Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 3

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


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

This phrase need to be reconsidered
In the first section, the following phrase appears "However, early non-biblical writings state that she was the daughter of Joachim and Saint Anne.". Yet there is no reference. What are these non-biblical writing? I am writing to warn that I will be deleting this phrase if there is no clarification concerning these so called writings. Also, the writing is unnecessarily wordy and appears as though it was transalted from a foreign language. The entire section needs rewording and tightening up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VaniNY (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The writing was not transalted it was metapeppered! The "writings" "are" primarily the Protoevangelium of James. -- JALatimer 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Well, the article is about her, not about Catholics... The current name is simple and descriptive.  Omnedon (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed there are 3 articles, this being the least venerative. Hence the title here is reflective of the tone of the article, compared to the others. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a Catholic, I would say that the name should contain "Blessed", but we already have two pages like that: Blessed Virgin Mary (for all Christian views), and the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) for specifically Catholic views. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Appellations
"usually referred to by Christians as the Virgin Mary or Saint Mary" How often is the Mother of God referred to as "Saint Mary"? "Usually"? I thought Roman Catholics and Anglicans normally reserved "Saint Mary" for others named 'Mary.' I know the Orthodox do not refer to "the holiest of all the saints" as merely "Saint Mary" but as "Theotokos", etc. -- JALatimer (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When reffering to her as a person, Catholics and Anglicans call her the Blessed Virgin Mary and Orthodox call her the Most Holy Theotokos, but there are certain catholic & anglican churches named after her under the title "st. mary", and within the anglican calenders her holidays are reffered to with St. Mary. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Pagan view
I'm not sure of posting etiquette/standards on Wikipedia. I'm also not sure what constitutes good source material - I imagine published non-fiction is the minimum. But I'm posting here because I am part of a family spiritual tradition which worships Mary as a Goddess. I'm sure there must be some credible anthropological information recorded somewhere on this sort of practice. I've been lead to believe it is farily common among Gypsy families (one of which I come from) at least. I'd like, in the long run, to see some kind of work put into at least mentioning that some Pagans worship Mary. Also I know for certain that some Neo-Pagans at least view her as 'as face of the Goddess'. Thank You, Apple Ament (ladyament@gmail.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.90.38 (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If you can find reliable sources (books or websites, etc.) to any information about pagan views of Mary, then I'd say go for it. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But how does one know it is "the same Mary"? Worship of Godesses has been taking place for over 4,000 thousand years, and it is not immediately how the verbal folklore has merged them. That is why there are two articles in Wikipedia Queen of heaven (antiquity) and Queen of heaven. So one must be sure that there is clear identification, else you need to add it to Queen of heaven (antiquity). History2007 (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Atheist view
I would like to invite input for this particular heading.

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

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

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

How was Mary raised at the Temple?

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

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

Did anyone have a last name during that period?

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

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

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


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

Removed sentence from "Other Views" section
History2007 removed the following sentence from "Other Views" section:
 * Some scholars of the historical Jesus, regard the nativity of Jesus to be an early Christian story created to liken Jesus to Moses (the Massacre of the Innocents) and to show him fulfilling prophecy (the return from Egypt, etc.).

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


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

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


 * So what are the sources? And there was no war yet, that was why it ended up here. It is still pure speculation, and no sources listed at the moment. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? You want me to copy and paste it because you couldn't go to the link? OK. These all seem to work (though we may want to consider slight rephrasing to correspond with whatever source or sources you choose):


 * 1) Geza Vermes, The Nativity: History and Legend, London, Penguin, 2006, p22
 * 2) E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, p.85
 * 3) Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. p. 36. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
 * 4) Brown, Raymond Edward (1977). The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. pp. 104–121. ISBN 0-385-05907-8.
 * -Andrew c [talk] 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is simpler than that. If you have reliable sources, please add it. No problem. No source, no statement. It is no big deal, but needs a source. History2007 (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although I read vermes book and wasn't impressed. "Historical scholars" can be found to deny that there's even one word in the bible that's actually true!   Xan  dar   11:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And in this situation, a Catholic priest... :) -Andrew c [talk] 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Eastern: Georgian Orthodox Views
I really didn't wanted to be in this talk page, but I had to, since the views of people here are completely un-understood for me. I am an Orthodox Christian and I claim that on this page the informations are edited by lot of Catholics, Muslims and Protestants. These people are highly against our country - Georgia. As the Eastern Orthodoxy says - Mary is Theotokos, the mother of god and the birth giver of god. She is not Fatima, Lourdes or Europe. Mary was a Jew, not an European. She never wore rich clothes or crowns until she went to heaven with his beloved son and saints. We highly respect the truth, not fantasy. So please respect us too. Imorthodox23 (talk) 8:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have every right to include these views in the article with the proper citations. The article should not in any way be dominated by anyone view of Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, this is not a "religous article". This is an encyclopedia, based on sources. What you were reading were sections discussing the different views. Some do not even beleive that Mary was a virgin, and that is mentioned in the article. Just because your religion has certain beliefs that does not make them the only that are mentioned in the article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Imorthodox23 was suggesting that only the view of his religion be presented. He left me messages on my talk page that seemed to suggest his idea of how wikipedia works might not be entirely accurate.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well from their statement above, it seems more like they are acusing Catholics of believing in false doctrine, and saying we believe Mary was some wealthy European. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * List any/all claims to WP:OR or missing citations for the Islaimic section so I can fix them.


