Talk:Mary MacKillop/Archive 1

Headline text
The link in the article to Sisters of St Joseph refers to an order which inspired Mary MacKillop's order, but not that order itself Is delinking in order?--Ror 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) hkglk

I have just changed the link to refer to the correct order: the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart. --AonghusMor 11:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Abbie

Additional information:

Around the time of Mary MacKillop's beatification three products for the musical stage were developed. One was a short one, about 20 minutes, which was part of a 'remarkable women' compilation. The second one was a send-up, performed in the Adelaide Space. It was taken off before reaching its full schedule of a fortnight. A third one was by a team in a Catholic High School. It ran very successfully in the Odeon Theatre in Adelaide, and became part of the official celebrations in Adelaide's Football Park. None of them went on to the big professional stage as investors shied away from Catholic themes.

Two Questions
Hey there, I'm just preparing an entry in the German Wikipedia. Here are two things I found strange:
 * a) How many siblings did Mary have? It says six in this article and also at http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/mackillop.htm . But according to http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/oceania/holiness/saints1.htm and to http://www.sosj.org.au/mary/mary.html it should be seven siblings (so altogether with her eight children).
 * b) What are those "countless technical difficulties" that made it tough to prove that she has been responsible for a miracle. The text by Fr Paul Gardiner, S.J. taken from L'Osservatore Romano is talking especially about a difficulty in 1929: "In March 1929 a technical difficulty arose, and much time was taken up in discussing how to proceed. Eventually, in 1931 it was decided that the cause should be suspended until a better time. But 20 years later [...]" Can anyone explain to me in detail what this was all about? Just curious, could be worth mentioning. --X-Weinzar (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the siblings, the sosj.org.au and ewtn.com pages are probably more reliable sources, but if you want to be certain, get in touch with Victoria's Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, although they charge for such information.WA Burdett (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't care that much about this information, I can also leave it out. Just wanted to point to this issue that there seems to be confusion and the article might be wrong in stating that she had six siblings. I was just hoping for some expert who happens to have read some more reliable sources like books etc ;-) --X-Weinzar (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a saint yet
The inevitable incorrect edits have already started. Why can't people actually read what media reports say? She has NOT been canonised yet, and is NOT Saint Mary MacKillop. The Pope has agreed to the second miracle, but that in itself does not end the process. The formal canonisation will happen some time in 2010. In the meantime, she remains Blessed, not Saint. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dubious information
Original article stated Australian woman was 'permanent[ly] cured' of 'lung and secondary brain cancer' by miraculous means unspecified. Obviously this is not accurate; only possibilities would seem to be that she didn't have lung and secondary brain cancer, the cancer is still present, or the cancer has spontaneously gone into remission. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on what we're referring to: the miracle being described is that of the complete cure from cancer, so it is, I think, quite reasonable to use the current wording, which is a description of the miracle itself. What actually happened is a separate issue, and you would be correct, I feel, in stating that the claim would be dubious if we were describing what actually happened - of course, if a miracle is a violation of a natural law (per Hume) then all such claims are dubious by definition. :) At any rate, I've added a ref to fix things. - Bilby (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute
What was the dispute between her and the Bishop about? The article doesn't say. Woogee (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be from some sort of miscommunication, according to the page on Charles Horan. However, as we will not be able to verify this, it might be best to leave it out at this stage. S Masters (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Other commemoration
I believe this section is becoming a little silly. Can anyone really justify listing every little plaque around the world that mentions Mary McKillop? It's beginning to look like an obsession. If we did the same for Don Bradman, his article would be 40 pages long. How about we just ease back a bit? HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken about the plaques. I will remove it. But I do want to add a Reserve named after her, which I believe is significant enough for mention. :) -- S Masters (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Excommunication, papal approval and further expansion
I've added "specify" tags; this section is completely vague. What did they do that was unacceptable? Go naked? Take cannabis instead of wine at Communion? This is a crucial part of the origin and background, yet gives a sequence of events with no explanation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

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

The result of the move request was: Do not move to Mary of the Cross S Masters (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary MacKillop → Mary of the Cross — Mary MacKillop is now officially known as "Mary of the Cross", therefore, I propose a move of this page to "Mary of the Cross", with "Mary MacKillop" redirected there. A recent example (they don't happen often), would be Padre Pio, where his official canonised name, Pio of Pietrelcina, is the main Wikipedia entry. His birth name, Francesco Forgione, goes to a disambiguation page.

