is no need for anything further. I believe that we need to do nothing further and leave things as is otherwise there is the danger to offend a great portion of this 1.5 billion christians who accept that doctrine. And I do not think it is politically correct to do so. Melathron (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree and Amen History2007 (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Help me understand. We both agree it is suitable to have an article about the Roman Cathlic belief system on Mary, but you argue that if we actually follow Wikipedia policy to actually call it "Roman Cathlic belief system on Mary," or the like, people will start picketing Wikipedia? Are they going to be even more offended when they find out there is no "Jesus Christ" article but only an article on the "Christian views of Jesus"? --Carlaude (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, I have typed on this talk page 10 times more than I usually type. So I will leave Melathron to respond. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
As explained above, Christian views of Jesus, Jesus and Christ are all different articles! Johnbod (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Invited here by Carlaude, whom I have not had the pleasure of interacting with previously, and no doubt my involvement in the Eastern Orthodoxy wikiproject prompted him to contact me. After having read the discussion above and the pages in question, I have to agree that this page should be renamed to either Catholic views on Mary or Catholic and Orthodox views on Mary. This article should then be linked back to Mary (mother of Jesus) just as Islamic view on Mary does (Note: I think "view" should be pluralized in all such articles, since there are variations within in each of the major religious traditions as well, and renaming the main article to Mary of Nazareth is also something we should consider).
Reasons? The title here is misleading to readers and editors alike. Prior to being aware of the existence of the Mary (mother of Jesus) article, I was linking to this article when wanting to wikilink Mary's name, unaware that it only covered the views of a fraction of Mary worshippers in the world. The main Mary article should be where the different views of Mary are given brief treatment in summary sections that link to spin out articles that delve into the details of the various forms of worship, without giving one view more prominence than the others. There may be a need for a separate article on Eastern Orthodox views of Mary since it seems to be getting only meagre coverage in this article, which tends to feature Catholic views much more predominantly. This, however, can be determined later as work on this article continues. The main thing is that this article needs a rename and any material not specific to Catholic worship would be better covered in the Mary (mother of Jesus) article and should be merged there.
That's my two cents, and I'm hoping we can reach some kind of consensus here on how to move forward. Tiamuttalk 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Most of what you describe is already the situation; as repeatedly mentioned above Mary (mother of Jesus) is much easier to find than this article, and Theotokos, supported by the Orthodoxy project, presents the Orthodox view. There are other available titles than "view" ones, which suggest a theological emphasis that the article (see above and below) is in the process of moving away from. Johnbod (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary already describes with the most clear way the doctrinal views of Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and Anglicans with some slight deviations. Theotokos is one of the most essential parts of all the forementioned denominations produced by the ecumenical synods to clarify the Divinity of the Saviour since the time of His conception and not from the moment of His birth, thus condemning Nestoriasm. Although the article bears substantial references for the Roman Catholics, and probably a bit less for the orthodox and anglicans nonetheless the views described are almost identical and the concept of the Blessed Virgin covers the views of those denominations. Blessed Virgin Mary already bears solely the dogmatic views and not the rest which are expressed nonetheless under mary(mother of Jesus). The description is accurate and everything else could be extremely non pc and very offensive for a good portion of the 1.5 bilion people who accept such doctrine as I have already said. In the same manner wikipedia very prudenly, and pc holds different entries about jesus of nazareth, Christ etc, to adress with respect all views. So I cannot see any reason for such non pc change. Melathron (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The current arguments on both sides can only be described by three words: repetitive', repetitive and repetitive. I think everyone's views on both sides on a rename are now clear, well written, well argued and well understood. But there is no agreement. Time for a vote. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a new perspective is helpful in discussions like this. I've read the debate here, and I'm familiar with the articles in question. Each article serves a unique purpose. While it might be ideal to have one article that is a biography of "Mary" and another article that is on Mariology, there's no way to confine the necessary information into those two articles. In reading over all the proposals suggested here, I can say with certainty that attempting a merger would end in disaster. While I recognize the principle behind the merger, it's not practical. It will result in loss of content, endless arguements, and hundreds of manhours wasted that could be spent on more useful editing. A solid consensus has developed against merger. The best idea here was already stated by Ambrosius007: "To merge is to loose content. The overlap, where it exists, can be reduced." Dgf32 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I would like to agree with History2007 above and get this over with, I/we have still failed to get any one on the "do not rename" side to give even a poorly reasoned view of the Wikipedia policies that apply-- hence my repeating them above. Hence I disagree that their views are now "clear, well written, well argued and well understood." Maybe they think they have dealt with, understood, and/or argued the policies but I really do not see it.--Carlaude (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If someone else has any other non-repetitive explanations, please provide them. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes on rename/move/split

Support rename/move/split


Oppose rename/move/split

1. Melathron (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2. History2007 (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


I added split to the vote topic to avoid a 3rd round of voting. Our challenge: get this issue decided during the year 2008! History2007 (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now, several articles are in process of being rewritten, in part, to answer the issues raised here. Following Wikipedia policy, each of the articles has its own disctinctive purpose and orientation, as I pointed out earlier. To speed things up a bit, Carlaude and everybody else here is most cordially invited to participate in the writings. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, any poll is totally uncalled for since there is no justification given to leave the name as it is. We need to either skip to the discussion of what to rename the article or first find someone who will deal with the clear and definitive Wikipedia policy. I really do not want to be accused of name-calling but it seems like I am talking to a butch of people who think this is a democracy and just do not want to admit it in so many words.
Just for the record, I will be glad to make this article about Mary, from all points of view of course, if the rename does not happen. --Carlaude (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me translate what you just said: "either we agree to a rename based on your idea, or you will use your seemingly unlimited energy to modify the article as you see fit for a long time in a similar unending cycle once you have failed to rename it." Nice, nice. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite your characterization I am-- in so doing-- seeking to follow Wikipedia POV and naming policy. --Carlaude (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I seem to have not been "clear... well understood" let me restate very succinctly.
I am happy to assume good faith-- that no one here now intents to have a POV Fork-- even if the article name is simply another name for the same person named in the "main" article-- but I see no reason to assume that other editors in the future will not use Blessed Virgin Mary as a place to present there own points of view in an article that will be read mostly by others with the same points of view on a lot of the issues covered.
Note: Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whos subject is a POV and I quote: Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. --Carlaude (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Blessed virgin mary is used by a great portion of christians not only roman catholics to describe the role of the Virgin within the church. The article straight away and clearly clarifies what this title is about and quotes all other cross references straight away again. It gives a thorough view on the doctrinal aspects around Virgin Mary with the most proper pc title which is completely aligned with the policy of wikipedia.

a. Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view... : indeed this is a different article presenting the roman catholic, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox and anglican points of view ( ie 1.5 billion people religion views)

b. as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is : indeed the article straight away clarifies with the title blessed virgin mary that it refers to the specifical points of view as it is further stated in the first two lines of the article : "The Blessed Virgin Mary, sometimes shortened to The Blessed Virgin or The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title specifically used by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics, and some others to describe Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ"

c. the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally : indeed again. There is not even one point in the article stating something like : Those are the true views about the virgin and the rest are untrue. The article with a very neutral way analyses the dogmatic aproach under the dogmatic title blessed virgin mary with great respect for everyone.

d. each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view.: indeed again. On the very first line there are the relevant links to all realted pages.

As such I concider the title to be fully compatible with wiki policy and there is no need for any change. Further the title is also extremely politically correct and everything else would be extremely offensive for a good portion of the 1.5 billion people who accept the dogma. So I oppose any change and I stand to my position to vote against such non politically correct change which will be no longer neutral and aligned with wiki policy but rather offensive.Melathron (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally being the first to discuss the crux of the issue.
In response to "as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is" you in "b" above state that "the article straight away clarifies..." this is where you have missed the whole point of avoiding a content fork in the policy.
You cannot just clarify what its subject is in the article itself -- you must clearly indicate in the article title! --Carlaude (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it does as it refers to the blessed Virgin Mary and not plainly Mary. So this title, which is equally politically correct exrpesses the dogmatic view whilst other views are expreesed to the according articles. As I repeatly have said this title suffice and anothing more would be extremely non pc. In the same manner there is the entry for theotokos to register the issue that condemned nestorianism and defined the role of the virgin in the major trinitarian denominations. I believe the title is completely aligned with wiki policy whilst the other proposals are extremely non pc and offensive. As such i see no reason for such issue, and everything should remain as is.Melathron (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(You seem to have forgotten to sign in and so your and contributions are anonymous this afternoon.)
So that is what you are going with? To sum up your view then:
"Blessed Virgin Mary" clearly indicates the subject is "<fill in here> views of the Virgin Mary" and is thus not a content fork, but is shorter and thus preferable?

Now we have something we can vote on if you want.

[edit] Votes on Rename/ POV Content Fork for Subject that is a POV

Rename Needed / "Blessed Virgin Mary" does not clearly indicate its POV content

1. Carlaude (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Tiamuttalk 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Rename / "Blessed Virgin Mary" clearly indicates its POV subject

1. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Oppose rename and split, but don't agree with some of the fork reasoning above.

2. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Melathron (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Wesley (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I think "Blessed Virgin Mary" fits the WP general policy of "use the most common form of the name in English." While it might not be the most common name in English, it probably is at least one of the most common ways she is referred to in common Roman Catholic usage, which is clearly the main thrust of the article. The title is succinct and communicates this much more directly and clearly than any of the proposals I've seen on this page.

Well despite the clear Wikipedia-- some voters are not even understanding the issue-- we have no consensus so I will hope that the article name/subject can be fixed in some future time. But see POV toptic see below.--Carlaude (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches

So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics?

It says, "Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches is a review of the role of Mary in Orthodox, Roman-Catholic, Anglican and Protestant Churches."--Carlaude (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a new article from Ambrosius, using some material previously here. It largely duplicates the scope of Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Christian_views_of_Mary and I'm not sure they should not be merged. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is right. I think Ambrosius was starting a few ideas and they should have the under construction sign (since they are not stubs) until he has had time to finish them. The idea there was a comparative view, I think, but I think he needs time to organize these. I do not know enough about the comparative views to be able to add to that page, so I will just wait and see. History2007 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a duplicate of Mary (mother_of_Jesus)#Christian_views_of_Mary.
It should be developed within Mary (mother_of_Jesus) (per Wikipedia policy) until it is large enough to warentt its own article.--Carlaude (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It clearly is easily large enough to be an article already! Now that it is started, but probably not finished, and this discussion of it has just started, it is highly unhelpful to do pre-emptive renames without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is was highly unhelpful to do pre-emptive article creation with the worst name he could think of-- without discussion.
BTW-- I do not see much that is new, certainly nothing but one sentence in the Protestant section-- so I consider it rather debatable that it is large enough to be an article already. Of course if it has a name that will draw non-catholics I hope that can be improved. --Carlaude (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your text Stored version Line 680: Line 680: 3. Melathron (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC) 3. Melathron (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

- õ==Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches== + ==Blessed Virgin Mary and Christian Churches==

So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics? So how does this page-- that I just discovered-- fit into all the other Mary topics? Line 692: Line 692:

It should be developed within Mary (mother_of_Jesus) (per Wikipedia policy) until it is large enough to warentt its own article.--Carlaude (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)  :It should be developed within Mary (mother_of_Jesus) (per Wikipedia policy) until it is large enough to warentt its own article.--Carlaude (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It clearly is easily large enough to be an article already! Now that it is started, but probably not finished, and this discussion of it has just started, it is highly unhelpful to do pre-emptive renames without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)  ::It clearly is easily large enough to be an article already! Now that it is started, but probably not finished, and this discussion of it has just started, it is highly unhelpful to do pre-emptive renames without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We can find fault with him all we want, maybe with some good cause, but that doesn't mean that the existing content is all that is going to be there. I think it probably makes sense to maybe tag it is in development, if that's what you want, but let's see what happens with it before we decide to delete, remerge, or whatever. If in a week or so there's no evidence of any additional changes, then it might make sense to delete or whatever. But I don't think that we have much to lose by waiting a few days and seeing what happens. John Carter (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What is all this messy stuff above, JC? is it needed? Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mary navbox