 * Or please feel free to fix them yourself - less work for me.

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

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Islamic views section
Please list the items here:

1.

2.

3.

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

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

Please list the items here:

1.

2.

3.

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

List of WP:OR/NPOV and missing citations in the Marian feasts section
Well, no complaints about the Protestant section either, but again, late entries will be accepted.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * Orthodox believers venerate icons by bowing and kisses, both at home and in churches.


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


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

Mother of God with icon veneration.


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

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

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

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

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

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

This is clearly WP:OR and the article is filled with similar examples. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The citation is to a dictionary.
 * It doesn't say anything about the 'showing' referred to
 * It does not show any argument between these so-called 'Catholic traditionalists'
 * nor does it show that anybody in authority in the Catholic Church has suggested that there is a belief that Mary is divine.
 * Regarding "nor does it show that anybody in authority in the Catholic Church has suggested that there is a belief that Mary is divine": pope John Paul II described events of 1981 assassination attempt in these words (bold added by me):


 * "I write these words today, May 13, from the Agostino Gemelli Polyclinic. Allow me, dear Brothers, to hark back to what happened 13 years ago in St. Peter’s Square. We all remember that moment, when in the late afternoon shots were ﬁred at the Pope with the purpose of killing him. The bullet that tore into his abdominal cavity is now at the shrine in Fatima. The belt pierced by the bullet lies in the Marian shrine in Jasna Gora, Poland. A mother’s hand guided the path of that bullet, and the dying Pope, who was quickly taken to Gemelli Clinic, was saved at death’s door. In September of last year, when I was able to contemplate the face of the Mother of God at the shrine of Ostra Brama in Vilnius, Lithuania, I recited the words of the great Polish poet, Adam Mickiewicz: “Holy Virgin, you who keep watch / Over Czestochowa’s bright mount! Beacon of Ostra Brama! / As once in my boyhood you wrought a miraculous sign / (My weeping mother had scarcely entrusted me to your care / When, raising a dying eyelid, I instantly found the strength / To walk to your shrine and thank the Lord for life restored): / So, by a miracle, you shall restore us…” And as I recited these words after saying the rosary at the Ostra Brama shrine, my voice failed me." (source, p. 4 [in pdf], middle column)


 * I think that (allegedly) "miraculous" interventions like this one are usually credited to God by theists, so it seems that Mary is some kind of a goddess to Catholics, no? BartłomiejB (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand the text. JP II says he "thank(ed) the Lord for life restored."  He didn't thank Mary, because she didn't restore his life.  God did.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence "A mother’s hand guided the path of that bullet (...)" is quite unambiguous. It is obvious for any person who knows Catholicism a little bit that Mary is quite important figure in this religion - for many faithfuls it is some kind of a goddess, including pope apparently. BartłomiejB (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are greatly mistaken Bart. You obviously no nothing of the Catholic views of Mary, many of which are shared with Anglicans and Orthodox. Catholic only believe in One God (and that God is a Triune God [Father, Son & Holy Spirit]. Mary is the MOTHER of GOD(Christ). She is very special to us, but not considered divine, as that is heresey. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead rewrite
The lead needs to be rewritten as it is too long, too detailed, does not present a summary of the entire article, etc. See WP:LEAD. I've given it the appropriate tag.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any guesses on which tag is found next to add to the article. Again, the shotgun approach to collaborative editing. Marauder40 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Lead is word-heavy, and I've spent a lot of time editing it. I support further trimming. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Afaprof, I saw that you trimmed it and I trimmed it even more. It is really easy to keep hitting the delete key and trimming even more, but then it may get too short. There are no factual errors in the lead, and it covers the content. Do you have other suggestions? If so, please provide them, else I will remove the lead tag. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary in New Testament/other sections
Mary is really only mentioned by name in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. This section can be summarized in a few paragraphs. Also, the overlinking is distracting to the reader.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to certain churches, Mary is also mentioned in the Book of Revelation as the Woman of the Apocalypse, and is mentioned also in other gospels and NT books as the "Mother of the Lord". --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the gospels that mention her by her name Mary.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Mary is not only mentioned by name IN the New Testiment. So a section about her in the NT should also include when she is not mentioned by name. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will try to do that when I get to it, unless someone gets to do it first - which I would prefer, so there will be less for me to do. History2007 (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Christian doctrines/Christian perspectives
Both these sections can be combined. Again, the over wikilinking is distracting.

