Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus/Archive 6

RfC on primary image for article
Question: Which should be the main image of the Virgin Mary for this article?

To keep it official, I have opened an RfC since every few edits seems to change the picture without a real consensus. So, we will put it to a vote and discussion. I am proposing the following options, consisting of images used before and possible new ones as well so we have a wide selection to choose from:

Regards, --Manamaris (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment No WP:LEADIMAGE is an option. A boring one, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 2-The most universal and the most significant because it shows her holding the Christ Child, thus clearly evoking the role that she plays in the Christian faith. Choosing one of the images of her based on purported apparitions in certain places is not a good idea because it is too limited in scope. Display name 99 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Options 3, 5, and 8 Are the best options, in my opinion. I personally don’t like the current lead image. I’m commenting again because of the new options that have been added I like Option 8, but I prefer 3 or 5. Regards,
 *  Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

How about this image of the Fatima statue? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 [EDIT:but also leaning towards number 6] as Mary is most identified with Jesus, and a very nice image which seems the best among the choices. Then option 7. I'm surprised at the support for 3 and 5, being the oldest doesn't equal being the most accurate (there is no selfie of Mary). Was hoping to find that someone supports option 6 so I could leave them a comment or two [EDIT: But after reading about number 6 am almost tempted to support it!] Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! Waaaay too specifically Catholic. Most images are Catholic or Orthodox, but we should stick to ones that Protestants can feel at home with, which this certainly isn't. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that the Our Lady of Fatima events were specifically Catholic. Even though the Catholic Church seems to have claimed it (lucky them) and put a crown on this statue (which probably disqualifies it per your comment), the Miracle of the Sun and other associated circumstances seem independent of a particular church. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with User:Johnbod, that image is definitely not a good lead image.  Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Yes, the Fatima Mary actually referenced the pope, so Catholic association seems accurate. Withdrawn. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 3 or 5 per all the !votes above that say we should use images that are closer to the time of the subject. It is too late in the game to be introducingg options 8–11. Scolaire (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do favor choosing an image closer in time since it's more likely to be accurate in the sense that there would have been less time for people to insert their preconceived ideas about what Mary looked like (or what they think mary should look like) in their painting. However, image 5 is heavily corroded which makes it less usable. Image 3 is ok, but Mary is a bit whiter. As a whole, I think all of the options 1-7 are useable except for option 6; I don't see how it illustrates Mary much. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 19:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's really no guideline in place for "use and image from that time period" and to be fair, none of these images look anything like a woman from that area during that period. The oldest images here are still hundreds of years after the fact. Nemov (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, there are barely any citations of policies or guidelines in this discussion. These discussions tend to be more about personal preference imo anyway. Yes there isn't a guideline, but I still think it's better to tend toward older (if there are two pictures of equal usability) for the reason I stated above: there would have been less time for people to insert their preconceived ideas about what Mary looked like (or what they think mary should look like) in their painting. A difference of a few centuries may be good even if the oldest one is several hundred years from when its subject existed.
 * However, after reconsidering MOS:LEADIMAGE, I think our readers would most expect 1 or 7, and they're probably the sort of images used in reference works. — Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 22:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As a note, Britannica, which is a professional reference work, appears to use a Madonna and Child as its prominent lead image for its article on Mary. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Options 3 and 5 are the best because 1) Mary is alone 2) they are universal representations. For an alternative choice please see : File:The Madonna Praying.jpg. SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2. There are some editors here who want an image of Mary alone, and I frankly can't find out why. The central importance of Mary, both in Christianity and Islam, is that she is the mother of Jesus. The best depiction here would be some Madonna and Child. I am totally unpersuaded by those who claim that we need to pick an old image here; none of the images of Mary put forward were created contemporaneously with her life; the oldest image here was created several hundred years after her death. My preference for Option 2 is weak relative to the other Madonna and Child images, including 8, 9, 10, and 11. And, while I oppose all depictions that lack a depiction of child in it, I have particularly strong opposition to option 5, as, while old, it is mostly destroyed and is thereby rendered a low-quality depiction of Mary. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very simple, and explained above - this is Mary's biography article - her son gets ample coverage elsewhere (and in fact is in the title here, for want of a more feasible disambiguator). There are plenty of women who are undoubtedly mainly famous as the wife of somebody. Do we insist on a lead pic showing them with their spouse? No we do not, in fact such a choice would typically invite furious objections. Why is this different? Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Our current title for this article is... Mary, mother of Jesus. Why on earth would we not depict her in the infobox as... Mother of Jesus? —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I just told you, the article title was selected purely as the best disambiguator, after/despite several long RM's you can find in the archives (Mary, Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady, etc etc). In general WP is strongly against such titles. But if at all possible, the lead pic of any bio just shows the subject. Why on earth should we deviate from that here? Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because there is something particular to this article subject that so significantly differentiates her from more or less every other figure in all of human history that it demands prominence in the infobox. What that thing is can be left as an exercise to the reader. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, there's no reason at all. Great numbers of artists have depicted her by herself, and we should choose one of those images. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right, Jesus is not even mentioned as an attribute of Mary. Jesus is not depicted in Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption scenes, representations of the Immaculate Conception nor in famous images such as Our Lady of Guadalupe and Our Lady of Lourdes and many others. As for the title, it should be changed to Maryam or Mary of Nazareth though. SanctumRosarium (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Option 1I see no reason to change from the status quo on the image. Clearly, as evidenced by the scattered voting in this Rfc, it will be difficult to arrive at a consensus for a new image, particularly when the voting is so subjective. I don't believe that changing the image will improve the quality of this WP article. In the MOS, we read "Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available." In a similar way, I would suggest resisting the temptation to change an image simply because many images are available. MOS:IRELEV. Hence my vote for Option 1 (no change)Writethisway (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or option 7 or option 2. I personally think a more modern depiction keeps the focus on the subject. Older artwork would make me think that historical art styles would be part of the topic of discussion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Curious (talk • contribs) 05:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 4. I'm surprised there's no discussion about this image here. She's not depicted as being white in this one, but Native American instead. And if the Marian Apparition is to be held as reliable, it's the only image that accurately portrays her (considering that allegedly, the Virgin Mary herself imprinted it on a tilma) The downside is that the image is heavily associated with Catholicism instead of being a universal representation.--S (talk) 03:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also very, very heavily associated with Mexico! It's also much too vertical for an infobox, as are some of the others. And the image quality is poor. Anyway, as you say, it has received very little support. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Option 2 seems best to me. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 20:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
This RfC was created with too many options to find a consensus and since it was created editors have added even more options. Is there a way to get this down to a 3-4 options? That would be a lot easier to find a consensus that this cluster. Nemov (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think at this stage we should just stagger on to a conclusion. Several clearly have little support. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not only for Christians that Mary is the most important woman in the universe, but also for Muslims (Koran 3, 42-43). Since WP is read by a considerable number of Muslims, I am of the opinion that both sensibilities must be taken into account. Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish between naturalistic portraits (options 1 and 7), which only represent any average Western woman praying, and symbolic portraits (3,5,11), whose purpose is to convey a spiritual presence and not a physical representation. Should we represent the Virgin alone as here or with the Child? I think it doesn't matter because anyone would find it normal to see her with Jesus, even if the article speaks only about her. As for the choice of the title "Mary, mother of Jesus", I think it is the least bad. In summary: I would not choose 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that any attempt to make a crude distinction between "naturalistic portraits" and "symbolic portraits" is entirely mistaken! Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the best way to reach a consensus would be to fill out this chart (0 = no, 10 = perfect) and at a pre-determined date (6 November?) just add up the numbers. In my opinion, only the contributors who participated above in the debate should be allowed to vote, otherwise anyone can call a friend to double his/her vote.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hamza Alaoui, thanks for taking the initiative here, but consensus is not found by counting votes (see:WP:NHC).
 * The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.
 * I hope this helps. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Mary
Mary was a Virgin Mary 92.26.180.2 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as can be determined this is not possible. She as far as we know, gave birth which requires insemination. Referring to Mary as "Virgin Mary" links to religious belief and is not the most commonly held name of Mary, thus to retain Wikipedia's none-point of view, we can only refer to her as Mary, mother of Jesus.
 * Finton the magical salmon (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The Magi and flight to Egypt
The magi that came to see the Christ did not go to Bethlehem, they were told to go. Matthew (2:9-11) when they left they saw and followed the star to a house where the child lay. When the departed they didn’t go back to Jerusalem.