Please place Support, Oppose or Neutral below, together with any reason/s you may have. Thank you. S Masters (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Support as proposer – S Masters (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose She is only "officially" known as "Mary of the Cross" within the Catholic Church. The majority of Australians, the people most likely to look this up, are not Catholic. She is obviously most well known and respected (outside the Catholic Church as well as inside) as Mary McKillop. I suspect that name will remain the one used by most people to refer to her for the foreseeable future, no matter what Rome says. The existing records of her life won't change. It's just not an appropriate change. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is about naming conventions, not a "what's more popular" contest. Most Polish people know Cardinal Karol Wojtyła better than John Paul II, doesn't mean that we have an article under Karol Wojtyła - it redirects, correctly, to Pope John Paul II. The vast majority of Catholics know Padre Pio better than Pio of Pietrelcina, but there's where his main page is at. You are absolutely correct to say that most Australians will know here better as Mary MacKillop, but this is not an Australian encyclopedia. And when they type that in, they will be redirected to the correct title for her, Mary of the Cross. There is nothing offensive about it. Most people can accept that the title comes part and parcel with her new (and highly celebrated) title of "Saint". - S Masters (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on. You say "This is about naming conventions" and "most Australians will know here better as Mary MacKillop". That is my point. Naming conventions are not what a minority want to tell a majority to do. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, John Paul II should be changed to Karol Wojtyła because most Polish people know him by that name? - S Masters (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Silly analogy. You cannot compare the Pope, known to billions, with a minor saint from a minor country. HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a rhetorical question. My point is you can't have one rule for this and change the rules for others. Your argument that her main page be named as what she is popularly known as in Australia, is flawed. What about Padre Pio then? - S Masters (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him. Make of that what you will. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Padre Pio, canonised by John Paul II. Goggle him and you will get over a million pages. - S Masters (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in doing so. Well, maybe now, as general knowledge. But he is irrelevant to my interest in Mary McKillop as a great Australian and a great educationist, two areas of strong personal interest to me. As I have said elsewhere, the Catholic Church does not own her. She is to be admired from many viewpoints. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Support as this is her Catholic/Christian name now after her canonisation. As respect to the statement; "The majority of Australians, the people most likely to look this up, are not Catholic", Wikipedia states: In the 21st century,religion in Australia remains dominated demographically by Christianity, with 64% of the population claiming at least nominal adherence to the Christian faith as of 2007 Religion in Australia. Of that 64%, Catholics are 26% - so this statement is incorrect - thus I Support. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hang on. 26% are Catholic. That is a minority. 74% are not Catholic. That is a majority. Hence the majority of Australians are not Catholic. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct but my point was/is 64% are Christians (I then broke it down to Catholics) and other Religions are 6.2% and Non Religion is 12%. so 70% (which of 64% are Christians) of Australians have a religion, the majority being Christian of that the majority being Catholic. Mary of the Cross, being Catholic and being a Saint of the Catholic/Christian faith, should be titled as her saint, officially, name.  That aside, Christianity has the largest following in the word: 1,855–2,288 million Major religious groups and thus people around the world will be researching her on Wikipedia.  CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Your maths is just plain wrong. Given that that's twice in two posts, I really can't be bothered trying to explain. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - how about this - She is Catholic, this article is a Catholic article - as it is about a Catholic person, her Catholic name is 'officially known as Mary of the Cross. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC) P.S - must admit, using that Maths to make my point did not come out how I wanted, I farked it up!
 * I am not Catholic. I have huge admiration for Mary McKillop. She is not "owned" by the Catholic Church. HiLo48 (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, but she is Catholic and the article is about a Catholic person, hence she should be known by her Catholic name. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * mmmm, have done a little research and her official site and that of the Brown Joeys have her as Mary MacKillop - so I think maybe this article should change its name until they do, yet the official Vatican Site has her as Mary of the Cross, interesting - just a thought. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral As the name she took when she entered religious life, Mary of the Cross (or Mother Mary of the Cross) would have been how some of those who knew her and Mary MacKillop herself would have referred to her, at least some of the time, whilst she was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WA Burdett (talk • contribs) 08:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just passing by, but my vote is : Keep it Mary MacKillop, the name by which she is overwhelmingly still known and recognised Ozhistory (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think I will be basically reiterating what HiLo has said above, but my main point is this: A majority of people, be they Australian or otherwise, know her far better as Mary MacKillop than as Mary of the Cross. To quote WP:COMMONNAME, "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources" and at the moment I would argue that she is more commonly referred to as Mary MacKillop. To continue on from the point SMasters was making, the reason Karol Wojtyła is a redirect is because, worldwide, he is more commonly known as Pope John Paul II. Jenks24 (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is regarding Polish people as per HiLo's argument regarding Australians. Even in Australia, newspapers have been using her new official name, see this and this. - S Masters (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Even in those two articles it appears to me as if he is more commonly called Mary MacKillop than Mary of the Cross. In my opinion, people are far more likely to be looking for a wikipedia article on Mary MacKillop than Mary of the Cross. I agree that her being Australian has nothing to do with it. Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it is relevant that she is Australian. The two others named here to justify using her Catholic name, Padre Pio and Pope John Paul II were both from predominantly Catholic countries. The points I have made here about Mary would not apply in their home countries. They do apply here because many non-Catholic Australians have a right to know her and admire her as they have always done. Not an issue in Italy or Poland. (See S Masters, I DID read about Padre Pio.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, be her New Zealand, PNG, English - she is Catholic and was made a Saint by the Catholic Church - the Holy Father - Benedictus XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), thus she should be known by her canonised name. Many Australian's of different faiths or non faiths may admire her or know her but when it boils down to it she is Catholic, a Catholic saint BUT again I state - maybe this articles name should not change until her order changes it, uses her Saint name, which will probably happen as time passes. Maybe this article should change it page's name in a few months, not so close to the event. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you disagree but, apart from saying that the Catholic Church decides her name after agreeing with me that the Catholic Church does not own her, you have presented nothing else. Why on earth should non-Catholics agree with your perspective? Many won't, but you want to impose your view on them. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It becomes her official name, whether non-Catholics agree or not. When Joseph Alois Ratzinger became Pope, his official name became Benedict XVI. I'm sure some non-Catholics don't agree that he should be Pope, nor do they recognise his authority, but that becomes his official name. Similarly, when Mary MacKillop was canonised, her name became Mary of the Cross (by the way, a name which she herself chose). Anyway, let's see how the vote goes. It may be premature to do this now, but down the road, you will see many incidents referencing her as such, as it is her official name, even though you may not want to acknowledge it now as such. - S Masters (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to add that we are not removing Mary MacKillop here, it is merely going to redirect to her official name. - S Masters (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think everyone understands that it would be a redirect, as Mary of the Cross is now. The point is that Wikipedia does not use official names, Wikipedia uses the most common name. Yes, in a few years people may get more used to "Mary of the Cross", but at the moment, of all the people in the world who know of her, be they Catholic or not, I think it is safe to assume that the majority of people know her as Mary MacKillop at the present time. Also I hardly think there would be any non-Catholics would be arguing for "Pope Benedict XVI" to be moved to "Joseph Alois Ratzinger" because he is much more commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI, by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Jenks24 (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's far too soon to tell whether her new official name will ever become her common name, whether her former name will remain more prominent, oe even whether a third name may arise. And in any case, of course Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andrewa (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Been thinking about this - her name will be interchangeable; schools, churches, people will use both her names, sometimes just one, sometimes both, so thinking that way this article should stay with her most common and most recognisable name (at the present time) - Mary MacKillop. Even though she is Catholic and this article should reflect her Official Catholic name - Mary of the Cross - after having time to think, I now oppose the changing of this article's name. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the concept of an "official name" obfuscates the issues somewhat. She might have an "official name" conferred by the Catholic Church; she will also have her legal name as known by the law in the States of Victoria and South Australia. I think the title of the article should capture the name by which a person is most commonly referred in reliable sources. For the Pope, that name is Benedict XVI. For MacKillop, it depends on the way in which reliable sources, in Australia and internationally, currently refer to her. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also add there is a guiding policy here: Article titles. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia should follow common practice in naming, not look to lead it. Nonsense about her Australianess or otherwise, and about the level of adherence to the Catholic church in Australia are just irrelevant. If "Mary of the Cross" catches on in the future, a name change may then be appropriate, but not now when "Mary MacKillop" is clearly the common name. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I originally intended to have the page moved to Saint Mary MacKillop, but after further consideration, decided that a move to Mary of the Cross would be better, and in my opinion, the proper correct title for Mary. My intention is done on good faith. However, it is clear that this proposal will generally be opposed, even before seven days. Therefore,I withdraw this nomination. I will make a new proposal to rename this article Saint Mary of the Cross, which was my original intention. I appreciate all your comments and thoughts, and although we had different points of views, I applaud everyone for keeping a level head and for being civil throughout these discussions. Thank you. - S Masters (talk) 00:43, 24 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.