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


 * Actually, I put it back until it is discussed. Let us hear what other people have to say. This article had many, many images - was attracting them like a magnet. I made the image gallery to manage that. So I think having it there will be useful. Anyway, we will do what the overall opinion on that suggests. History2007 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The gallery is not recommended on Wikipedia. I removed it per policy.  Please do not revert good faith edits.  The picture gallery does not add to the subject.  It is redundant, and there are already many images in the article.  Please do not edit war over it.  This can be moved to Commons as per the recommendations.  See policy WP:IG.Malke 2010 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is simpler than that really: that was a lot of content to remove. If there is consensus for removing it, it gets removed, else it stays. So we will wait to see what consensus has to say. History2007 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The gallery is a useful addition to this article. Do not delete it without a discussion first. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it is useful. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictures can give as much information as paragraphs of information can. Various paintings of beleifs of the virgin, icons of her, etc. are very helpful for the article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see multiple benefits, and in fact that question should really be asked of all the other editors who added those pictures over time. From an informative point of view, images such as the early depictions in the Catacombs tell a historical story, while the Old Persian miniature of Madonna and Child reinforces the Islamic perspective. So they do inform me, and I think they will also inform others. Moreover, from a practical point of view, Wikipedia editors at large seem to have expressed a desire to add images through their actions, and a manageable location for that needs to be provided. For instance, in this edit I had to ask User:Md iet if 4 images of Mary's tomb were needed in the middle of the page. In the end those, as well as the image of Assumption statue, 1808 were smoothly handled in the gallery. So the gallery is both informative, and useful - and it is not unduly large anyway. Moreover, the gallery does not bite anyone, does it? History2007 (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

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

1.

2.

3.

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

Imorthodox23 discuss
I think these two articles can't be merged because in the article of Mary, mother of Jesus are texts which tell us about Mary's life and other religion views. The article Mary, mother of Jesus is all about Mary and Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is about Roman Catholic Mary, their apparitions, devotions and e.t.c and now you can see why I am suggesting that these two articles can't be merged, but if you want so than let it be so, this was just my opinion. After when you decide remove the sign of the articles being merged. This way the article can be fully completed. I also suggest semi-protection for both of the articles, so people won't vandalize the article. Imorthodox23 (User talk:Imorthodox23) 11:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Merge proposal

 * The following discussion has concluded. Please do not modify this section. Result of discussion: Do not merge.

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


 * If the Catholic view is a WP:Content fork, is the Protestant view a content fork? Is the Lutheran view a content fork? Is the Islamic view a content fork? Should they all be merged into this article? History2007 (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Theotokos! Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * That did not answer the question. Please be specific in your answer. Do you agree that in general, topic views such as the "Islamic view" or the "Protestant view" can be summarized in this article and further expanded via a Main, without being a WP:Content fork? Please be specific in your answer. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But there is already an article explaining the Catholic view of Mary: Roman Catholic Mariology. If Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) was changed to Roman Catholic veneration of Mary, and its content tightened up accordingly then the whole topic would make a lot more sense. At the moment, as Malke and others have been pointing out, there is a whole load of duplication between different articles. That is a problem because it naturally leads to POV forks and other problems. Quantpole (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is a copy of statement from other page that I wrote before the discussion pages were linked. Catholic views on Mary are different enough from mainline "low-order" Protestant communities that a separate article is needed.  Whether other Catholic Mary articles can be merged is a possibility with appropriate redirects, but that is not the topic of this merge request. Claims of POV, etc. are based on a misunderstanding of Catholic belief. Marauder40 (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The differences can be covered in one paragraph, and the article here is already top heavy with Catholic views that could easily be trimmed by removing the redundancies that are sufficiently covered in other articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Marauder40 has said it well. Catholic views are extremely unique (see Mariology). I agree with the hatnotes that the Lead is too wordy, and that the article comes across as very predominantly Catholic. I think that happens because Catholic, Orthodox, and high-Anglican views are so very unique and specific, making all other views pale by comparison in number of words and in descriptions of extra-biblical traditions that have no parallel in Protestant views. Mary occupies a particularly unique place of honor and worship in catholicism, making Catholic Mary articles deserving of their own place on Wiki. To be honored as the "Mother of God" with salvific powers, even when properly understood, makes her almost a different person than other Christians know. If the Catholic Mary text in the present general article were to be significantly trimmed or summarized in one section and necessary subsections, I think that would reduce the complaints. IMO, there is no attempt in this article to elevate the Catholic Mary above other views; it's just that the other views can relate only to biblical descriptions of Mary, not to the many traditions that have developed over the centuries and do not appear in the NT canons. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Catholic views differ only in their view of the Immaculate Conception. There is already an article on that, and all the differences can be covered in one paragraph.  This article is already heavy with Catholic views.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not true at all. Also unique in dogma are the Perpetual virginity of Mary, the Assumption of Mary, her status as Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Woman of the Apocalypse, and hyperdulian veneration. Although Orthodox and some Anglicans DO venerate Mary, they do not see her as the Mother of the Church (specifically Roman Catholic Church). Devotions such as the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Rosary, etc are unique to Catholicism. The devotions and beliefs of the Blessed Virgin Mary in this sense are very unique to Catholicism, and therefore should have their own article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Oppose - The merger would not make sense, and would be damaging to wikipedia. The page on the Catholic views is very distinct, and takes up a whole article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the "whole" article is nothing but redundancy. And how does this merger 'damage' Wikipedia?Malke 2010 (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