Joseph and Mary were not well received in Bethlehem. No relative required a child give up him bed? (Luke 2:7) When the people were told by the shepherds, They wondered 🤷🏾‍♂️? When they go to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice they offer the minimum meaning: the magi had not yet come, no relative provided aid or the shepherds a lamb. They were blessed by Simeon and Anna we can assume they "put something in their hand" Cont. to Luke (2:39) which enabled them to leave Jerusalem for Galilee.

Matthew (2:13-18) when Herod realizes the magi would not return he sent to Bethlehem. If anyone there had known they returned to Galilee it would have been shared to save their own? They mistreated the Lord’s Messiah refusing to celebrate his birth.

🤔 Mr jerone (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mr jerone I'm a little confused; what changes are you suggesting be made to the article? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 21:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on primary image for article - Runoff
Thanks to the closing editor for weeding through all the options. There are three options selected from the previous discussion. Please leave your choice below. Thanks Nemov (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Option 2

 * 1) The option that shows her with Jesus.   Robert McClenon (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) As @Robert McClenon said, this is the only option of the three that includes Jesus in the picture. It helps provide context.Kerdooskis (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) The best of the three offered, but all three aren't ideal. ~  HAL  333  02:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Per my comment in the prior RfC. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 08:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 5

 * 1) A very early image of Mary, and pairs nicely in style with the lead image of Jesus. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Looks good to me, no need to go overzealous with the other two.BogLogs (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Has the best backstory of the trio, and has even been traditionally attributed to Jesus' biographer Luke. Seems to have been honored and protected since time immemorial, so not a bad idea to keep that streak going. Interesting pairing comment by Ficaia above, and then, last and least, there's the genetically probable non-white-Mary thing. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) We should probably use the most historically significant image of her possible. This seems to be most significant. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Historical image as already said. SanctumRosarium (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) The image is one of the oldest paintings of the subject. The image, Maria Advocata, also has an interesting backstory and looks good when hovered over with the mouse. Since the image is from the 500s, there is a possibility that this painting is an image of an image (or an image of an image of an image) of the original subject. Lastly, the two other images are ethnically problematic. The article states:
 * "Mary resided in "her own house" (Luke 1:56)[65] in Nazareth in Galilee, possibly with her parents, and during her betrothal—the first stage of a Jewish marriage."
 * This means Mary was of Eastern Mediterranean origin. The two other images incorrectly depict her as a fair-skinned Northern European. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No art historian would take seriously the proposition that this is in any way, even indirectly, an authentic portrait - see Hans Belting's Likeness and Presence for the major recent work on early images of Mary. #7 hardly shows "a fair-skinned Northern European" - the artist was Italian, and so probably the model. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) We should ideally be choosing among the oldest images. Options 2 and 7 are within the European whitewashing tradition and should be avoided. Other editors should be aware of that before making unfortunate statements like "not very aesthetically attractive." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Phooey! It is "unfortunate" that the image is "not very aesthetically attractive", but there is nothing at all wrong with pointing that out in this context. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not aesthetically attractive? I just tested out to see what it would look like on the Virgin Mary navbox and it felt so right that I wanted to leave it there. Maybe Manamaris below has a point. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 2 and 7 are sentimental, 5 is spiritual.--Manamaris (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Option 5 is the best in my opinion.-- Orson12345  (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Oldest image available, good focus on the subject, one of the canonical representations of Mary. — JFG talk 22:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Traditionally, a woman chosen by God to give human form to the eternal Logos can only be represented pictorially by a sanctified soul. I am aware that this argument cannot be taken into consideration within the framework of Wikipedia, which is scientific and rationalist. I am just expressing the reason for my choice.--Hamza Alaoui (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Nearest in time to the subject, and not romanticised like the other two.  Scolaire (talk) 15:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) This image is itself notable, thus admits a wikilink to an article that explains it. The first image also has an article but it is much shorter. I also feel that an article about a person should have a portrait showing just that person. Jesus rather overshadows Mary in the first image. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) The article is largely about a devotional figure, prominent in most branches of Christianity. Any info about the historical (Jewish, teenage? pregnant) person behind that devotional persona is incidental and fairly speculative. Therefore to me the figure best suggesting that historically long "iconic" role should be chosen, and of the three this image best exemplifies that role - including its intrinsic sadness.  Pincrete (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 7