What I think we really need to help resovle this matter is a navigation template, similar to Template:Jesus, which can be placed on the articles relevant to the subject. Anyone feel up to giving it a try? John Carter (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you have a nav box already but it is too big and bloated to be very useful. A nav box need not link to every possible article.--Carlaude (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I rather agree - a navbox never solved anything in my view. At least it is at the bottom. It does need tidying. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The navbox on the bottom definitely needs some sort of compression option. However, providing links to the various relevant articles in each "topic" regarding the subject more effectively, and, well, maybe a bit more immediately?, would make it a lot easier for people to be able to more quickly reach content related to the specific subject they're looking for. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image sizes

Now that the discussion on the merger seems to have concluded, let me point out that the image sizes on this page vary a lot, look almost random, get iin the way of the text and the "look and feel" of image sizes needs to be more uniform. I can try to change all the sizes, but as the resident art expert JohnBod should probably make comments first, and will probably do a better job. Please make comments. Thank you History2007 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Over to you, Johnbod. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have desized all per Mos, added several captions & 1 pic. When the article is settled down I can take another look. What do people think of the latest large-scale rearrangement by Ambrosius007? Johnbod (talk)

Please resize it or take it out, if you feel like. I "Stole" it from the battle of Lepanto.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? I meant to the text. Johnbod (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rearrangement by Ambrosius 007

My thoughts are: one of the duplicate sets of dogma sections has gone I think (oddly, the shorter). I don't know if it is intended to keep the current sequence permanently; if so I am strongly against. We go almost immediately into a very long section on "Accusations of idolatery" which should be much lower down. I think sections on doctrines/dogmas should be here, and fairly early on in the article, but at perhaps half the current length. The listy bits, Titles, shrines and now music, could perhaps be floated off - some are already lists. The article badly needs someone to spend a good amount of time on it - it has always been bitty and uneven. That won't be me, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Ambrosius007 is very knowledgable about the topic, and he was just getting started, as he said. I will wait for him to respond to you directly. But as a start, I did like most of the changes he made, but I also think the idolatery section is lost in the middle of other items and should be moved. And there is need for moving various other items out and pointing to them via mains, obviously. An example is Immaculate Conception that has a separate page anyway, as does perpetual viginity. Overall, I think the article is still way too long and hard to go through. But then, this is the very nature of group development: material goes in, and by definition it will lose cohesion as it gets added. Once in a while it needs to be given uniformity. The case of the many images added by various people over time was the same. Now they look much better once you gave them uniformity - thank you for that. The one exception may be the simple image of rosary beads that is on many Wikipages, and it seems only marginally relevant to this article. I liked the fact that he added Marian music, and once I have time, I will start a full page on that topic and point to it, for it is a topic unto itself, but I had not thought about doing a page for it until now. History2007 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi I agree with both of you. I moved the dogmatic section for the time being in the back (its needs to be in front but much shorter) in order to show that the veneration of the Virgin Mary is really the emphasis here and not dogma or mariology. It's a bit bumpy now, like a contruction site, and, yes, History 2007, by adding too much text the cohesion may get lost. We can overcome this problem by spinning off lists or mains, and add them. You may have noticed that I began to add sections to mariology (baroque, enlightenment) which are to document its historical development. I will add later 19th and 20th century mariology. I also began to add to the view of the saints in the dogma article. This way, I hope, in the end, the three articles wiill be better differentiated. Please help and delete and disagree because only together we will succeed. Gracie! --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine, I wasn't clear there was more to come. Johnbod (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank's for your help. I added and rearranged a lot. I created a new main, which needs more work tomorrow. I would like to expand the Protestant section with nuanced contributions by pro-Marian modern theologicans. Very interesting -:))

"Blessed Virgin" I would like to stop now, to give you a chance to go over it and make corrections. Maybe I shortened too much? All the text is in the foodnotes and can be ressurected.

"Mariology" I added some more categories to indicate a proposed direction. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I won't have time for even a careful read of them. One point - where there is a separate article on a doctrine, I think that should be the given the "main" hat-note. Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church (which should also use hat-notes) is a bit of a half-way house. Johnbod (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Johnbod, I agree, I added them and a bit more dogmatic substance to the various parts of Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church . --Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Topics

I do not understand this iscussion here but spent the past few days clarifying the existing texts, but in the process, found considerable material to develop new mains, which, gradually will be introduced here in the coming days and weeks. hope this helps.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Marian symbols Marian flowers Marian Church Music Latin Marian Church music Patristical Mariology Medieval Mariology Mariology of the Baroque Mariology during the enlightenment Mariology of Ambrose of Milan Mariology of Augustine Mariology of the Popes Controversies in modern mariology Marian processions Marian pilgrimages Marian Feast Day recipees

Good luck! There is considerable material on the iconography - see the categories - but no single article pulling it together. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Per Name: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Would you consider using the phrase "of Mary" rather than "Marian", etc. --Carlaude (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The user view

Can we please think of user needs in all these discussions? As a user what I would like to see is a clean and clear presentation of the comparative beliefs of various groups on various Marian topics. The facts are that:

1. I do not know the differences in the various views
2 I can not get an easy and clean answer anywhere on Wikepedia.

What I would like as a user is a table with columns {A, B, C, ...etc.} that are dogmas, doctrines, beliefs, etc., and columns {X, Y, Z, etc.} that are denominations, groups, etc. Each table entry would be a yes/no that tells me who believes what.

I think if the page on Christian Views of Mary is allowed to get the structure that would invite content many people will add to it and fill in the table and then comment on the entries. I performed that experiment once about a month ago, and JohnCarter probably remembers that. The page on set theory needed help and I did not have the time to write math for ever, so I added some structure, and posted a few comments on various other pages and suddenly people came out of nowhere and added to that page. Now it is a pretty nice page. Can we do the same thing for the Christian Views on Mary so people will come out and add to it? The problem: I knew how to do the structure for set theory, but here, I do not even know how to make the table or get the group names right. But do you guys think this strategy will work? If so, we can get a nice page out and then refer to it as a main everywhere. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be too complex for that. The Anglican view/s are not easily capable of being so represented for a start, and the Catholic doctrines have evolved over time, to a greateer extent than some like to admit. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The problem, unfortunately, is the width of different perceptions of Mary, and the fact that many of the current ones developed from others, which wouldn't be really easy to see in a table. I understand the frustration, but don't think it's likely to be the right solution. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So how can a simple minded mathematician like me figure his way out of this maze? Is the topic just too complex for the public at large to grasp with ease? Is there a brief tutorial that can be provided in a table, with the current views? How about doing the simple ones that can go into a table, and saying that the others are hard to explain. But really why are they hard to explain? I am not even sure I understand the problem. E.g. group X either accept item "A" as true, or not. At least with the Jewish scholars, we know what the yaccept and reject. Why is it hard between the Christians to even define the problems? That should probably be explained anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said you were simple minded. But part of the problem is the way you're phrasing it doesn't lend itself to the subject. For instance, group X believes in variation 3 of idea z might be the better way to describe most of the views of the subject. And that isn't even addressing all the groups which have to some degree or another changed their minds over time. I acknowledge that the article itself could use some work, but the subject of Mary is no simpler than the subject of Jesus, probably even a bit harder, because she was initially less important. Creating such a list could probably be done, to a degree, but many people looking at it would doubtless say "wtf!?" on seeing it. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