Requested move 2

 * 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: Withdrawn and not moved as per WP:NCCL S Masters (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary MacKillop → Saint Mary MacKillop — Mary MacKillop has now been canonised as a Saint of the Catholic Church. Unlike other titles, a Saint's title has historically been permanent. Therefore, I propose a move of this page to "Saint Mary MacKillop", with "Mary MacKillop" redirected there. A recent example would be Saint André Bessette, the Canadian brother who was canonised at the same ceremony with Mary.

Please place Support, Oppose or Neutral below, together with any reason/s you may have. Thank you. S Masters (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - practice is to omit honorifics. See Thérèse of Lisieux for an example. Also see WP:NCCL, which is authoritative on the subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As above, Wikipedia practice is to omit honorifics. And I'm still uncomfortable with one part of society telling another part that they have changed someone's status and the rest of society just has to follow, no matter what that second part thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this stage. Again disagree with HiLo (only on this article). How do a say this correctly, I guess the Catholic Church is an institution, a group, a society ,etc - in the Military a Captain is a Captain, in a School a Principal is a Principal and so on (terrible examples, sorry!) in the Catholic community a Saint is a Saint and is referred to one as a Saint (once canonisied), that's the way it is. You just have to respect that particular groups have their traditions, beliefs, values, names, ranks, etc. But again, until all of society starts referring Mary as a common name of Saint Mary, Mary of the Cross or Mary MacKillop - her common, popular or main name should be reflected in Wikipedia, so oppose.  CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral personally, it doesn't really phase me if "Saint" is in the title or not, as long as Mary MacKillop is still in the title. I know neutrals are fairly useless, but I thought I should comment, having expressed my opinions in the above move discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - She isn't known as "Saint Mary MacKillop". She is known either as "Mary MacKillop" or "St Mary of the Cross".  As she is not at this stage commonly known as "St Mary of the Cross" then the article's name should remain as she is still generally known - which is simply "Mary MacKillop". Afterwriting (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Sorry everyone, I wasn't aware of WP:NCCL. As this question has been clarified there, there is no more reason to discuss this here and I withdraw this proposal. Well, at least we have cleared all this up once and for all. S Masters (talk) 12:00, 24 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.