 * 1) There are no real guidelines for this so it basically comes to down to personal preference. This is my favorite of the 3 choices. Nemov (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Mainly because of my strong opposition to the other two. All three are conventionalized images, none more or less authentic than the others. Of 2 & 5: #2 is by an artist mainly known for soft-core porny nudes, and #5, though old, is badly damaged, not very aesthetically attractive, and could represent anybody. (Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Like the blue, which seems traditional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) I'd prefer 7. Option 2 appears fairly kitschy to me and is, among other reasons (see Johnbod), already in other articles and does not need to be in another one. --Medusahead (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)--Medusahead (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I reckon this is the best fit, and only includes Mary.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7, if not 5. It follows the traditional Marian blue. I also maintain a view that as an individual, her infobox profile picture should remain with her alone. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Option 5 is nice, but it's a little too faded for my liking. I'll go with option 7. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7, then 5. If 5 wasn't so faded, then 5, but 7 is good, with the marian blue and her actual true age shining through. 2 doesn't effectively capture the essence of Mary, IMO, with the way she is standing, the colors, the background, and I don't think an infobox should include her with baby Jesus, as it's her infobox. It feels way too contemporary (so does 7 kinda, which is why I was surprised to discover that it was made in the seventeenth century). None of these are bad, though. Cessaune (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Not sure if this is the right place to say this, but I'd like to point out that option 2 has a string of characters (maybe a catalog number?) in the top-right corner. Take that as you will when voting. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Good observation. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's actually the artist's "signature" and date. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat myself, good observation (and his signature seems consistent throughout his career, and a very neat signature it is). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be leaning towards the early medieval icon, largely because of its dating. Which is good, but do we have the best example to vote on? Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For one thing, that date is very far from certain - at the article Hans Belting is quoted saying something like "commonly said", which is a bit distancing, and the most recent scientific analysis declined to commit to any date. Most very early icons in the West are now completely over-painted, and often pretty incompetently, so this may well be the best-preserved very early image in the West. The Sinai pic that's next in the article is imo better in every way, and could be cropped. The first phase of this discussion had many people, including myself, saying that a 500 year gap, and no actual portraits to leave a trail of copies, meant that the date was pretty irrelevant. I don't think the original choices offered were at all well-chosen, & I doubt that this image wouold last long, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The original RfC had way too many choices, so I agree that this will likely be revisited down the road. Hopefully at that time more care is taken to picking better options. Nemov (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that even if a rerun comes about that the presently "leading" image would still be chosen. In the initial cut I personally didn't pay much attention to the image, but noticed it was receiving quite a few !votes. Only in the runoff did I read and research its history, and found that, indeed, it seems the right choice, even during the initial stage. It also would link to a detailed Wikipedia page, while the first choice has a short article and the third none at all. The portrayal of what at least seems to be a typical woman of the geographical location and era also plays in its favor. The process seems to have worked as intended, with other choices winnowed out and the likely chosen image having the most topic-centric history. It also works well with the primary Jesus page image, another historical rendition with an encyclopedic backstory. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Error to note a and the year Mary was born
According to note a, it states that Mary was 13-14 during the birth of Christ while referencing the gospel of James and the Catholic encyclopedia. The Catholic encyclopedia actually states Mary was 12-14 when she was engaged, but the annunciation happen two years later. This makes her 14-16 when she gave birth. Here’s what it actually stated: “Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place.“ https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm?fb_comment_id=10150145970158037_10154111787908037