So would it be right to say that each idea branched out into a tree-like set of ideas that branched out again and the branches progressed through versions. Now there are a large number of "belief groups" that attach approval signs to various parts of each branch of and rejection signs to other points on the tree. Hence a table structure is too simple to represent a tree that has many branches and continues to grow. Then can we draw a simple tree to represent the "main points" anyway? It is like looking at a large tree from a distance where the detail is hidden but you can see the main issues. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have now looked more at these issues on the web and I think that both of you guys are completely correct. It was "realy naive" of me to have expected a simple representation of these issues in a table, or even an easy to absorb tree format. I did not expect the different groups to agree, but to have consistently represented views. Now I realize it was jut naive of me. All I can now say is: "my sympathies to whoever will try to write that page" for it will be a difficult situation. It is clear that even within the different subgroups, there is debate. Techncally, the real reason one can not do a simple knowledge representation on these issues seems to be that the underlying belief revision system has not met any of the usual requirements for belief update, e.g. the AGM postulates for belief change, perhaps because no one wants to totally negate the past. Hence the situation will not in any simple form lend itself to an agreement. Many sentences will get typed on that page, but agreement will be far away. There will be a page, but not a great page, due to the inherent belief update histories over time. So I will just let that subject rest. History2007 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views of Catholic Mariology‎, a clarification

Several days, I created a new page Christian views of Mary, as a review of the role of Mary in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant Churches. Unfortunately, I did not spend much time since on this article, and that may have created some confusion as to its intent and content.

The article was an attempt to reduce controversy within existing Catholic articles, which were overloaded. The various Chistian views were to be differentiated from Catholic ones. Catholic views were not to be the subject. The article was to show Orthodox, Protestant and Anglican views as they critique Catholic doctrine.

To clarify this intention, I changed title to Christian views of Catholic Mariology‎, and took out explanations of Catholic theology, (unless necessary as object of debate or critique,). The focus is exclusively on non-Catholic views, and on Christian, critiques of Catholic mariology. I did not change the many valuable additions or texts form Carlaude and others, unless they were in the few Catholic texts, which I deleted for clarity sake. I regrouped the text in historical order with the following structure.

  • Christian views of Catholic Mariology‎
  • Contents
  • 1 Eastern Orthodoxy
  • 1.1 Views and Commonalities with the Catholic Church
  • 1.2 Major differences with Catholic Mariology
  • 2 Protestant views
  • 2.1 Early Protestants
  • 2.2 Karl Barth
  • 2.3 Contemporary Protestant views
  • 3 Anglicanism


I am not married to this title, text or to this stucture. Maybe someone here has a brighter idea, please go ahead! But I consider it helpful for a differentiation, as there is no overlap with any other topic anymore. I apologize for not making these changes earlier.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that more clearly differentiates it from the sections at M, m of J & could be a very useful article. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This "clarification" is a poor idea to begin with and seems to stem from a a view that the world revolves around the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC did not invent Mary and there is no reason to write such Wikipedia article in terms of the RCC church. The main problem-- well one problem is that so much "ink" is spent defending the RCC view. The article should just explain everyones veiw and not argue for or against them (as best we can). Save the defending view for other pages-- like pages about that partiular church-- or in the case of the RCC-- one of the Catholic Mariology pages. --Carlaude (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW-- please move further disscution to that articles' talk page. --Carlaude (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

As I stated above we have no consensus on the rename so I drop it-- but the current article is totally POV.

Wikipedia articles have to be NPOV. --Carlaude (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You'llhave to be a LOT more specific about WHAT in the article you consider to Be POV, in what way it is POV in your opinion, and what changes you are suggesting. At the moment your comment is not helpful. Xandar (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but since I am not into reading long debates on protocol, will someone briefly explain here how these POV flags get added or removed? Is there an arbitration porcess of administrators, etc.? If so, please pop the topic up to them to mediate, etc. I am almost getting ready to pray to the Blessed Virgin to come back to earth to mediate this -- it has been going on for a while. So if you have suggestions, please provide them. Thanks History2007 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is dominated by a Roman Catholic POV. This clear throughout and no I am not going to find all the examples of POV for you... I do not have time.
The POV flag gets removed after all the POV text is made NPOV or removed.--Carlaude (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
What I do not understand is the "decision making process" in Wikepedia as to the Litmus test for what is POV. Who decides it? Opinion of UserA vs opinion of UserB? Clearly A and B could argue forever as they are doing now. Hence a higher decision making authority is called for. History2007 (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not up to other people to find what you consider to be POV, carlude. If you do not make SPECIFIC mentions of the exact points and sentences you consider to be POV, why this is so, and what should replace them, the tag will be removed. Xandar (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has made any specific referrals to any alleged POV text in the article, despite repeated requests for them to do so, it must be concluded that the POV tag was misplaced. I think Carlude is probably confusing an article about a POV, with a POV article Xandar (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

I think the comment that the introduction is too short is valid. I am not sure what to summarize there, however. If you guys have any ideas please suggest, and eithe rI can write based on that, or if you feel like doing it please do.