Untitled
This article has been the subject of failed proposals to rename:
 * Talk:Mary MacKillop/Archive 1 to "Mary of the Cross"
 * Talk:Mary MacKillop/Archive 1 to "Saint Mary MacKillop"

Technical difficulties indeed
Due to countless technical difficulties, it took until 1993 to prove that MacKillop had been responsible for a miracle. I bet there were a few technical difficulties !! These might be worth noting as stated above, but more of an issue is that this sentence effectively says that in 1993 it was proved she was responsible for a miracle. Now there's an aseertion that could do with some citations !! What was the miracle and how was it proved ? - Sticks  66  01:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps questioning of miracles in the context of theistic religion is something you can do elsewhere. I'd like to remove the "(through a process of guessing and arbitrarily attributing causation to what are essentially random, uncorrelated or connected happenings)" out of the article with regards to the first miracle but wanted to mention it here first.  It seems like that text is serving more purpose as antitheistic mockery than really adding anything useful to the article - I'm sure that readers of the passage can make their own minds up, perhaps turning to other articles on Wikipedia about the scientific method if they need assistance (or the article on God for that matter).  •E l om i s•      00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See the article by Fr Paul Gardiner, S.J. for more information. First I was going to translate en-WP's entry about McKillop to German but then I decided it needs to be rewritten completely. I was hoping for someone who could help me with my questions here but it looks like nobody actually takes care of the article in the long run and is prepared to answer questions or improve the article in the long run. Maybe you can look after the article, I'm not on en-WP very often. --X-Weinzar (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

'Technical difficulties' are not to be understood literally, rather like diplomat or polly speak. It has become more and more difficult to get doctors to sign that a miracle has occurred. Science has been advancing at such a rapid pace that you could call it a miracle today and tomorrow someone has a scientific explanation - the poor doctor ends up with egg on his face. That was obviously so early on and is still like that. 121.209.51.139 (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with including dissenting points of view, but as they're points of view, they must be attributed, and not simply the editor's own view. —Pengo 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

"Blessed" Mary MacKillop
The honorific "Blessed" has been removed from both the introductory sentence and the infobox. I figure there should be some sort of discussion here about whether "Blessed" should be in these places (and I suppose "saint" as well when it becomes relevant). Naming_conventions_(Clergy) seems to say that the honourific should only be used if the person could not be identified otherwise (eg St Patrick), but the documentation for the saint infobox could be read to suggest that the infobox title should include the honourific. Thoughts? I think I would lean towards not having "blessed" or "saint" in the lead sentence or the infobox, as that's what the MOS seems to suggest. -- Lear's Fool (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You raised this more than half a year ago, but the honourific 'blessed' remains in the lead as the first word. I agree with your interpretation of the Wikipedia guidelines. In the lead at least it should go. See also MOS:HONORIFIC. Donama (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Charizze, 13 October 2010
Hello, I have found a mistake in the Mary MacKillop page and I/you could to edit it. It says "received her First Holy Communion on 15 August 1850 at the age of 9." I believe it's the age on 8. Thanks.

Charizze (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: Can you please provide a link to a reliable source stating this? We can't change it without verification. Thanks. – S Masters (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done OK, I have checked, and according to this document, you are correct – she was indeed 8 at the time. I have made the change. Thanks for pointing this out. – S Masters (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Canonised already!
I have updated the page to note that Mary has now been formally canonised. I'm surprised that with all the immense hoopla on this matter, no one had done it before. And I'm not even a Roman Catholic. So that will go down in ecclesiastical circles forever, won’t it? It took a pagan to announce the arrival of Australia’s first saint to the globe! Will this go in my favour on Judgement Day?