It said she was 12-14 during the betrothal, but 14-16 during the annunciation. If we are going by what the apocryphal said, Mary would have been born before 18 bc. Truthonly224 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Jesus was born approximately 4 BC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That reply has nothing do with what my thread is about. My thread is pointing out error in note a because they use the Catholic encyclopedia and the gospel of James as a reference for Mary age, but miss the part where it actually said she was 12-14 during her betrothal, but 14-16 during her annunciation. Mary being born before the 18bc wouldn’t change what year Joshua was born in. Truthonly224 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we go by what the apocryphal writings said? Even the link you're citing calls them unreliable. We should be relying on historians and/or biblical scholars. MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Th article references the Catholic encyclopedia and even the Catholic encyclopedia said the annunciation happens two years later. Plus I find this very hypocritical. It’s okay for someone else to reference the CE, but for some reason it’s not okay if I do it. And no straight source can tell us what year Mary was born because we don’t know how old she was when she gave birth to Joshua. All we know that she was a teenager. Truthonly224 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see you just edited your statement after we replied to it - don't do that again. But to address your change, what the Catholic encyclopedia actually says before repeating the apochryphal writings is It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. Our article cannot misrepresent the sources it cites. MrOllie (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn’t read your last reply until after I made some changes. I won’t do that again. Truthonly224 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing my comment.  Also if my thread came off as confusing. Here is a rephrase.
 * Note “a” claim she was 13-14 while using the gospel of James and the Catholic encyclopedia as a source. However both sources (both unreliable) actual said she was 12-14 when engaged and the  annunciation within two years. The Gospel of James said she was 14 when engaged, annunciation happen when she was 16 in chapter 12.  I was pointing out the error in note “a.” 2600:1007:B136:472D:78F7:2A0:CCE9:CDB2 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that Joshua (I call “Jesus” Joshua) was born in the 4th century, but I don't think Mary being born before the 18bc or after would change the year she was born in. It just would have change the her age. Sorry I have to reply anon because I forgot my password . 2600:1007:B136:472D:78F7:2A0:CCE9:CDB2 (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused about how calendar reckonings work. Even though the 'BC' refers to 'Before Christ', that doesn't mean it is a sliding scale. Most scholars now believe that Jesus was born between 6 BC and 4 BC, but that scholarship does not mean that we adjusted the calendar era. I also have no idea where you got '4th century' from. MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant to put in bc. Also I already knew that the source I post was unreliable. I just post it because I usually post sources that I have quoted from. I should have add in that the site is not reliable or that the apocryphal books aren’t reliable. I do agree that we shouldn’t use the apocryphal books as a reliable source. 2600:1007:B136:472D:78F7:2A0:CCE9:CDB2 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your citation doesn't actually contradict what's currently in the article. And in the future, do not add your personal commentary on the correctness of a fact to an article - that is what discussion pages like this one are for. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article? I was pointing out the notes under the article. Okay I’m done here. I’m tired of pointing out the error of note a or under note a, but constantly that is being ignore. Here is my last repeated. Note “a” claim she was 13-14 while using the gospel of James and the Catholic encyclopedia as a source. However both sources said:
 * Mary betrothal was 12-14 while Annunciation happen two years later. The Gospel of James said she was 14 when engaged, annunciation happen when she was 16 in chapter 12.
 * It wasn’t the article I was pointing at, but the notes under the article. Particularly note a. 2600:1007:B136:472D:78F7:2A0:CCE9:CDB2 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction: but I don't think Mary being born before the 18bc or after would change the year he was born in 2601:406:5101:F500:F94D:CD2A:7C9:1D92 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Plus after doing a lot of research. Most Jewish girls married at mid teen years. Mary was most likely 15-16. https://books.google.com/books?id=af_nDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=Xnmt2z8PonYC&pg=PA322&dq=pagan+girls+married+at+an+earlier+age+than+jewish+girls&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie_q2G1Nr8AhWmElkFHc1kBQAQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=KY1HDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT58&dq=jewish+women+married+in+their+late+teens+in+ancient+times&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjpicjH1Nr8AhXbFlkFHU7bB4w4ChDoAXoECAIQAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * These aren’t the only sources. Just too tired to post them all. Twelve was how early they can married (on their own at 12.5), but most sources I read said that 15 or 15-16 was the typical age for Jewish girls to get married. 2600:1007:B136:472D:78F7:2A0:CCE9:CDB2 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These aren’t the only sources. Just too tired to post them all. Twelve was how early they can married (on their own at 12.5), but most sources I read said that 15 or 15-16 was the typical age for Jewish girls to get married. 2600:1007:B136:472D:78F7:2A0:CCE9:CDB2 (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary's Birth and death?
What do the brackets mean when it says Mary birth date then it says in brackets 21 and when she dies it says (28)? 104.238.221.64 (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You're right, the article is not clear about what the numbers (21) and (28) in parentheses mean. In churches following the Old Julian Calendar, such as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Nativity of Mary is celebrated on 8 September of the Julian Calendar, which is observed on 21 September of the Gregorian Calendar. And the Assumption of Mary (or Dormition in the case of the Orthodox Church) is celebrated on 15 August of the Julian Calendar, which is observed on 28 August of the Gregorian Calendar. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is 15 August. Here is the a link to the USCCB confirming it https://www.usccb.org/resources/2023cal.pdf. The above paragraph is just wrong to assert that the date of the Assumptions is celebrated on the 28 August in the gregorian calendar, but it is correct if they mean to say those following the Julian calendar currently celebrate the Dormition of Our Lady around that day (the Julian calendar drifts so the date will likely change in the coming decades) Paxromana42 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Present at the Crucifixion?
"Mary is also depicted as being present in a group of women at the crucifixion standing near the disciple whom Jesus loved along with Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene"