And I really think the lists of Shrines and titles are far too long compared to the key ideas in the article. And there are pages such as Shrines to the Virgin Mary and Titles of Mary that duplicate the information. Overall, if you look at the sections on Assumption, Apparitions, etc. They all have a uniform format now, where a few sentences give teh basic idea, then a link to a main. I think Shrines and Titles should do the same. I think we should keep the top 7 titles here and refer to the other page. And keep the top 7-9 shrines and refer to the other page. I will do that in a few days unless someone objects. History2007 (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree-- I think Shrines, Titles, etc. should do the same-- at most.
Please add a notice to editors (in comments) not to add them back in one at a time.--Carlaude (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I just made a separate page for "feast days" that were too long. I will do shrines and titles in a few days. Then it will have better proportion. As is, there are 7 lines on dogma sections and 37 lines on shrines, so that needs to get balanced. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

I have now used mains for the very long sections such as feasts and titles, so the article has better proportion. Except (and there is almost always an except) for the references that are in disarray, since some of them have been used as comments. I am not sure if someone still wants to use those, if so, please clean them up and move them to the main body of the text, else I will clean them up in a day or two. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

The tag at the top of the article say that the neutrality of the article has been disputed since April.

Have these issues been addressed and if so can the tag be removed. --WikiCats (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Addressed? A good question. Discussed? Yes, at great length, as above. Personally, I think the tag should go, but please see the POV section just above and the comments there. Thanks History2007 (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Carlaude needs to start by saying what sections of the article are not NPOV so they can be rewritten in neutral prose. If he "does not have time" to say what he thinks the problems are then the tag has to be removed. --WikiCats (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is indeed a logical statement. But who said logic has any place in a religious discussion? Yet, let us hereby make a motion to remove the tag. All in favor, please sign yes. History2007 (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should give Carlaude a day to point out each part he feels is POV. If he doesn't do that, then we can remove the tag. --WikiCats (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

To be utterly reasonable, let us give him 3 days. Is that a deal? History2007 (talk)

That's fine with me. I've just been looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protestant views of Mary. I can't work this guy out! --WikiCats (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I had not seen that deletion request, but looked at it based on your link and made a suggestion to keep it, thanks for pointing it out. And yes, this world is full of mysteries indeed. Anyway, our friend Xandar settled this issue by removing the tag, and I support that move. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I support removal of the neutrality tag. --WikiCats (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it POV

Thanks for giving my a couple days- I was not on WP all weekend.

The short answer is that in has a RCC slant most everywhere. I know you what more than that but let me ask you a question (History2007 -again).

I may 7th I was editing the intro and was undone by History2007 with no comment exepet that I was "butchering " the article. I asked History2007to tell me "to tell me how I'm butchering it" -- (that may have been whan my sig tag was broken but) I had no reply anywhere.

Assuming you cannot recall not I will try and make some of those edits again. If you do not like 'em-- tell me why.--Carlaude (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I did try to be reasonable, and did give you a few days to provide an explanation. Yet, all we obtained was further attempts at butchering the page. I had to revert your changes again, for the following reasons.
1. Like many other people who have commented on your edits (e.g. WikiCats above) and those other people who commented on your deletion request for the Protestant views of Mary page, I can not follow the constructive logic of what you are doing.
2. People (e.g. Xandar) have repeatedly asked you to state the reasons fo your POV claims, yet you say you have no time. Yet you seem to have time to contribute to one page, then ask for its deletion, and baffle people. Everyone seems baffled by your reasoning and they are at a loss for words.
3. Your chages are detrimental to the page. Period. After a long discussion here, JohnBod who is the art expert arranged and coordinated all the images on this page. And we thanked him for his effort. In a few minutes you undid all his efforts! Your actions were detrimental and unconstructive. Period.
4. In order to maintain the page length in a reasonable way, I shortened the lists of shrines, feasts etc. and refered to a "main page" in each case. But all the entries I deleted from this page had corresponding entries in the main page, e..g. the main feasts. Using a similar strategy you started to delete lists of Marian art topic, and Marian music without a main page. This was very upsetting because you were deleting entries that were not elsewhere and your comments tried to justify it based on the agreement to keep the list sizes short. This was unacceptable because you were systematically butchering the page by removing relevant entries without a main page. Period. And your justification was faulty logic at best and less than upfront under other interpretations.
5. When you had attempted to win a vote on a merge and a rename and were about to fail, you did threaten to cause havoc on the page if you lost that vote. You did lose that vote. Now are we facing the consequences for winning the vote against you?
I will just have to maintain the quality of this page until you respond to the comments and questions of Xander, WikiCats, Ambrosius007 and myself on this page and other pages to explain the logic of your actions. Why do you not improve the Protestant views page instead of butchering JohnBod's contributions and systematically deleting paragraphs and entries?
Your havoc causing efforts can not be accepted. Period. History2007 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
0. No. I tried to be reasonable, and I asked for an explanation, see above-- but never recived one. If you asked for one also you will have to point out where & on what page.
1. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here that you are talking about article content... since you should be. This page is for discussion of improving the article. It does not hold water to say can not follow the "constructive logic" of what you are doing. If I am not adding content in Latin, you should say what is the matter with it.
2. Their are many small bit on content what give the article a RCC slant. It is both ineffent and not the WP process to just list them. The normal process is to edit, and then disscusstion the two or more options the edit create if you object.
3-b. First of all, as much as I appreshate art, art content is secondary, at best to the text content of the article.
Second, If I recall the art was reworked when the article are under debate for a merge/rename. Hence he cannot help but expect it could be superseeded. Did you want me to add in this text back when the title of the artical itself was under debate.
3-a. Okay "detrimental" Why? Just because of the effects on art? If so then see above but if not you need to dialog and explain, per WP:BRD.
4. Yes I did that on May 7th-- then who shared your point (thanks)-- I did not repeat this. I condered it resonaable but not worth an argument. Do not undo all my edits just because you disliked some of my past edits.
5. I am adding and editing page content fit the page subject and WP policy-- if you think that is causing "havoc" than so be it. If you want to revert you need to discuss.
5-b. While I think I have been through, if you think I missed any important questions feel free to point that out in a kind way.
Of course- as for the Protestant views page-- that is not a suitable topic for discussion here, but I would probably answer if asked elsewhere.
Let me also give you some advice as you reply-- focus on the content-- article content, not the editor.--Carlaude (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing to focus on in this case is policy, which seems to go against any individual determining that a consensus of editors is something he can ignore. Such conduct is a violation of policy. It can and often has led to the parties involved being sanctioned in some way. I urge anyone involved in such behavior to cease it immediately, lest they potentially face the consequences of possibly violating policy. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have requested mediation on this issue from other administrators. I think we need a higher authority to resolve this matter. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


Hi Carlaude. As an opposing view we appreciate your input to improve the article. We are are here to work with you. That said, you need to work here within the guidelines.