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


 * RE: "This may also cause issues with other branches of Christianity, where the Lutherans demand there own version, Protestants one..." it seems that the Lutherans did get their own general version as Lutheranism, as did the Protestants, i.e. Protestantism, etc. As for views that relate to Mary, they also have Lutheran Marian theology and Protestant views on Mary that have links in this article. History2007 (talk) 08:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it that you had no problem merging the other article, Blessed Virgin Mary with this article here? That was an entirely separate article, that was also heavily Catholic.  Yet, you had no problem merging it with this one.  The Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is nothing but redundancies of other articles on the rosary, the scapular, etc.  The article is almost entirely taken up with the veneration of Mary which can be adequately covered in one sentence.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xanderliptak, I believe the other option you list within your Support is actually what should be what takes place. The differences between "low order" Protestant beliefs and the Catholic beliefs is pretty large. A summary of those beliefs should be in this article and it should point to the Catholic version.  Whatever name that version has (as long as it is appropriate) doesn't matter. Marauder40 (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this WP:Reliable link (previously provided to Malke) clearly shows that there are multiple differences between Catholics and Protestants far beyond the single issue of Immaculate Conception that Malke claims. AfaProf also stated the same facts very clearly and it shows that he has read the literature. So until literature is studied by the participants herein, those issues will remain hanging. History2007 (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All differences can be sufficiently handled in one section of this article.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Marian intercession" already redirects to this page. "Marian veneration" redirects to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) because that's all that article is really, and that can be handled in one sentence.  There is no need for the additional sections on saints, and scapulars, and the rosary, and all the other bloat in the article.  It has no purpose other than to make it appear, that Catholics are worshipping Mary.  They do no such thing.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


 * Main article: Marian feast days So do the Anglicans


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


 * Main article: Titles of Mary So do the Anglicans


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


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


 * Main articles: Scapular and Rosary and Scapular


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


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


 * Main article: Roman Catholic Marian Movements and Societies


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


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


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

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


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


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


 * Thanks for the warning. I already saw those things.  I always assume good faith. It is pretty hard to actually work me up.  I guess it is my Franciscan nature ;) This looks like a perfect example of trying to win an argument any way you can. Marauder40 (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we all assume good faith, and can not be sure of anyone's motives at any time, I just thought the previous WP:Wikihounding context needed to be clarified. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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


 * FYI, the merge tag was placed by Malke, i.e. yourself. The merge was your idea, if you recall. There was zero opposition and there was support for the merge. So that merge had no opposition, as stated therein. And there was significant (you said 80% overlap somewhere) so it was an easy merge, and no one opposed it. But this merge has opposition and little overlap. It is easy to see. History2007 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and please explain why YOU had no opposition and completed the merger? I didn't see any 'vote' being taken.  It seems to have happened instantly?  Why would you not object to that when you and Marauder claim there are so many differences between Catholics and Protestants, yet you have no problem merging that article here.  Please explain your rationale.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not what this has to do with this merge proposal. And we are really getting off topic. It would be good to put this effort to adding references, so the tags can be removed, not just talk for ever. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is exactly on topic. It appears that as if you saw an opportunity to keep a POV content fork. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blessed_Virgin_Mary#merging  Getting rid of Blessed Virgin Mary would mean that that article couldn't be merged with the Catholic "version" you created.  Without Blessed Virgin Mary as an option would mean editors looking at this merger proposal would not have the option of merging both articles under the simple title Blessed Virgin Mary, thus keeping intact a clearly invented POV content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