While John 19:25 depicts Mary with two other women at the foot of the cross, the other gospels place the women "at a distance" and do not include Mary among them. The problem is referenced in other articles. Shouldn't it be mentioned here? Rozsaphile1 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that tradition places Her and the other women there and this article seems to be giving a general guide, it doesn't feel necessary for that to be spelled out. Moreover, the link group of women deals with some of the bigger discrepancies in the Johannie and synopic traditions. Paxromana42 (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The topic is already covered in their respective articles: The Three Marys & Women at the crucifixion--Rafaelosornio (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you meant this to reply to Rozsaphile1, no? Paxromana42 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2023
Remove the words "by believers" in the sentence regarding Marian apparitions. It suggests that only those who have an existing faith can witness an apparition, which is not the case. Non-believers may do so and then may, or may not, choose to become believers.

An example of this is the apparition of Our Lady at Fatima.

Thank you. Damiensawyer (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Not done: The full sentence is Many Marian apparitions and miracles attributed to her intercession have been reported by believers over the centuries. If you have a reliable source that says a non-believer reported an apparition, feel free to provide it. In the meantime, the sentence in no way implies that non-believers couldn't see one. Xan747 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023
belief that she was impregnated by the power of the Holy Spirit, Juwawo (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This seems to already be included in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Error in list of children
Mary did not just have just Jesus but also James, Miriam, Joseph, Simon, Martha, Jude, Amos, and Ruth. Cward91279 (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That stuff is disputed. And the names of Jesus' sisters are unknown. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023
52.128.53.75 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia used this information to answer a question asking if Mary Madeline was the mother of Jesus. Of course she was not. Please correct.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace
Sepphoris is listed as an alleged birthplace for her, on the relevant Wikipedia page Hovsepig (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Need to add a sentence to the page
"Jewish girls were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months". Having said that, it is also important to point out that this does not mean that Mary was that age when she married. It might be important to add that note. Someone told me that Mary was married at 12.5 and gave me this Wikipedia source. It just goes to show that people are being misled by this confusing passage. Skipwoof (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023
Mary had more children than just Jesus. It's in the Bible 2601:188:CE01:E630:71E0:81BB:558E:404C (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2023
Change the sentence "Other Protestant views on Mary vary, with some holding her to have considerably lesser status." to "Other Protestant views on Mary vary, with some holding her to have lesser status." The word considerably should be removed because all Christian traditions revere Mary to some degree. Outside of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Methodism, all of which are mentioned in the article, what remains as "Other protestants" are Pentecostals and different Baptist/anabaptist varieties. Thus, the word considerably is an overstatement. Rbrown-wiki (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks, a good suggestion and well-written reasoning, and also seemed undue use of an editorial word in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in 'In Islam' section
The article currently says that Mary is known as, among other things, "mother of Isa (عيسى بن مريم)." However, the Arabic translation we give here means "Jesus son of Mary", an epithet of Jesus, rather than "mother of Isa", which I believe would be Umm Isa, ام عیسی - but ideally someone with knowledge of Arab Christianity would double check the new version. It is definitely incorrect as it is at the moment, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9CCE:E501:8412:6CE2:B519:17E2 (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024
The infobox image, while potentially interesting to some (as per the caption, it is possibly the oldest surviving icon of Mary), it is visually quite ugly. I request that we use a different image, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lusenberg-Virgin.jpg (which is used on several other pages regarding Mary).