You have just had a warning from an an admin. The guidelines say "Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians."

As John has said you face the consequences of possibly violating policy. --WikiCats (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude, if you're alleging a slant - especially by placing tags on the article inviting discussion, the "normal process" is to actually discuss these specific matters on the talk page, so that valid objections can be quickly identified and resolved. You can't just put a tag on an article and leave it there as long as you like while refusing to present any specific objections. Xandar (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact many of those discussions are recorded further up on this page. Many issues were discussed back and forth several times when votes were taken. The discussion became cyclic. The general consensus was that there was no major problem, hence the votes were in favor of no merge or rename. Please see the discussions above. History2007 (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The "vote" on the rename, had no consensus either way, and this seems to be an aspect of John Carter's only partial understanding of the situation.--Carlaude (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact 9 to 2 generally does in fact qualify as consensus, unless specific reasons are given to oppose an outcome, and I don't see any specific reasons delineated in this case. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
While I know it was a long discussion, if you read a bit more carefully you will see that the 9:2 vote was only on a merge-- an issue that someone else suggested-- is not really at issue here-- and that people used as a straw figure even back then after it was dropped a possibility.
The vote here on a rename would be the relativant issue, if any of them are, and it had no consensus. --Carlaude (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Xandar-- thanks for discussing.
I referred WP:BRD a 3-step process to make and resolve content issues. In it, we are at the point were I want to discuss issues folks have with my content but folks are not really doing this. If you know of something more official or more specific to this situation than WP:BRD then I am all ears. --Carlaude (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday, I thought that the cicular discussion of the topics recorded above had started to lend itself to automation. Today, I still think that is the case in that it had become so cyclic that one could write a bot to respond to each paragraph, via partial text matching, the way ask.com works. For each paragraph, one can match the key words, find a suitable response from the past responses on this talk page by finding the closest match and insert that text as a response. That way, we will all save effort typing the same sentences on this talk page and can focus on doing something positive like adding real content to other articles in peace without circular aguments. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

History2007, you have to discuss your reverts -- You are not even giving a reason in your edit summary. You cannot just claim that other people are discussing it and you cannot just revert anyone's edit you do not like. --Carlaude (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make this an issue between you and me. I requested comments from administrators, on their notice board. So far here are the comments, and these are their words, not mine. Please discuss with those administrators. Here are their comments on the edits that I reverted:
  • SANTA MARIA! That page history is a mess. Honestly. Not sure what to do with that, but it appears as though Carlaude's edits are against consensus, and he is trying everything he can to dodge that consensus... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Holy crap! (pun fully intended) That page, as edited by Carlaude fails NPOV by a long shot. Instead of discussing the dogmas, he edits the page to be a litany about the holiness of the subject. He's clearly interested in continuing to push his religiously motivated version of the page against consensus, and should be blocked and/or topic banned for it. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
These comments are not recent and not directed to me-- I have commented on those that are for me.--Carlaude (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think my revert of your edits should remain. This matter is in the hands of administrators, therefore, please discuss it with them, not me. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not where an administrator comes in and fixes one person-- they mediate between people. Than means it is already between you and I (at least) and that for a mediation to take place-- you have to take part!
Yes, we know that you your revert should remain-- and you have a right to an opinion-- but not to just have things your way you want it-- nor to just have things your way because you "asked for mediation." --Carlaude (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's mediation you want, file a Wikipedia:Request for mediation. However, contacting admins is not a way to get "mediation" per se. That's a way to try to determine if any policies or guidelines are being broken, and, maybe, in some cases, get mediation. But mediation per se is generally left to the MedCom. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1--Requesting mediation does not give you any "right to revert" nor to avoid discussion.
2--You did not request mediation-- as confermed by John. But feel free to go ahead and do so.
3-- While true that you have "expressed" objection is a certain sense, all I see is you stating that you do object.
You have to say why to say why you object to all those edits, not just that you do object.
While I am sure I did not miss a detailed list objections to all those edits/that content, if you posted any at all before, feel free to post them/quote them again. Otherwise please discuss.--Carlaude (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(A quote)

  • Remark. The issues to be mediated are not very clear, and a proportion of them appear to be issues over editor conduct, rather than over article content. My advice to the filing party, is to restructure the issues to be mediated, such that they are focussed on article content issues; that is, content of an article over which a disagreement is taking place (e.g., whether the content should be included or not; whether the content belongs in the lead; et cetera). The parties are reminded that formal mediation is only used to resolve encyclopedia content disputes, rather than disputes over editorial conduct. Please review the guide to filing a case and the Mediation policy for further information. Anthøny 18:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also -- the creation of Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) makes any position you have on this article all the more unclear. Do you mind explaining anything that I or Mediation Chair ask about?--Carlaude (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of Article

I'm not sure that a list of Marian Catholic dogmas is the right thing to go at the top, or too near the top of what is listed as an ecumenical article. I think the list should be lower down and perhaps in the specifically Catholic section of the article. More general information needs to be featured first, then maybe Catholic specific, Orthodox specific, and protestant. Xandar (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with ordering the article in that way. --WikiCats (talk) 04:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think Xandar's idea makes a lot of sense. But please do set aside time to do it yourself in a uniform way. During that time, I suggest that we all stop doing piecewise edits so you have a chance to do it undisturbed. Good text needs the focus of one author, so if you agree to do it in a focused way that will be great. Then we can gradually comment on it. My suggestion would be to treat the existing paragraphs as "modules" or building blocks and instead of rewriting them, just move them into a more logical grouping. One point I would make is that sections such as Marian art, music, titles and feasts should stand on their own since they do not depend on dogmas and are already separated by Eastern vs Roman anyway. However, a good introduction upfront on how the article is organised will help. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, This article is a very ambitious one. It includes Marian teachings and beliefs and dogmas, forms of veneration and cults AND it wants to be ecumenical, covering all major and minor religious groups.

When I came to this page, the dogma section was much bigger and included controversies between denominations. I separated that part and put it under an new article Contrasting views of Mary, which, while including some excellent material on the orthodox, never really took off, because it was composed of reject material from this one.