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


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

The main issue I see is that there are too many similar articles about Mary in different aspects without any oversight. They should be brought together and made uniform. It would appear that each article was started to find an outlet to an editor's personal bias, if they could not include or exclude certain edits here, then they would start a competing article elsewhere were no one would notice. This is all one and singular person. We do not have a Barack Obama (Republican views) and Barack Obama (Democratic views) article because the differing views should be presented all at once in the same forum to balance the pros and cons. Same here, we should have one article with all views presented to be neutral. Articles are for readers, not editors. We need to give readers an overview of each denomination, not fragment them to make editors with their religious biases happy. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  17:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Especially given that since Vatican II in 1962, there has been a concerted effort by the Church to deemphasize Mary. There is far more interest in finding common ground with non-Catholics.  The Church has always been uneasy with Marian devotion by the laity, even the Popes who favor Mary have been keen to remind the faithful that she is not the same as her son and her humanity is what we celebrate and nothing more.   And the Marian scholar, Rene Laurentin said in 1972, "The Marian movement is finished."  Another scholar, Stephano De Flores, called the decade after Vatican II, "the decade without Mary."  Collecting all the ancient bits of Marian notions and cloaking them in quotes from Popes and saints and songs and bundling them up here Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is a POV content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose The devotions and beliefs of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sense described in the article Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) are very unique to Catholicism, and therefore should have their own article. The Catholic traditions and devotions are unique and are worthy of their own article. Protestant views tend to be more similar, simple, and irrelevant, wherest Catholic belief on Mary is very in-depth and important to the faith. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All differences can be handled in one section with scholarly citations. I can easily show this.  The excessive sections on saints, and popes, and Liturgy of the Hours, etc., all these things have their own articles already.  Separating out Catholics is POV content forking.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then do you suggest merging the Lutheran Marian views and Anglican marian views pages with this article? Why would they be allowed to have their own articles yet the catholic views could not, especially when the Catholic perspective is very different than the protestant. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually Willthacheerleader the way things have shaped up, there is very little chance that this merger will happen. The opposition present to the merger, and the rationale provided by the opposing parties, will make a "consensus to merge" very hard to achieve. The handwriting is already on the wall, it is just a question of waiting a little more, then the merge proposal will be formally declared as dead. History2007 (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * The articles on other religions are not duplicate articles, but sub articles. There could be a "Catholic views on Mary" article, but to have two separate article on the same person seem a bit odd. Like having a Republican and Democratic article for every American political figure. It might benefit to have each article retitled so they are all similar and uniform. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  03:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the articles on the other religions are sub-articles. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) is clearly a POV content fork which is not allowed.  The other solution would be to restore the Blessed Virgin Mary and merge the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) with it.  In this way, all views could be presented and the question of POV content forking would be eliminated.  I will ask Moonriddengirl about this possibility.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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

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

Clearly we should merge Catholic-specific perspectives (re: blessedness) to some page created at, or moved to, Roman Catholic views on Mary. This would exist in balance to Protestant views on Mary, Islamic views on Mary, etc. without implying undue weight. ―cobaltcigs 21:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That might work as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this might work well, and it appears Xandar would concur. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with merging BVM (RC) with information on other religious groups. That is the job of the central "Mary" page. We need a core page detailing Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary. It is certainly notable. I would not be averse to renaming the BVM RC page, but major content changes should not be made without consensus for each one.  Xan  dar   22:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This sound slike a Catholic views on Mary page is acceptable then? [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I also disagree for the same reasons as my previous vote on the merge. Whether some denominations use the term Blessed Virgin Mary just clouds the issue.  It is one of many terms.  Whether the article be called Blessed Virgin Mary (RC), Virgin Mary (RC), Mary (mother of God) (RC) doesn't matter as much as there being a specific (RC) version due to the number of differences.Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your idea seems very biased, as Catholics are not the only ones to believe Mary is blessed or a virgin. The Catholics should not own an article that others use as well. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of what I am saying is wrong. Blessed Virgin Mary is one term among many that lots of groups use.  To say that the article name can't be that because others use the term is clouding the issue is what I meant. No matter what name you use some other group will claim they use that term also.  Different names different groups use can be on a terminology page.  Even using the term Catholic will get people complaining.  All I was trying to say is that there needs to be a Catholic version of the Mary page.  The ultimate name doesn't matter (as long as it is appropriate) but due to the number of differences in belief between Catholics and non-"high order" Protestants there needs to be a page that shows the Catholic viewpoint.Marauder40 (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The compromise suggestion is in effect an acceptance of the fact that the merge proposal is dead. I see no logic to this new suggestion, which in effect is an attempt at a resurrection of the dead even before a funeral date for the merge proposal has been set. I see no logic here. History2007 (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does look that way, no merger. It sounds like a Catholic views on Mary should be created and and pertinent information here be placed there and this made a redirect or deleted. [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does seems a good way to go, and this would open it up to the teachings and doctrine so it could be very clear, in the same way Protestant views on Mary makes the Protestant dogma clear. And we could do without all the saints and the rosary and the art as it wouldn't be relevant as they have their own articles any way.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


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


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

This does not eliminate the POV forking per se, simply presents it on equal terms (foremostly, giving the article about each particular viewpoint a title which identifies it is an article about a particular viewpoint). We ought to avoid spiritually charged zingers like Mary (blessed virgin), Mary (holiest woman ever), etc. because even while some religious groups hold exactly these views, expressing them as statements of fact makes us look both deeply biased and silly. Similarly we’ll use Rastafari views of Haile Selassie when the time comes to split his article—and not 1892 reincarnation of Jesus—because again we want to identify a religious viewpoint rather than to express it summarily. ―cobaltcigs 05:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, agree. I got things going on Catholic views on Mary as there had been several suggestions of that as a title, and it does seem the least controversial as using Roman Catholic can have problems, especially as the Church is commonly known as the Catholic Church.  I filled in the basic dogmas to give it some content and did it by using the extant articles on the dogmas to fill it in.