Oh, also... I have added a note as to who she is next to her name on the disambiguation page. Myles325a (talk) 10:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has done it before because it is contrary to Wikipedia's policies to update facts until they actually change. Therefore I have removed your false "update" of her canonisation.  The article can be update once this has happened. Afterwriting (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "I have updated the page to note that Mary has now been formally canonised." – Erm, it's because she has not yet been canonised, formally or not. It takes place in Rome on the 17th. – S Masters (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Is a website crashing really encyclopaedic?
Well, is it? See Canonisation section. It's certainly not miraculous. Just embarrassing. Let's drop it. (Leave the popularity sentence.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a look, you will see that I have spent hours on this section trying to get proper content and sources for it. Instead of any thanks (which I do not expect), I get slapped instead. What I was trying to show is that there is currently a surge of interest in MacKillop, and it was more than the website could cope with. Several news stories covered this. Anyway, I will take your point and remove it. – S Masters (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I totally respect your efforts. Great contributions to the article. And I was happy to see mention of the high traffic to the website. It just seemed a bit clumsy to mention a negative about this in the form of the server crash. (I will just add that as an IT nerd I may have a biased view about server crashes. They are NEVER anything to be proud of.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was not my intention (to make it negative). Anyway, point taken and I will try to be more careful in future. Cheers. – S Masters (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed it and didn't see a problem, perhaps more newsworthy than fact, but it was notable (a secondary source mentioned it) and supported the 'surge of interest' mention in the article. The inclusion seems more thoughtful than the reaction to it here. cygnis insignis 06:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The crashing of a server due to a highly predictable increased traffic load represents a failure on the part of those responsible for that server, be it the IT specialists or the real owners of the website. To ignore that aspect of this event is to accept the frequent "it was the computer's fault" excuse for poor service almost everywhere these days. OK, that might be my particular take on it, but, as an IT professional who actually cares, I don't like the idea that people think a server crash can ever be a good thing. The increased traffic is a positive thing. The server crash is not. The first is good thing. The second should never have happened. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Complete blanking of the Canonisation section
I am putting a note here regarding the complete removal of the Canonisation section by Contaldo80. Please do not just blank an entire section without any discussion. This article is on the front page in the news section. There is also a discussion on the ITN page about the other saints which are mentioned in this section, when it was suddenly blanked. Yes, I agree it is long, but we might move it to a new page. Don't just dump all that work in the bin without consultation. – S Masters (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 'Canonisation' section again. It was all written in future tense and grossly unencyclopaedic. Just because a bad quality section is added when the subject is getting a lot of media attention doesn't mean it has to remain. I don't think the section should be re-added. I have further renamed 'Canonisation process' to just 'Canonisation'. Any information that could be deemed encyclopaedic from the removed section should go in this section. Donama (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories … saints
I don't understand why she is not categorised in Category:Roman Catholic saints. At the same time, I don't understand why she is categorised in Category:20th-century Christian saints and in Category:20th-century Christian female saints – the latter is a sub-category of the former, which is thus unnecessary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has now been added to the newly created Category:Australian Roman Catholic saints. However, there are still a number of categories which should be removed because they are parent categories:

!Remove this parent!!because of:
 * Category:Australian saints||Category:Australian Roman Catholic saints
 * Category:Australian Roman Catholics||several lower-level categories
 * Category:20th-century Christian saints||Category:20th-century Christian female saints.
 * }
 * See WP:OVERCAT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:20th-century Christian saints||Category:20th-century Christian female saints.
 * }
 * See WP:OVERCAT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statistics
For those of you who are interested, this article received 60,100+ views on 17 Oct, 62,400+ views on 18 October, and 28,100+ views on 19 Oct. The week leading up to the canonisation saw figures all above 5K+, with a high of 9,200+ on 16 Oct. Chart can be viewed here. - S Masters (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspected plagiarism
One of the early paragraphs appears to be plagiarised from the website: http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/mackillop.htm. This paragraph reads

"Mary, the eldest of their children, was educated at private schools and by her father. She had her First Communion on 15 August 1850 at the unusual early age of 9. In February 1851 Alexander MacKillop left his family behind, after having mortgaged the farm and their livelihood, and made a trip to Scotland lasting some 17 months. Throughout his life he was a loving father and husband but never able to make a success of his farm. He was even worse as a politician or at any kind of job. During most of the times the family had to survive on the small wages the children were able to bring home."

I am not sure about wikipedia's policy on copying text from other websites but the website plagiarized off is copyrighted.