Since that time the articles on the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church Mariology (Roman Catholic) and History of Roman Catholic Mariology, while not finished or perfect, have been improved and a Protestant views of Mary has been started. An Anglican Marian theology exists as well, and I am working on an Orthodox one. This being the case, I see two options for the Blessed Virgin Mary:

  • To make her a Roman Catholic article dealing with various forms of veneration and cults, or,
  • to create an non-denominational article, which somebody would have to write, as a kind of encyclopedic warehouse.

My suspicion is, that even in that case, Catholic info would dominate all other sources of information , simply, because there is so much out there. That of course, creates the well-known tensions among contributors.

A clean solution would be to have separate denominational articles on the cult or veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and, once they are completed, build on an ecumenical summary. Starting with the summary without the factual basis for some Christian denominations, will be difficult if not impossible, as this and other articles teach us.--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the encyclopedic warehouse option you mentioned will be too complicated and users will get lost in the large warehouse. I favor the simpler apporach of having the different views clearly expressed and linked, with an overview. And given the many new articles that you have started, there needs to be a better grand design to these all. Could you please provide a simple A, B, C set of steps for this option. It will be appreciated. Another consideration will be: "what organisation will produce the minimal amount of re-edits and debates 6 months down the road?" So how can we achieve design for stability just as manufacturers aim for design for quality. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The portal that ends debate

Ambrosius007 had a key idea about the organization of all the Roman Catholic Mariological articles he has done (and to which I have contributed). There are several articles now, looking for a Roman Catholic Marian umbrella. The only way those Roman Catholic articles can be managed in a grand design is via a new Roman Catholic Mariology Portal. Based on the fact that we do not need permission to set up such pages, and given that he is an expert in the field and that I can spell once in a while, we have started doing so. Therefore, I will not be contributing to this page any longer and will remove the Roman Catholic header from it. Whoever wants to, please feel free to make this page about Anglican, Orthodox items or whatever you like. A new page Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is in place and the duplicate material in this page needs to be removed by consensus of you people. But I will not be part of that debate since I have better things to do. This whole debate was so frustrating I started to write articles on mathematical logic, just to feel better. Actually, I cleaned up a few math items that were in need of real help! So some good came from it any way. Now, this page is in the hands of whoever wants to do whatever. And that should end all the useless debate. Good luck to everyone here. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would have serious reservations about such a portal. I'm assuming we're talking about a wikipedia portal like Portal:Christianity here. I do think that limiting it solely to RC material would be a bad idea. This isn't to say that a portal on Mary, the mother of Jesus and related content wouldn't be a possibly useful idea. So would a Portal:Jesus, for example. But limiting it exclusively to RC views of Mary will probably create trouble. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know better John and have more experience in these things. So what is a good way to organize the 7 or 8 articles on Mariology? What is an umbrella mechanism? I really do not want to edit this page any more, and the Roman Catholic Marian pages are there (and of good quality) any way. Please suggest another umbrella, apart from a portal. Thanks History2007 (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's always the possibility of a navbox template, which might work best. A portal is supposed to have at least 30 Start class or better articles though. Alternately, a broader portal on Mary, with a dedicated section for RC articles, might work as well. Certainly, there are more than enough articles for a Portal:Mary, mother of Jesus. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

A portal makes sense, if here is enough "meat" to put in. This is presently not the case, but could very well be in the future. I created the category Roman Catholic Mariology, which is pretty useful in the meantime. It includes articles about RCM, authors, articles which mention RCM in a major way. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ecumenical aspects

The old intro promised an ecumenical perspective:

  • This article is about Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic and Protestant understandings of Mary and her veneration; for other views, see Mary (mother of Jesus) and Islamic view of Virgin Mary. For the religious order BVM, see Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Unfortunaltely, this claim was not represented in the article, which included virtually no information about the Orthodox, Anglo-catholic Churches and only unrelialbe generalities on protestantism. There was much and very detailed information from the Catholic corner, leading to frictions and questions of balance. The old structure was a Catholic structure, while the intro sounded ecumenical. This was mainly due to the fact, that very few if any non-Catholics contributed.

To make this an ecumencial article, I reduced much of the Catholic info, which I had authored earlier. I created a neutral framwork, -- which can be changed and improved --to answer the critics who wanted balanced representations of different denominations. And I reformulated the purpose as follows:

This article is about Christian views and venerations of the Virgin Mary, including Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox Anglo-Catholic, Anglican and Protestant understandings of Mary and her veneration. For specific views, see Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Mary (mother of Jesus), Anglican Marian theology, Protestant views of Mary and Islamic view of Virgin Mary. For the religious order BVM, see Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I hope this helps. Wikipedia policy requires equal representation. This new structure is open to anybody's point of view. It will take some time, but this could become one of the best religion article, provided we find some contributors from different perspectives. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete Article?

Glad that Ambrosius007 and History2007 have done what was proposed "long" ago.

I do not what to have a debate on this given-- the fairly recent debate, but---

[edit] Keep

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH BIASNESS FROM A PERSON AGAINST AN ENTIRE CONSENSUS. I SEE CARLAUDE CONTINUOUSLY TWISTING THE SUBJECT FROM EVERY POSSIBLE ANGLE ONLY TO ACHIEVE HIS INITIAL GOAL: THE DELETION OF THE ARTICLE. I DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PERSON S RELIGIOUS PERCEPTIONS BUT ALL INDICATES AN EXTREME BIASNESS AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLIC EASTERN ORTHODOX ANGLICAN ETC DENOMINATIONS THAT INCLUDE MORE THAT 1.5 BIO CHRISTIANS. ALL DIFFERENT ARTICLES ABOUT VIRGIN MARY EXIST TO COVER HARMONEOUSLY AND NEUTRALY ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS WITH MUTUAL RESPECT. UNFORTUNATELY FOR SOME REASONS THAT ARE NOT CLEAR CARLAUDE SEEMS UNABLE TO ACCEPT NEUTRAL PERSPECTIVES THAT ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH HIS PERSONAL VIEWS ABOUT THE VIRGIN. NONETHELESS AS WE HAVE TO VOTE AGIAN FOR THE SAME SUBJEST UNDER A DIFFERENT TITLE ONCE MORE I VOTE TO KEEP IT ( I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WILL BE THE ISSUE RAISED NEXT. PROBABLY TO VOTE TO USE EXTREMELY SMALL LETTERS SO NOBODY ELSE CAN READ THE ARTICLE.)Melathron (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Delete

[edit] Article Purpose

Why do people have to make things so complicated? Why make HUGE changes without consultation?