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


 * The discussion of the name of the Roman Catholic article is probably not a topic for this page, but for that page, and I have started a section called Name of this article, on that page where it belongs. History2007 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's best to keep the discussion all in one place as it is still on going. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


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

Conclusion of the merge proposal
The only people who supported the merge, have now indicated in the discussion above that the merge proposal is unlikely to succeed. Hence, we should declare the merge discussion as hereby concluded, and remove the merge flag as of the end of today, so other issues can be addressed. The name of the Roman Catholic article, is however, not a topic for this page, but for that page, and I have started a section called Name of this article, on that page where it belongs. History2007 (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion is on going as to what to do.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


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

Closed the merger proposal, given that there was overwhelming opposition, as above, no votes in over 2 weeks and the nominator admitted it was rejected. The merger proposal has been opposed and ended. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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


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

Catholic section
The Catholic section is very incomplete. Immaculate Conception is just one of the glaring omissions I see here.  Nancy Heise talk 23:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. However, the Immaculate Conception as an article contains a lot of information. We do not want to be cutting and pasting information. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 2010

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

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

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

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support. For the reasons above. Since the recent merger with the former "Blessed Virgin Mary" article, the title "Virgin Mary" has become more available for this article, and is more suitable than the current clunky title.  Xan  dar   22:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with your assessment about Mary's title, and that she is commonly known, among Catholics as well from my experience, as the Virgin Mary. And having Blessed Virgin Mary merged here already makes that article name more appropriate.  But then what about Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic)?  That is a POV content fork focused entirely on presenting an incorrect notion about veneration of Mary.  Naming this article Virgin Mary is likely to create confusion in the readers mind, as Blessed is not a title recognized exclusively by Catholics.  As it stands now, this article title at least points to a more rationale view and considers Mary in the historical context and as simply who she really was, the mother of Jesus.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Virgin" is a POV claim directly in the article title. The current title is more neutral in tine, not to mention a very clear and unambiguous disambiguation term. I would be happier to have the article at just "Mary" rather than "Virgin Mary". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support WP:COMMONNAME -- as for Mattinbgn's suggestion of "Mary", that was rejected in a previous WP:RM discussion. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Clearly the common name, so much so that there's not the slightest POV implied in using it... It's regularly used by people who regard the virginity claim as ridiculous! But even if the POV was there, the naming policy is to go with the common name. Andrewa (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Her greatest "claim to fame" is not her virginity; it is her being chosen to be the mother of Jesus. The article on her son, Jesus, is simply entitled Jesus (though it used to be Jesus of Nazareth, and the lead and saint box still say that). Applying an honorary to her article name in a way elevates her above the simple title given her son's article which is simply Jesus. Her name is not 'Virgin Mary.' The article title should begin with 'Mary.' Putting "Virgin" in the title makes it an ambiguous honorary that is not found in the titles of any other encyclopedia articles I found (see EB for an example).