I don't have much experience writing alt-texts, but here's what I would write:

A sculpture of a woman wearing blue, gold and white, standing in front of a sunburst with her hands folded. Beneath her feet are a serpent and a crescent moon. At the bottom is a label reading "Tota Pulchra est Maria," or "Mary is all beuatiful." That might be a bit too long, I'm not sure what the guidelines for alt-texts are. If needed, we can always cut out the second sentence.

For the image caption:

Virgo by Josef Moroder-Lusenberg

This is the same caption used on other uses of this image, so I assume it would be fine.

I've never submitted an edit request before, so please let me know if I've done something wrong! 😀 2601:602:8800:98B:BDD4:A380:EDD2:1802 (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * See the archive, for example  – there has been a quite voluminous debate on this, and the image used is the result of a consensus.--Medusahead (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many apologies. I didn't check thoroughly enough. 2601:602:8800:98B:1A9:43EE:B1AD:BAA8 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Mary had other children
“Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭6‬:‭3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/114/mrk.6.3.NKJV 41.164.33.145 (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is WP:POV and WP:OR. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's been a lot of discussion of this over the centuries. It is usually taken to mean cousins or wider kin (many cultures are still rather less precise in using kinship terms) and/or other children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. See Holy Kinship. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary rules out Mary having other children for many denominations. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to add these other children, but was reverted and asked to discuss that here. Since there is/was already a discussion, this hint was kind of missleading. Anyhow, I restart thethreat and ask whether there are any reasons NOT to include the bible-mentioned children.Nillurcheier (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're using the Bible as our source here—from my understanding many Christians interpret the passages in Matthew and Mark in line with the perpetual virginity of Mary, i.e. that they are Joseph's children from another marriage. Understanding that stepchildren are still children, I understand it to be an "infobox isn't for this level of nuance" issue. Infoboxes are meant to be plain summaries of an article, not packed to the gills with controversies and footnotes. Remsense  留  12:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a discussion already so nothing misleading about that revert... and as you can see from the comments above yours, there was not remotely a consensus in the discussion that we should assert Mary as having other children. As Johnbod says, the "brothers" and "sisters" attributed to Jesus in the bible are typically thought of as cousins or wider family, and to read anything else into it would be WP:OR and/or WP:FRINGE. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Biblical scholars all agree James was brother of Jesus.  You are espousing specifically Catholic dogma designed to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary in their millenia of idolatry.  Laughable that anyone should presume to enforce dogma from one or any Christian denomination in an article like this.  Any "debate" can be a section in the article describing why some do or do not ascribe.  Of course, that would be a reasonable solution.  Hardly the norm on Wikipedia where pseudo-intellectual experts expound endlessly and recruit all their little Wiki friends to back them in the argument.  Further, it is not even agreed by those who believe in facts over Catholic dogma that she was a virgin.  This was quite likely a mistranslation (possibly with malice and forethought to conform to what became Catholic dogma).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.57 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Biblical scholars all agree James was brother of Jesus." One of them. We have a group article about the Brothers of Jesus:James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, and Jude. Sisters of Jesus are briefly mentioned, but none is actually named in the canonical gospels. Dimadick (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2024
Please add that Mary was of Levite descent from her mother side which makes Jesus from the house of Levite on his mother side and house of Judah on Joseph's side. Metrixexpress (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Irltoad (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Literally interpreted, the Bible says nothing about Mary's genealogy. There are two different genealogies of Joseph, but no genealogy of Mary. Nothing about her being of Levite ancestry (though, similar to what's argued at, all Israelites at that time were of Levite ancestry). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024
Add to Cinematic Portrayals section: The Chosen (2017 TV series), played by Vanessa Benavente. Innovationonline2018 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ferien (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)