  • First of all Calaude, we DON'T need another vote/debate on deletion. I know you seem to love these, and seem keen to disrupt this article as much as possible, but we've just had a long debate/vote on merger-deletion, and we don't need another one a week or so later.
  • Secondly the BVM article is, as agreed above, a GOOD concept. Its intention is to discuss the devotional aspects of the Virgin Mary, not adequately covered in the Mary mother of Jesus article. With recent changes the article was getting on course. Now, suddenly a brainstorm!
  • The problem with dividing this up among denomination-specific articles is just that - it breaks up a topic which needs to be dealt with somewhere AS A WHOLE. It isn't dealt with in "Mary Mother of Jesus" because that article has to cover a lot of historical, scriptural and theological information, as well as the views of Islam, and other non-Christian aspects. Blessed Virgin Mary covers those aspects in a non-denomination-specific way.
Don't delete other posts to the talk page. If there is still any other folks that want the subject to stay -- here a quick vote will show that.
I do not see why your purposes cannot be met by Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) but I will not claim that I know that it can.
If this is your view, I recommend you bring it up at Talk:Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) and flag (there) as you seek to recommend. --Carlaude (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for me to flag anything up on another page. This is the established page, and we don't need you trying to start any more "quick polls" for deletion. that subject was dealt with very recently. Xandar (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you will bear with me, I do not understand your plan. Are you just hoping it will just go away at someone else's efforts -- or are you just going to ingnore it-- and so mostly WP:FORK the content here?--Carlaude (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My plan is to discuss the way in which the articles on Marian devotion are organised, and what part this existing article plays in that. If someone has started a new article, bully for them. However this remains the prior article, and the only one discussing the GENERAL SUBJECT of Marian devotion regardless of denomination. As usual, I am finding it hard to find the constructive nature of your interventions. Xandar (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Xandar

Please look at it another way:

1. In my opinion, Wikepdia is lucky to have an expert like Ambrosius007 contribute significant amounts of high quality material. As I look at other subject matters like math, physics and computing, the quality of what he has done in the past few weeks is higher than those in other areas. So it would be undue to slow him down. I do not know if may go on vacation some time in the summer and so I hope that we can get all these material in order before then. This is an opportunity for good content.
2. The series of 7 or 8 articles that I am working with him on Roman Catholic Mariological Topics are planned to become stable towards the end of May 2008. Therefore, please show patience until then. We will strive to reduce overlap and introduce a logical structure within them. The facts about the Roman Catholic teachings do need to be expressed in a coherent manner. This is the time and place to do them right.
3. We will create some form of an umbrella for these articles. John Carter's suggestions will eventually turn into this umbrella, whatever it may be, and he may be a great resource in helping that happen since he knows theology well and he knows Wikipedia well. I do not know his vacation plans either, but it would be good to get his help before then.
4. Given the value of the above contributions, the keyword should be design for stability. Please feel free to write an overview article after we have finished our collection of articles in early June 2008 to cover the inter-related topics.
5 I have found a classic example on the web that discusses why the Roman Catholic BVM page needs to be separate. Please read the following link carefully and completely, perhaps several times. It makes the point in a historic manner: [2].

Please show patience for 2 weeks while we complete our series in peace so we can achieve the highest possible quality. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your link is circular.

  • In any event, Wikipedia articles are about achieving consensus, and not making huge changes without consultation or discussion. While your work on Mariology etc specific to Catholicism is good, that is not an excuse for butchering this article, which serves an important purpose as a general overview of Marian devotional practice in Christianity as a whole. So if there is some masterplan, by all means discuss it, but that isn't a blank cheque to change existing good articles radically without consensus or consultation. Xandar (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge, as an RC, that there probably is enough information on the RC view of Mary to constitute a separate article. What I might recommend rather than radically altering the article as is now, and then having to continue to alter it as changes are made, is to perhaps put together the new articles in userspace, and then, when the content is fully developed, present links here and elsewhere so that there can be some discussion on proposed changes based on a clearer idea of what the new articles will contain. John Carter (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course my link was circular. That was the whole pun. This very page is the best example of insane circularity! As for butchering, I have not deleted anything beyond a few sentences from this page after I decalred that I was finished with it. I will not be editing this page any more. My guess is that there are better butchers who will come around in the future and will do it, or go postal debating it for ever. I am finished with this page. I will use my efforts to constructively create a comprehensive set of articles on Roman Catholic teachings, that is missing from Wikepedia. Good luck on this page. History2007 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. If you're throwing in the towel on this article, that is your right. What was wrong was to remove a large amount of content from this article without consultation, and on what seems like a sudden impulse. Establishing another article with an almost identical title, but a different emphasis, again without discussion is not good practice. It could create problems in terms of content forks and the integration of all these articles. You and Ambrosius may have a grand design in your head, and it may be a wonderful one, but you shouldn't cause mayhem in a major existing article without discussion or some consenus. This article is a High Importance article in Wikiprojects, and it has well over a thousand other articles that link into it, many on the basis that certain information would be here. The articles you are working on are not YOUR articles, they are part of the Wikipedia project, which everyone participates in. So it would be more constructibe if you would cooly nd calmly discuss a future relationship between the pages. Xandar (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Offensive and inaccurate phrasology

The very opening sentence is inaccurate and to some denominations of Christians offensive. "...The Virgin Mary, is a traditional title used by all Christians..." I assure you stating blankly that ALL Christians call her by these terms and even think of her in this was is completely inaccurate. There are more denominations, outside of Catholicism, who don't consider her anything more then a birth vessel then denominations that do. I will leave it up to someone who maintains this article to correct this as I feel I don't and won't invest enough time to monitor it myself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.201.135 (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that many denomonations of world Christianity consider the Virgin Mary to be no more than a "Birth vessel" as you state. And those that do are rather small. However I take your point about the "all". Xandar (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How old was she when she got pregnant?....What year was she born?

see above. Punkymonkey987 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)