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

To quote User Malke, "As it stands now, this article title...considers Mary in the historical context and as simply who she really was, the mother of Jesus." The article handles the great debate as to what "virgin" is intended to mean in scripture (e.g., never had intercourse, young woman, engaged woman, virgin at conception, perpetually a virgin, etc.) Who knows whether it's POV or not? While I personally believe she was a virgin at conception, unambiguously she was incredibly honored by God when he chose her, among all women, to bear (and rear) his son in human form. "Mother of Jesus" is the appropriate disambiguatory information, and presenting it in parenthesis is the appropriate way to do it, since it's not part of her name. Let's stay with Mary (Mother of Jesus). ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With reference to article TITLES, we should not be concerned with arguments such as who thinks Mary is a virgin or not. That is to do with article content, not title. For titles the prime consideration according to wikipedia naming policy is "what is the name for the subject most commonly used in reliable sources in English". On that consideration "Virgin Mary" beats "Mary (mother of Jesus)" by a considerable stretch. Other considerations include ease of use, namely which title is more likely to be entered by a user looking for the topic? As such the avoidance of made-up names, and the use of unnecessary disambiguators like "(mother of Jesus)" is good practice.  Xan  dar   22:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do see what your point is and I would throw in with it in a minute, but then it starts to make it seem as if there are different Marys. Blessed Virgin Mary, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Virgin Mary, etc.  Staying with Mary, mother of Jesus does seems less POV.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Support per the nominator. History2007 (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Support she is most commonly reffered to as the Virgin Mary by ALL Christians, by Muslims, Jews, and people of non-abrahamic faiths. It is her most common name. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support on grounds of common name. I just did a quick check, the Westminster Confession, the statement of doctrine of the Church of Scotland and several other Presbyterian churches, only mentions her once, in chapter 8, but it does call her the Virgin Mary, with a capital V.  (The 39 articles of the Church of England do not mention her.)  Although she is less important to Protestants than Catholics, when the do mention her they do normally call her the Virgin Mary. PatGallacher (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While quite common, there are many other faiths that do not believe she was a Virgin, as well as atheists and other sects of Christianity. In Orthodox, she is not known by this name, either. If anything, it should be moved to Mary, and the disambiguation page there moved to Mary (disambiguation). 173.24.117.126 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As said earlier, whether random faiths believe she was a virgin or not is in no way relevant to Wikipedia naming policy. Policy states we should use the common name for the subject. If you are commenting here, could you make comments that are based on Wikipedia's naming policies, as linked above.   Xan  dar   22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Virgin Mary is the most well-known name. Helsingann (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Since plain "Mary" is ambiguous, and "Virgin Mary" is a very common name. It makes sense to disambiguate using the person's own name instead of whose mother she was. It makes no difference whether you believe that she was a virgin or not – article naming shouldn't be based on what we believe but on what the most recognizable English name is. Jafeluv (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The most common name of the topic of this article is Mary, but it needs to be disambiguated due to other uses and this use not being primary.  Clarifying which use of the name in question in parenthesis is the most common method of disambiguation in Wikipedia.  The advantage of the current title is that it correctly conveys the most common name for the subject is Mary.  Adding Virgin in front of it would make sense if "Virgin Mary" was the more common name.  No evidence that that is the case has been presented.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That was a fair comment by Born2cycle, namely: "No evidence that Virgin Mary is the WP:Common name has been presented". So I tried to see if that is the case, and the results shown below here indicate that it is more common than Mary, Mother of Jesus by about 20-40 fold, across the English speaking world. That is a wide margin. History2007 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything outside of parenthesis in an article title is the implied name of the article's subject; anything inside parenthesis is just additional information about the subject needed to disambiguate the name from other conflicting uses of that same name. Words inside parenthesis are not part of the name. Thus, the title "Virgin Mary" implies that the name of the subject is "Virgin Mary".  The title "Mary (mother of Jesus)" implies that the name of the subject is "Mary".   So the question isn't whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary, Mother of Jesus" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject, but whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject.   --Born2cycle (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic Mary Magdalene should be at "Mary (of Magdala)", same for Mary of Bethany, and that Mary, Queen of Scots should be at "Mary (Queen of Scots)" or "Mary Stewart (Queen of Scotland)", since she isn't the only Mary Stewart. The same might apply to other Marys like Mary I of England and Mary of Burgundy. And that's just using other Marys as examples! In fact we use the common name, rather than a generic plus bracketed disambiguator. On the disambiguator itself, as I show in the section below, to use the commonest disambiguator for plain "Mary", would mean using, not "Mary (Mother of Jesus)", but "Mary (Mother of God)".  Xan  dar   22:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not true that by that logic Mary Magdalene should be at "Mary (of Magdala)". If Mary Magdalene was better known in reliable sources as "Mary" than as "Mary Magdalene", then by that logic it should not be at Mary Magdalene but at Mary (something), where the something could be worked out (and I doubt "of Magdala" would be the result). Since Mary of Bethany is the most common name by which she is known, that title is fine too. I thought your point is better made with Mary, Queen of Scots, but apparently she is best known by that name too. I won't quibble about whether the disambiguator should be "Mother of Jesus" or "Mother of God" - I suspect most everyone will glean the same understanding from either variant.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. On Wikipedia, material found in parentheses in article titles is for disambiguation purposes. The exact phrase "Orange (fruit)" isn't going to give you the most google hits per "common name" or whatever, but we need it, for disambiguation purposes, due to Orange (colour) (and half a dozen other articles, from songs to surnames to software). Arguments that "Mary, Mother of Jesus" isn't the most common name are nonsense, because we aren't claiming it is. We are claiming that "Mary" is more common, but since there are other things named Mary, we add a parenthetical comment for disambiguation purposes. This is naming conventions 101, and it seems a lot of people are off base. If we had a surname for Mary, it may make things easier, or if someone wanted to suggest another disambiguation comment, that may work, but I think "Mary" is more common, and less POV than "Virgin Mary", two birds, one stone. In summary, I'd oppose an article move to "Virgin Mary", but would consider a change in disambiguation. -Andrew c [talk] 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of disambiguators is that they are used when they are actually needed. Not to replace the Common Name, or the most easily usable name, as per naming policy. As such a disambiguator is needed for Orange (fruit) since an Orange has no other common name, and this is also the name of a colour. This does not apply to Virgin Mary, since this is the unambiguous common name, which we are overly complicating by using "Mary" (which is not the common name in reliable sources for the subject of this article) and then adding a made up and non-user-friendly disambiguator.  Xan  dar   23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Mary (mother of Jesus) is more inclusive. More groups call her this rather than Virgin Mary. rossnixon 01:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Polling shows that there are far more uses of Virgin Mary than Mary (mother of Jesus).  Xan  dar   23:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose; my reasoning is simlar to nixon's. The title Mary (mother of Jesus) represents a broader and more generally accepted view than does Virgin Mary. We can all agree that Virgin Mary should definitely redirect here. However, I would support moving this article to Mary, since this is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ...comments? ~B F izz 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Virgin Mary simply isn't her name. For comparison, have a look at Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia - the article on the man isn't found under "Good King Wenceslas", even though Google gives five times as many hits for the latter term. I've also yet to see any evidence that "Virgin Mary" is more common than just "Mary" in the first place, and if it isn't, we should disambiguate instead of going with the less common name because that happens to be unique. Huon (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. New title is unnecessarily pov. No reason to do this. I am Catholic and believe in BVM, but the reasoning to force this name onto a secular Wikipedia is not sound IMO. Having said that, I am in favor of a redirect of BVM to here, if not done already. Student7 (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