This is not cited also, nor do I know how to cite on Wikipedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.16.104 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are definitely copyright problems with much of this article. As a general rule articles must be original and not copied from already published sources. As a result of the current copyright problems the article may be at risk of deletion.  Afterwriting (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Hubbabubba10, 21 October 2010
edit semi-protected

Hello, My children are at Mary Mackillop Catholic Community Primary School in Ballajura Western Australia. We are currently reading books about her life, and I have noticed that on Wikipedia her middle name is incorrect. It is noted as "Ellen" however it is actually "helen", she was named after one of her scottish relatives - refer also http://www.marypages.com/MaryMacKillop.htm and http://trove.nla.gov.au/people/712059?c=people

Hubbabubba10 (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article says: "Mary Helen MacKillop was born in Fitzroy, Victoria, on 15 January 1842. When baptised six weeks later she received the names Maria Ellen." So, it does say that her middle name is Helen, but her baptismal name is Maria Ellen. However, we do need to find the source for this. - S Masters (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Got one. I'll confirm and add it. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks Bilby! - S Masters (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Saint Mary of the Cross
I propose renaming the article to Saint Mary of the Cross, per previous naming precedents such as Saint Peter, for example. Thoughts? —  Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  • 9:40pm • 10:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This has already been proposed and rejected. See Talk:Mary MacKillop/Archive 1. Are you sure you want to suggest this again so soon? Donama (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Commemoration
The commemoration section seems to be getting a little listy/trivial/bloated, and I think it could stand to be trimmed or removed entirely without the article losing very much. Any thoughts? WA Burdett (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds delightful to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Trivia sections, which says, "Trivia sections should not simply be removed from articles in all cases." I would agree to turning this into prose and keeping some interesting facts. This section shows the importance of MacKillop in Australia. Please don't just delete it. – SMasters (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't delete the section wholesale, but I would like to see it trimmed down of the more trivial points. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've cut it down and merged it with the canonization section. What does everyone think? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good compromise to me. Good work!  -- Lear's Fool 21:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've put back the artistic productions, which are all properly referenced, and I feel are noteworthy. I've also fixed the layout, which was causing the ref section to not work properly. – SMasters (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the layout. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic but unsourced, so removed
I excised this little gem of skullduggery which had made its way into the bio section:

''However, after the death of Vaughan, Reynolds had only one aim and that was to destroy MacKillop and the Josephites. If that could not be done he would at least try to bring them under his control. Reynolds was successful in exiling MacKillop and her removal as superior-general but in no way did he succeed in crushing her, her fellow nuns and bring them under his control.''

Very exciting and dramatic, but without some form of reference it's a little too scandalous for my taste. Manning (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC) this is ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.228.250.90 (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Names / titles / whatever
The article seems to think she has quite a collection of names / titles / whatever ... Are they all correct? Presumably there is a chronology to them? Here are my guesses. Anyone who KNOWS anything is encouraged to: correct my guesses and remove the "?", or; refine my guesses. (Supporting references might be useful, too ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mary of the Cross shouldn't redirect here. Mary MacKillop obviously named herself this after one of the Titles of Mary; it is inappropriate that it redirects here. There are at least two people called Mary of the Cross (actually probably about a zillion nuns), but only one St Mary of the Cross.Nankai (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mary MacKillop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106155641/http://www.billichgallery.com/marymackillop.html to http://www.billichgallery.com/marymackillop.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mary MacKillop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217162032/http://www.marymackillop.org.au/timeline/timeline.cfm?loadref=1 to http://www.marymackillop.org.au/timeline/timeline.cfm?loadref=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217090216/http://www.marymackillopplace.org.au/chapel/index.asp to http://www.marymackillopplace.org.au/chapel/index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219233317/http://mintissue.ramint.gov.au/mintissue/product.asp?code=801956 to http://mintissue.ramint.gov.au/mintissue/product.asp?code=801956

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary MacKillop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091201042336/http://www.sosj.org.au/mary/mary.html to http://www.sosj.org.au/mary/mary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015030245/http://www.marymackillop.org.au/marys-story/challenge.cfm to http://www.marymackillop.org.au/marys-story/challenge.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Excommunication missing
I'd read previously that she was excommunicated at one time, and we have her in such a category. But there is not one word of any such thing in the article. Zilch. This is a serious omission that requires immediate rectification. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack. Can't believe I missed this outrageous deletion, User:Joe2707's only contribution. Doug butler (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Check. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This still seems to be missing, so I've reverted the section. Pol098 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)