We'd better get a few facts straight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


 * "Mary, Mother of Jesus" and "Los Angeles Times" about 900 results while "Virgin Mary" and "Los Angeles Times" over 18,000 results about a 20 fold difference


 * "Mary, Mother of Jesus" and "New York Times" about 3,000 results while "Virgin Mary" and "New York Times" over 125,000 results about a 40 fold difference


 * "Mary, Mother of Jesus" and "Daily Telepgraph" about 700 results while "Virgin Mary" and "Daily Telegraph" over 28,000 results about a 40 fold difference


 * "Mary, Mother of Jesus" and "The Australian" about 12,00 results while "Virgin Mary" and "The Australian" over 60,000 results about a 50 fold difference


 * "Mary, Mother of Jesus" in Google Books about 16,000 results while "Virgin Mary" in Google Books over 900,000 results over a 50 fold difference

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


 * As I just explained above, the question isn't whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary, Mother of Jesus" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject, but whether "Virgin Mary" or "Mary" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject.  Here are some results that should help us shed some light on this pertinent question.
 * About 319,000 results for +"Virgin Mary" mother of Jesus
 * About 809,000 results for +"Mary" mother of Jesus
 * About 39,200,000 results for +mary jesus
 * About 5,390,000 results for +"virgin mary" jesus
 * This clearly shows that "Mary" is more commonly used to refer to this article's subject than is "Virgin Mary", and, so, that is what our title should convey, which is what the current title does. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If Mary was ambiguous, that might indeed be a better name for this article. It, however, is not, and it's even not the primary topic for that name. (I think this is a point we agree on.) The article must therefore be disambiguated somehow. If you look at the disambiguation guideline, the first thing it proposes is using another term that is equally clear and is unambiguous. For example, New York City is located at that title to disambiguate it from other meanings of New York (mainly the state, which has been determined to be the primary topic for whatever reason), although "New York" is probably a more common term for the city. Similarly, Heavy metal music is named so because there exists another term for the topic that avoids the use of a parenthesized disambiguator like Heavy metal (music genre). Similarly, Virgin Mary is a completely valid disambiguator for the topic of this article if we can agree that that title is equally clear and unambiguous. Of course, whether Virgin Mary or Mary (mother of Jesus) is more clear is a matter of opinion, but I for one find the first one more recognizable. Jafeluv (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (I think you meant, "If Mary was unambiguous...", since Mary is ambiguous.)
 * You got me. I strongly disagree with that aspect of WP:D - I think it's important to convey the most common name of the topic with the title, and adding precision to the name (not in parentheses) does not do that; to the contrary, it incorrectly implies the added words are part of the most common name. I became even more convinced of this when I watched a 5th grader do homework recently using Wikipedia.  Because some names of some people were disambiguated by adding precision without parenthesis (as is being proposed for this article), this child thought the disambiguated name was the name of the person in question, and used that in her work.  Names that were disambiguated with information in parenthesis, as is done currently in the title of this article, did not create that problem.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant "unambiguous", of course. Sorry about that. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the argument can be made that New York City is almost as commonly used to refer to that city as is "New York", if not more commonly. In other words, if the answer to a question is that city, "New York City" is likely to be just as valid and correct an answer as is "New York". But if the answer to a question is the subject of this article, "Mary" is almost certainly a much better answer than is "Virgin Mary".  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Born2Cycle, I fear your google searches are flawed, since many of your "Mary" plus Mother of jesus hits, also refer to her as the Virgin Mary. In addition, with reference to using the top disambiguator for Mary. For (mother of Jesus) you got 600,000 or so results.
 * for +"Mary" mother of God we get 6,260,000 results. That would indicate Mary (Mother of God) would be the best disambiguator for straight "Mary".  Xan  dar   22:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


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